Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-14-Speech-2-391"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060314.30.2-391"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, firstly I wish to thank you, rapporteurs Mrs Gräßle and Mr Pahor, for the enormous task you have undertaken in preparing this topic. The amendment to the Financial Regulation has been an immense job of preparation, and one that is very technical and tough-going. It has taken a lot of time and concentration. Mrs Gräßle has untiringly chaired many meetings of work groups. The very fact that Parliament’s opinion is clear to everyone is precisely due to this excellent preparatory work. My warmest thanks go to them for that.
The Commission’s proposal aimed to revise the Regulation that had been in force for three years. The main objective has been to eliminate and simplify bureaucracy and increase flexibility, while at the same wishing to guarantee financial security.
The background to this is the development of a new administrative culture. In 1999, after the crisis which ended with the Commission’s resignation, a work group of experts proposed that the administration of the EU be organised in such a way that personal accountability would be clarified and at the same time financial administration simplified, this legislative package included reform of the budget structure to make it activity-based and a revision of the Financial Regulation and the implementation acts relating to it. Now is the period of interim evaluation.
One could say that the original ambitious objective has been partially achieved. Currently we are obtaining a clearer picture of the costs and results of the EU’s various policy areas. There is still a great deal of bureaucracy, however, and there are considerable controls and checks in place.
The Commission’s proposal to amend the Financial Regulation is along the right lines, I believe, although modest in its aims. The delegation of power and responsibility still lacks boldness, and activity-based administration is still a long way off.
In our opinion, the rapporteurs adopted just the right approach in endeavouring to relate necessary administration to a manageable sum of money. At present the procedures are sometimes so complicated and expensive that action does not result in the achievement of the objectives we aspire to, such as cooperation with the private sector.
The report adopted by the committees is, we believe, too cautious. We would have liked a bolder, more liberal approach. In our view, Parliament is still involved in ‘microadministration’. The main issue in administration is results, and not the procedures involved in its implementation. Complicated administrative processes only serve as protection for ineffectual civil servants, freeing them from having to make decisions. Financial administration must be based on rational decisions and personal accountability.
These comments aside, we are nevertheless prepared to support the report in its entirety, and we await the forthcoming debate on the implementation acts."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples