Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.4.2-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Court of Auditors’ report on the ECB relates, of course, to the period of transition from the EMI to today’s ECB, a fact which characterises the report itself. A number of the problems pointed out in the report are specifically concerned with the transition. Some of the criticism is levelled at project follow-ups focused more upon how much money had been spent than upon how much had actually been achieved.
However, the main criticism from both the Court of Auditors and the Committee on Budgetary Control concerns the extra bonus which the Bank’s employees received over and above their normal bonus and which substantially exceeded both the maximum levels set and the budgeted costs. The methods for deciding about this additional cost were also criticised.
The ECB has commented on the criticism and stated, among other things, that it has improved its procedures and taken the criticism of its project management on board. The ECB also acknowledges that there has been a lack of clarity surrounding this extra bonus. We are also pleased that the ECB now recognises that OLAF must be able to carry out internal audits. However, it is a great pity about the delay involved.
I am responsible for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs’ opinion on this matter, and our conclusions are simple and succinct.
First of all: even though this was a difficult transitionary period, there is a great deal of substance in the Court of Auditors’ remarks on, for example, project management, and these must be taken account of in future.
Secondly: the type of bonus system discussed is quite usual in the banking world, but the levels of bonus allocated in this case and the way in which the system was dealt with genuinely merits criticism. What is most worrying and a matter of serious concern is the fact that, in the Swedish and other media, the Bank’s public relations manager dismisses both the Court of Auditors’ and the European Parliament’s criticism which, he maintains, is not taken seriously in the banking world. If the Bank, which is already criticised for lack of transparency, does not take the criticism seriously, it is in danger of losing public confidence. My committee does not, however, believe that the criticism is so serious in nature that it needs to affect confidence in the ECB or cause the institution’s effectiveness to be questioned. On the contrary, the Bank deserves substantial credit for the well-managed transition from EMI to ECB."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples