Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-27-Speech-3-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020227.10.3-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Blak, ladies and gentlemen, the discharge procedure for 1999 really does bear the rapporteur's handprint. It was an extremely intense process of collaboration which, while not always setting out from the same starting point, I believe nonetheless consistently yielded substantial results after intensive debate. I do not intend to review the entire procedure here; instead, I would like to highlight one aspect of our collaboration on the discharge, namely the issue of ‘access to Commission documents’. After all, a major change has taken place here compared with previous years, and this is due in no small part to the rapporteur's persistence.
Let me make it clear that there has never been a complaint that the Commission has tried to influence the findings of an OLAF investigation in any way. It would be foolish of us to do anything of the kind, for OLAF is an important body, not only in intensifying cooperation between Member States on combating fraud; it is, of course, also a sound and objective instrument by which to investigate internal matters. I am gratified by yesterday's judgment by the European Court of Justice. OLAF and its significance have been enhanced as a result of the ECJ judgment.
The European Union's budget will undoubtedly continue to grow. There are new tasks ahead, and, of course, enlargement, in particular, represents a new and major challenge in the field of financial management. Against this background, I am sure that future discharge procedures and follow-up reports will raise a great many important issues which I hope we can resolve together with the same effectiveness as has been evident in the 1999 budget discharge. I would like to conclude by thanking the rapporteur once again for his collaboration.
Of course, the Commission is happy to read in your follow-up report that you are pleased to have received all the documents requested in the discharge resolution. However, we have different views on how this was achieved. In my view, it clearly shows that the agreement between the Commission and Parliament facilitated this treatment of confidential information. Let me stress that I believe the treatment of the agreement is working very well in this respect.
It is not only the discharge procedure
and the various reports that clearly bear the rapporteur's handprint. The same can be said of the follow-up measures or the measures taken during the budget discharge procedure. Again, let me cite just one example, namely the guidelines for the application of the proportionality principle for the writing-off of debts. There was considerable debate about this point during the discharge procedure, especially in the light of a 1994 case when Parliament felt that the decisions made by the Commission departments were lacking in transparency. As a result of our lengthy discussions, the application of the proportionality principle is endorsed on principle but Parliament has insisted that clearer and more transparent procedures must be adopted. The rule which has now been adopted in line with the proposed resolution is this: certain criteria must always be upheld, and above all, once a specific sum of debt write-off is involved, the Commission must make the decision as a collegiate body so that it is quite clear that a political responsibility is being assumed.
Let me mention just one dissenting point on the follow-up report. The Commission cannot comply with the request contained in the follow-up report that the appointment of the accounting officers – that is, of the most senior officials responsible for keeping accounts – or of the financial controller, ought to be conditional upon prior consultation of the European Parliament. These are not interinstitutional posts but Commission posts for which the Commission itself is the appointing and decision-making body.
Mr Blak, in your statement a moment ago, you enquired about the further procedure with regard to IRELA. Here, the Commission has decided to take the next step. As you know, the Commission issued a recovery order, but no recoveries can be made as the Institute itself no longer exists. Nonetheless, it still exists as a legal body. The Commission has therefore agreed to take the next step and instruct the Legal Service to determine the extent to which there is scope to proceed on the basis of personal liability.
As regards the issue of the dossier compiled by Mr van Buitenen, I must point out that Mr van Buitenen has himself strongly insisted that only a few copies are in existence. I have not received a dossier from Mr van Buitenen either. As we have heard from my colleague Mr Kinnock, OLAF and the relevant departments in the Administration Directorate-General have examined the dossier. OLAF has designated eight experts from its area to examine the document. I must emphasise that there have been no delays here: the dossier's author himself conceded that it is likely to be March before the documents have been scrutinised. OLAF has now submitted a report. I have not seen it, but the Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control has a copy. I believe that my colleague, Mr Kinnock, has also informed the Committee. As soon as recommendations are made to the Commission, the Commission will examine them and if new procedures are to be introduced, it will, of course, do so.
Let me turn now to the issue of DAS as this is also included in the follow-up report. The aim is to ensure a positive DAS for the budget year 2003. I must reiterate on the Commission's behalf that we, for our part, cannot promise when a positive statement of assurance will be issued by the Court of Auditors for the means of payment as well, as this decision is a matter for the Court of Auditors, which has not set itself any benchmark stating when a statement of assurance will be granted.
However, I believe that during the eighteen months of discussions on the 1999 discharge procedure, we have concluded that it would be a welcome step if we could find common indicators by which to identify and measure progress on financial management. I assume that this issue will also feature in the budget discharge for 2000.
In particular, the Commission has reformed the system of financial management. If allegations of poor management are made, we investigate them, and if allegations of fraud are made, OLAF investigates them. I refute any claim that an investigation by OLAF would be a delaying tactic. This is not the case: OLAF was set up in order to investigate allegations of this kind!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples