Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-02-Speech-4-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041202.4.4-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly I wish to thank the Court of Auditors, and, in particular, its President, Mr Fabra Vallés, for its annual report and for presenting it here in this plenary. The financial statements show weaknesses in the EU’s administration. There are problems in particular with structural measures. Last year a total of EUR 8.3 billion remained unspent. In the middle of the year, payments were reduced by EUR 5 billion, but all the same the statements still show a figure of EUR 3.1 billion for under-utilisation. All in all, the total for unused budgeted payment appropriations for the period 2000-2003 is EUR 34 billion. The consequence of this is that outstanding commitments have grown to EUR 69.3 billion, which means that to pay the arrears we will need the equivalent of appropriations for two years in full.
The administration of structural policy warrants a thorough re-evaluation when the new regulations are drafted. Another problem is illicit payments paid out of agricultural expenditure, which between 1971 and last year amounted to EUR 3.1 billion. In future we should embark upon a system where unwarranted payments can be directly withheld from aid paid to a Member State the following year and the amount clawed back can remain in that Member State’s account.
The financial statements and annual auditors’ report that have now been presented are the first to be based on the new Financial Regulation. They are therefore very important for the future. The statement of assurance contained in the report once again gives cause for concern. For the tenth time in succession now the statement is less than wholesome and it does not give any assurance that the Commission’s expenditure with regard to payments is altogether legal and proper. This makes it hard to control the situation. If the Commission has not gone about its business totally legally and properly, the basic assumption should be that it ought to resign. It should have resigned in every one of the last ten years. Legality and proper conduct are the basis of all administration. Only Mr Santer’s Commission resigned, however, and the reasons for that were more political than legal.
Any assessment of discharge should be based on what is right, as seen from the human point of view. The question arises as to whether the accounts and administration have been attended to in the same way a careful man would attend to his own finances. The nature of the errors made is also a decisive factor. Is it a question here of a difference of opinion regarding interpretation, carelessness, a clear administrative error or intentional fraud? The statement of assurance gives no clear answer regarding the nature of the errors. Something will have to be done about improving administration and auditing work in the future. That is why I agree with the rapporteur for the discharge, Mr Wynn, when he calls for the system to be improved. Yesterday Mr Nicolaï, representing the country to hold the Presidency, also agreed with this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples