Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.1.2-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I would like to say a few words concerning the discharge of the Commission. I would like to recommend that discharge be granted on time this year. We all know that there are problems with the Commission’s accounting and computer systems. We know that from the Court of Auditors’ reports. It is no secret that the Commission should have done something about the problem long ago. I believe that the Commission has now grasped the seriousness of the situation and that a very extensive reform has been started. Postponing discharge until October would not change anything. It would be much more efficient to appoint external experts to assess the proposed reform and for Parliament to keep holding the Commission to its timetable.
The Commission should also be granted discharge on time due to its admissions in the Eurostat case. Eurostat is a scandal and has been so for years. Eurostat has entered into contracts with companies that have pulled the wool over its eyes and defrauded it. This has now become clear to the Commission and, following pressure from Parliament, it has now terminated all contracts with the firms. I think we should reward it for that. It is very rare for an institution such as the Commission to admit to a mistake, but it has done so in this case. It will now at last send a signal to other companies that they cannot get away with defrauding the EU in contracts with its institutions.
The Eurostat case would never have seen the light of day had it not been for a Eurostat employee. I would like to highlight the role of Dorte Schmidt-Brown and her incredible professional and personal integrity. I hope that the Commission will find a solution that will grant her compensation. It would send a signal to other employees of the Commission that the Commission is serious when it says that swindling and fraud will not be tolerated.
I have recommended that discharge be granted to three agencies: the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the European Agency for Reconstruction and Cedefop. The remaining agencies must wait. It was only recently that a final decision was made to grant discharge to a further five agencies. We need time to look at them properly before granting discharge. Consequently, what I am recommending is a proposal for postponement on technical grounds.
There are some problems that are general to all the agencies. Basically, I believe that the Commission should apply the brakes and carry out a cost/benefit analysis of all types of agencies and the interaction between them. An agency may perhaps have been established that later proves to have completed its role. Perhaps there is need to merge some of the agencies. We must constantly evaluate whether an agency provides any added value. We must not have agencies just so that all the Member States can have their ‘baby’. Many of the agencies have very large administrations. That is not necessarily their own fault. Administrative burdens are often imposed on the agencies that are better suited to a big administration such as the Commission. Various solutions may therefore be considered. More tasks could be transferred to the agencies. We could consider transferring some tasks that are currently carried out by the Commission, e.g. within education and health. We must avoid overlaps between the work of the Commission and the work of the agencies. We should carefully consider whether there is a need to establish any more implementing agencies. Could the tasks not equally well be given to the agencies that we already have?
The agencies must now also implement the new Financial Regulation, and that has already happened at the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna. Among other things, this means that the agencies are now to be responsible for their own financial control. There will no longer be an independent
control of the agencies. We accepted this as part of the new Financial Regulation. I am concerned, however, that there is a risk of a gap in control arising. The Internal Audit Service of the Commission simply does not have the resources to look at the individual transactions. The Court of Auditors carries out very few control checks. We are therefore very dependent on the internal control system in the agency functioning properly.
The Agency for Reconstruction has generally acquitted itself well, but unfortunately there has been a very serious case of fraud within the energy sector. No employee of the agency was involved in the fraud. Ultimately, however, the agency is responsible for control of the EU funds spent. I have called upon the Commission to propose phasing out future EU funding of the energy sector in Kosovo if the present situation continues. It is extremely regrettable that the agency has entered into a number of private employment agreements outside the rules on inviting tenders. It is, however, the Commission which forced the agencies to sign the contracts. It is not unlawful to conclude direct contracts, but it must be restricted to special cases and must take place entirely openly. There are two examples that I could give but which I will not mention here to avoid embarrassing people. These rules were not observed in several of the contracts signed in 2001, and I would say to the Commissioner that this must not happen again or there will be problems. We must ensure that the agencies observe the rules on tendering. I am well aware that the rules can be highly bureaucratic and difficult. That is something that we must look at, but, whilst we have the rules, they must be observed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples