Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-12-Speech-2-286"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001212.13.2-286"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am more than aware that this report will not rate amongst the greatest, most radical contributions to the European debate. The fact that there is such a "huge" turnout here tonight is a recognition of that fact by others. Nevertheless there are a number of factors and issues within this report. It should be seen as an opportunity for Parliament to reassess its work in relation not only to budget control but specifically to the discharge procedure.
We must not forget that it was the reluctance of Parliament to give the green light to the way Euro-taxpayers' money was spent in 1996 that precipitated the fall of the Commission in 1999. What we are seeing as a result of the resignation of the Commission is a radical reform process. However, we must be careful within the European Parliament not to miss seeing the log in our own eye because we are concentrating so hard on the splinter in our neighbour's eye – the Commission. We have problems as well, perhaps not quite as big as the Commission's, but it is important that we recognise we also have problems.
It is clear that the nuclear button in the shape of the discharge procedure cannot be pressed at the first sign of trouble. So the European Parliament needs to use this powerful weapon at its disposal in an extremely sensitive manner. The discharge procedure gives Parliament an opportunity to assess the financial management and financial resources of the European Union, to propose measures for its improvement and to express an overall political judgement on its quality.
It is clear that the main focus of our work, within the Committee on Budgetary Control, will be on Commission management, and that ultimately we recognise that the Commission bears responsibility for implementing the budget. However, we must not forget that 85% of the money is spent and misspent within the Member States of the European Union. For far too long the Member States have hidden their guilt behind the complex mass of Commission officialdom who cannot answer back.
Let us take one example: late payments. If EU money does not arrive on time, people lose their jobs. This has happened on several occasions in relation to the structural funds, for example. We have EU laws to protect business from such mismanagement and the Commission has now promised to introduce its own regulations to ensure prompt payments. But if the Commission coughs up money just to see it sitting in a Member State's coffers gaining interest, the problem persists as far as the end-user is concerned. So, where are the reforms from these guilty Member States?
Here we have a problem, because we as the Committee on Budgetary Control and as a parliament are only as good as the information we have to work with. We depend on the Court of Auditors to provide us with the ammunition to fire at the problem areas. However, the reluctance of the Court – and for that matter the Commission – to name the guilty countries impedes our work. We are trying to extinguish a fire and are suffocating in the smoke. We need to know the source of the flames. The Court of Auditors and the Commission can hide behind the complication of the statement of assurance, but we will not be steered off our course. We have heard that, because spot checks are involved, it would be unfair to name the Member States. My colleague, Mr van Hulten drew an interesting parallel with spot checks on athletes who have had their whole careers ended. If they are guilty, they are named and shamed. We should do the same within Parliament.
We also need to be given the complete picture when the annual report of the year under consideration is published. That means we need to know which countries paid back what. We need to know what is happening in terms of recovery.
It is imperative also that we stick to the remit required of us and that we concentrate exclusively during the discharge process on the year in question. We have other mechanisms to highlight previously undetected instances of fraud.
Another key recommendation in this report is to try to expand the responsibility of the discharge beyond the exclusive domain of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Controlling the Commission's management and spending is the main justification for the existence of the European Parliament and the discharge procedure is the chief instrument by which this is done. We have tried to get other committees involved in the past but they have not responded, so we want to try to change the regulations within Parliament. We are trying to watch the Commission and the Member States and this report is an attempt at doing that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples