Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.1.3-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should first of all like to thank the Court of Auditors for its annual report. I should like to draw attention to a number of problems, and I hope that Mr Karlsson will be able to answer my questions today. In connection with the 1997 discharge, we in Parliament agreed that, as Mrs Theato has just said, no discharge for 1999 could be given if the Court of Auditors was not in a position to issue a positive statement for 1999. However, I should like to know how serious the situation is regarding the 1999 accounts. Yesterday, I asked you a question – I appreciate there was not much time – but I should like to have a completely clear answer from you to the question of how great a percentage of error there is. We are told that this cannot be properly calculated. Yesterday, a member of the Court of Auditors gave a press conference and, at this press conference, a figure was given, and so I think we should be given one here, too. Is the percentage of error 5.5? I hope I can obtain an answer.
The Commission employed more than EUR 80 billion in 1999. However, the Commission has not been especially good at administering the Budget. The amount of fixed assets has been set EUR 240 million too low. Liabilities have been set EUR 2.6 billion too low, and unredeemed liabilities have been set EUR 1.2 billion too high. If the management of a private firm had committed such major blunders, then I am almost certain that the owners would have given them the sack. But let us pour a little oil on the waters now, so that we do not get ourselves worked up at this early stage. The former Commission, which was primarily responsible for the 1999 Budget, was indeed given the sack. The new Commission is to be judged this year on how good it has been at cleaning up and implementing reform. I am therefore pleased that the Court is attaching more importance to following up the earlier annual reports. This emerges clearly, of course, wherever there are still problems, but also where some sound improvements have been made.
I could have done with seeing a much more practical annual report from the Court of Auditors. We must have more figures, and we must have more facts. Mr Karlsson said yesterday that it is not easy to come up with figures. I appreciate this, but I asked one of my employees to look at the agricultural section, and in an hour he had prepared a complete report on which countries were concerned, on what problems there were and also on how much money had gone missing. If this can be done in an hour by an able employee here in Parliament, then we can probably also demand that the Court of Auditors issue a report of this kind on all sections. Some unpalatable facts will emerge of course but, at the same time, we are demonstrating that transparency exists. In that way, we can shut the press up, which is merciless and scents blood every year when the Court of Auditors produces its report. Once and for all, we can say: ‘Here are the problem areas, and we want to find solutions’. I believe this is a good way of doing that, and I also think that the report should be much more practical.
I should also have liked the Court of Auditors’ report to have been a little more user-friendly and to have provided a number of clear recommendations, for example one or two per chapter. I could also do with seeing the Court of Auditors produce its report earlier in the year. It would give us more time for the discharge procedure in Parliament, and we should not need to defer the discharge every single year. As rapporteur, I now have only 14 days in which to ask the Commission questions, and in 14 days it has to supply me with the answers. It is almost unreasonable to make such demands, so if we could obtain the report much earlier, we could also produce a piece of work of even higher quality.
I am also pleased that the Court emphasises that the 7% margin of error does not only relate to fraud, and I hope that the press is listening hard in the press room so that it is not only the scandals that are reported. There may be irregularities or ambiguities. What is really a relief is that it looks as though the right way to combat fraud has been embarked upon. Only very few cases have been referred to OLAF and for criminal investigation in the Member States, but it is important to remember that, as Mrs Theato also mentioned, 7% of the Budget corresponds to DKK 5 to 6 billion. If it comes down to figures, that amount is larger than the whole of the EU’s development aid. Reform of the Commission is largely about making the individual Directorates-General responsible, and I should like to ask the Court whether it has plans in future to restructure the annual report so that chapters for the individual Directorates-General are prepared. I shall try as early as this year to see whether this can be done so that we can make a start on assessing the Directorates-General. We can also make a start on assessing the Commissioners and giving them marks according to how good they are. They could perhaps be given a push in the right direction, if need be.
The Court of Auditors emphasises once again that daily administration of most EU resources, for example within agriculture and the structural sphere, takes place in the Member States, and I completely agree with what has been said to the effect that the Member States now need to make sure they get their act together. The Member States avoid responsibility, misappropriate funds and do nothing whatsoever to exercise control and, every time criticisms are made, a storm of criticism rains down upon those in Brussels, that is to say the Commission and others. I think the Member States should be ashamed of themselves. In 1995, a convention to protect the EU’s economic interests was adopted. There is only one Member State which has implemented this in its legislation. It is simply not good enough, so make sure you in the Member States get your act together.
Finally, I want to say that I am delighted with the cooperation in connection with the discharge. I am certain that we shall achieve a result, but it requires openness and honesty from all parties. We in Parliament are in no doubt that we want to be involved in doing something sensible, and we shall give discharge in April if we get what we are asking for."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples