Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.9.3-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the reform of the Commission is a root-and-branch reform process. That is evident from the White Paper, and I believe it is also very plainly evident from the parliamentary reports. The main focal point of the reform is the effort to improve financial management. This is not a matter of localised fine-tuning; no, the changes in this area are profound and substantive. The best news is that major building blocks of the reform process are already in place. They not only exist on paper but have also been implemented in practice. Some building blocks are being chiselled out, while others still have to be approved in formal decisions of Parliament and the Council prior to implementation.
On the subject of externalisation, may I briefly point out that the Commission will present a legal basis for this. Moreover, in its letter amending the budget, the Commission also gives a detailed opinion on the question of the technical-assistance offices (TAOs), and I am very pleased to see that the ideas of the Commission and those of Parliament on the future treatment of this question run along the same lines.
Administrative reform is intended to improve the work of the Commission. For this improvement we need good people, good staff, and we need a sufficient number of staff. To that end, the Commission requested additional posts for next year from the budgetary authority, and I am delighted with the decisions that were taken last week in the framework of the conciliation procedure.
With these reforms the Commission is preparing itself to deal more effectively with its current tasks as well as with new tasks in the future, and it is also, of course, a reform process that will equip the Commission to discharge its new responsibilities in the framework of enlargement. We shall naturally make every effort to implement the reforms as quickly as possible, even though there will be occasional criticism that one or other of these reforms still awaits completion. In those situations it is sometimes forgotten that we also operate within a democratic system and that codecision rules have to be respected – and rightly so. The staff of the Commission are also agents of the reform process, so it has to meet with their acceptance too. It also has to be accepted by the other institutions, and in particular it needs the support of the elected representatives of the people. For that support, whether critical or enthusiastic, may I express my sincere thanks to Parliament. I see that we have evidently launched the reform process in good time, because it is not quite five to twelve yet!
Allow me to deal now with important points from the reports by Mrs Guy-Quint and Mr Pomés Ruiz which relate directly to the budget process, namely the drafting of the budget and its implementation. Both of these subjects are examined in the new version of the Financial Regulation. The recast Financial Regulation is at the heart of the reform process. The main aims of the new version are simplification, greater transparency and reinforcement of budgetary principles; in concrete terms, this means fewer exceptions to the rules, fewer incomprehensible special regimes and more efficient and effective budgetary procedures.
An entirely new feature of the Financial Regulation is the inclusion of rules such as those on the awarding of contracts and on financial aid. In other words, the rules governing everyday budgetary operations have become clearer and will be easier to administer, which – as is our hope and our aim – will cut future error rates.
Mrs Guy-Quint, in your report you referred to many points in the new version of the Financial Regulation, but you also expressed concern that activity-based budgeting might deprive Parliament of information. I believe I can allay this concern. The idea underlying activity-based budgeting is actually to make it clear in the budget how much money is available for operational and necessary administrative expenditure in each policy area. We want to indicate the cost of each policy, and you are right in saying that this does not in itself suffice for a cost-benefit analysis, but it does provide a general review of the funds available for a given policy area, and that is an innovation in the budget of the European Union.
The abolition of the present division of the budget into administrative and operating appropriations is the logical consequence of this new approach, but it does not mean that staff and administration costs are no longer identifiable, no longer separately labelled. On the contrary, it goes without saying that they will continue to be shown in specific budget lines; they will simply be assigned to the appropriate area of political activity and will no longer lurk anonymously somewhere inside a general administrative budget for the Commission.
This activity-related approach is designed to harmonise resources more closely with political priorities. It is an instrument with which expenditure can be more accurately estimated and recorded, and it is also a straightforward management tool which can channel managerial activity in a more focused manner on the basis of priorities. It was, after all, one of the main concerns of this very Parliament that political priorities should be made more clearly identifiable. So once again transparency is the aim, and I believe we shall achieve that aim.
Let me say briefly, Mr Garriga Polledo, that the categories used in the Financial Regulation have been retained. The Regulation is a financial-planning instrument, and as such it has also been retained. Incidentally, I am delighted to note, Mrs Guy-Quint, that you are a specialist in this field who can be relied upon to debate the recast Financial Regulation in Parliament with competence and no doubt with passion too.
I should like to deal with a point on which Mr Pomés Ruiz laid special emphasis in his report, namely the issue of payment targets. You were right, Mr Pomés Ruiz, to emphasise this point so strongly. Last year, only about two thirds of payments were made within the 60-day limit, and I agree with your criticism; this is unacceptable. Admittedly, the number of financial transactions has risen rapidly in recent years, but that is no excuse. It must become a matter of course for the Commission to pay invoices within the prescribed time limit, and this is the target the Commission has set itself. How do we intend to achieve it? I shall mention just a few of the many steps we are taking. For example, contract clauses on invoicing will be simplified, and the Commission will make greater use of flat-rate reimbursement. For one thing, it is simply very uneconomical for the Commission if contracts operate in such a way that 20% of expenditure on item X is reimbursable, while 30% of expenditure on item Y is eligible for reimbursement, not to mention the frequent need for vouchers covering minimal items of expenditure to be collected and checked. The instrument of flat-rate reimbursement saves a great deal of time and money.
Another important point is that the date on which the Commission receives an invoice should be clearly specified. For that reason we shall establish a central register in which incoming invoices will be logged, and an entitlement to interest on late payments will be enshrined in the Financial Regulation and in the terms of our contracts. I need hardly add that financial penalties are always a very potent and painful instrument."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples