Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-04-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031204.1.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should first like to make a statement on Eurostat. Several speakers referred to it indirectly, though no specific questions were posed.
On the subject of reform, I believe it is important not to allow it to be jeopardised by the Eurostat case. The latter has been a blow to all Europeans, coming as it did just when it was thought that the TAOs and other situations had finally been dealt with. The clear conclusion to be drawn from this situation is the urgency of pursuing the reform and concluding it at the earliest opportunity. That is how things stand.
The difficulty lies in quantifying the improvement. The House will be aware that the Court has never favoured references to the rate of error. The reason is that this leads to error, and that therefore nothing is gained. Nonetheless, the Court is working with standards. I am convinced that the standards presented this year will allow standards to be raised in subsequent years. It is to be hoped that within Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Auditors agreement can be reached on what constitutes a spade and what does not. That would be the best way of reaching an understanding.
Mr Sjöstedt stated that we are referring to a general improvement. Ladies and gentlemen, it is important to establish whether or not improvement has taken place, and if so, to measure it. Hence the reference to standards, to allow you to make comparisons. I can assure you that there has indeed been some improvement.
Mrs Rühle spoke of eliminating mistrust and increasing transparency. She also called for more democracy. Subsequently she referred to agriculture. My response on this is also directed to Mr Sørensen. The difficulty with agriculture is that too many faulty payments are still being made. That is the problem. We have established most of the errors relate to payments made outside the Integrated Administrative and Control System.
Clearly, this involves a significant proportion of the budget. It actually relates to more than 40% of the budget. When compared with the agricultural sector as a whole, the final beneficiary’s sum may seem small. Nonetheless, 40% is a large slice of the budget, and minor errors cannot be overlooked.
It should also be borne in mind that 80% of the Community budget goes through the national budgets. The question then arises as to how far improvement of the Commission can go without the help of control by the Member States. I should inform you that we organise seminars throughout the year. Invitations were extended to parliamentarians, other institutions and members of national Courts of Auditors. They were invited to come to Luxembourg and get to know us. It is one way of building good relations. We were able to provide them with information and begin to gradually harmonise procedures. Bear in mind that we do not all use the same system. There is the Anglo-Saxon system and the European system. We are working to harmonise them.
A phrase from the Bible comes to mind, namely ‘go forth and preach’. I can assure you that all members of the Court do go forth and preach. We have all recently been in our home countries to do some explanatory work. Our task is the same in this House, in the national states and in the Court of Auditors. Our aim is to ensure that the Member States understand just how much we need their assistance and cooperation when it comes to controlling Community funds.
To save time, I shall reply to Messrs Camre, Bayona, Van Hulten, Dell'Alba, Casaca, Bösch and to Mrs Aviles and Mrs Morgan in writing.
Thank you for your attention. Please be assured that we remain entirely at your disposal at all times.
The Court has never undertaken a full audit of Eurostat, the statistics office. The Committee on Budgetary Control was informed of this on a number of occasions. Nonetheless, the Court has considered programmes implemented by Eurostat in the context of other audits. The results of these audits were included in the Court’s annual reports for the years 1993, 1998 and 1999. This last report was published in November 2000.
The Court’s observations on Eurostat management related to inadequate procedures for the award of certain contracts. They also related to poor use of technical assistance offices, known as TAOs. It should be mentioned that the Court had already commented on the TAOs further to other audits. The Commission followed up these comments and reviewed procedures for awarding contracts and use of the TAOs in 1999. It also put in place new standards for management and control in these two areas. In addition, OLAF launched an internal investigation into Eurostat in mid-2000. In the light of the introduction of these new measures and of the ongoing internal investigation of OLAF, it would have inappropriate to initiate an audit of Eurostat at this juncture
It is worth stressing that in principle, the Court refrains from conducting audits in departments and areas under investigation by OLAF. This is in order to avoid interference or activity liable to prejudice anti-fraud investigations.
The Court will take the lessons of the Eurostat affair into account when undertaking its risk analysis for the coming year.
I thank Mr Kuhne for his contribution, but I must say that I do not believe there were any questions for the Court of Auditors.
Mr Mulder stated we are on the right track, but wondered how long this would last. In my view, if we are on the right track we should stay on it. As to the time period, that depends on the organisation or institution. It depends on how complex or extensive it is. The Commission’s size and geographical dimension must be borne in mind. It should also be remembered that the Commission is not the only player involved. Each of the changes it makes has implications at national level. The Commission is therefore bound to be in constant contact with the various Member States. Consequently, it cannot always maintain the cruising speed set at a particular time. It should also be borne in mind that the reforms under way do not relate to the next five years only. We feel this is this is a longer-term venture.
I believe we are on the right track. In addition, Parliament is there to play its part. It is for Parliament to keep nudging the Commission into action and to ensure this reform is taken forward as an ongoing and continuous process. It also has to be said that a favourable DAS has been granted since 1994, despite a number of shortcomings in the accounting system.
This is why in December 2002 the Commission decided to reform the accounting system. The intention was for the new system to come into operation in 2005. I still believe this deadline is optimistic. I do not wish to enter into a debate with the Commission on this. I simply mention it so that the House is not disappointed if it should turn out that the reform is not fully complete by 2005. The Court of Auditors feels that the time allowed is too short. We believe it is best to proceed slowly but surely. Each step forward should only be taken after due consideration, to ensure that decisions are sustainable. Adopting Penelope’s approach to reform is not helpful. Progress cannot be achieved through constant doing and undoing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples