Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-29-Speech-3-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030129.7.3-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, auditing and the improvement of the procedure for it has always, from the very outset, been a special priority for me personally and for my staff, and it will continue to be one. That is why I would like to start by thanking you, Mr Mulder, as rapporteur, for your report, which is very precise and gives a very full picture of the auditing procedure. I also welcome the general tone of your report, in that it acknowledges the clearance procedure's success and encourages the Commission, with one eye on the imminent enlargement of the Community, to keep on constantly reviewing the system and improving it as and when necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that I can say, in conclusion, that the audit procedure has, overall, been a success, but that new demands upon it mean that it requires constant revision and appropriate improvements where necessary. I therefore wish to ask you, honourable Members, to continue to cooperate with the Commission in making this system as good as it can be.
Let me briefly state my views on a number of the questions raised by this report, and explain the position taken by the Commission. I would like to start by briefly considering the evaluation of the 1996 reform. Both the report and the Court of Auditors back up the Commission's view that the 1996 reform was a success. It goes without saying that I agree with you when you say that there are certain aspects which can be and should be improved, for example, the times taken by each individual stage of the procedure, which are still too long.
I would, though, like to make it clear that we are guided in these matters by the principle of finding a balance between the protection of the Community's financial interests and the Member States' positions as parties to the proceedings. It is, in my view, tolerable, in order to do justice to both these principles, for some stages to take rather longer, thus enabling the necessary consultations to be carried out. Despite that, I believe that success shows that we have done the right thing. In the last ten years alone, the Community has reclaimed nearly EUR 6 billion in agricultural aid from the Member States, who have, indeed paid up. These figures are eloquent and require no further elucidation.
Honourable Members, please also allow me to address two specific problems mentioned in Mr Mulder's report, on the one hand, the delays in the introduction of IACS in Greece, and on the other, the considerations linked to enlargement.
The Commission is fully in the picture as regards the delays in Greece, and its services are closely monitoring and evaluating the progress that is being made. Strict controls have already led the Commission to demand that Greece return very substantial aid payments, and I might add that a number of proceedings are pending, which may well result in further major financial corrections by reason of the persistent weaknesses in the control system.
Let me, though, make one thing clear. Nothing has indicated to either the European Court of Auditors or to the Commission that delays in the implementation of IACS would mean that irregularities among individual farmers in Greece were to be reckoned with. There is no reason to suppose that the financial risk to the Community is in excess of the financial adjustments already made by the Commission. The situation as regards 2002 is currently the subject of intensive examination. The Commission's decision will take into account all progress that has demonstrably been made in Greece, whilst, at the same time, the Community's financial interests must also be safeguarded in full.
I will now turn briefly to the considerations linked to enlargement. Mr Mulder requests the Commission to make every effort necessary in order to help candidate countries to comply with the deadlines imposed by law in respect of the individual control systems. At the same time, though, he insists that the candidate countries should not benefit from agricultural aid if IACS is not serviceable, or if the safeguarding of the financial interest is put at risk. On this, I cannot do other than agree with him. I, too, am firmly convinced of the rightness of the Commission's strategy for dealing with any problems that may crop up, and for doing so in the manner proposed.
On the one hand, we are to help the candidate countries to be in a position to use IACS in full at the time of their accession, or to offer them the option of using the simplified system, thus making fewer demands of IACS. I think it important that I should emphasise that the use of the simplified system does not mean that these countries are exempted from the requirement to implement the IACS system.
The Commission's services are currently occupied in determining the details of what these new Member States will need if they opt for the simplified IACS. There will of course be a strict timetable stipulating when the complete IACS must be available for transfer to the normal system."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples