Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.10.2-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, when it comes to putting its own house in order, the European Commission is in a Catch-22 situation. There is enormous pressure of expectation following the events that led to the resignation of the previous Commission. I sometimes have the impression that the more radical the proposals made here in this Chamber sound, the more applause they receive. There again, it is simply not possible to change situations once and for all with a few strokes of the pen, and the problems begin as soon as we have to start talking about implementation and getting down to brass tacks. This may explain why we experienced more difficulties than anticipated in the Committee on Budgetary Control as regards this issue. Nevertheless, the outcome is now on the table and there for all to see, and I would expressly like to thank Mr van Hulten for the work he has done on this report.
Provided this report is not watered-down yet again by the adoption of amendments, it will afford us the opportunity to make clear and unambiguous demands of the Commission on a number of crucial points. Allow me to start with the most important demand. We do not want financial control to be abolished. The financial controller should still be able to make checks before funding commitments or payments are made, not in every case, but wherever uncertainties or risks arise. The Commission is sending out the wrong signals here, by renaming the Directorate-General for Financial Control as the Directorate-General for Audits, for example. It may well be easy enough to change the Commission’s organisation chart but it is a different matter when it comes to the legal texts, particularly those relating to budgetary discipline.
I do not have exact figures, but the Community’s budgetary discipline and the associated implementing provisions apply to almost 100 different areas of responsibility of the financial controller, to his or her independence and the tasks assigned to this office. This cannot be ignored or evaded, certainly not on account of soft law, as was once suggested at a meeting of our Committee. Irrespective of such legal considerations, it would be an unforgivable mistake, under the circumstances, to scrap financial control in the traditional sense at the very moment when those responsible for such matters in the Commission are, at long last, no longer out on a limb but set to become part of a chain of functioning supervisory and investigatory mechanisms. As we see it, there will be a dovetailing of three mechanisms in the future: a system of independent prior approval by the financial controller, concomitant and follow-up control by the internal audit service – also known as the audit service – which has yet to be set up, and finally, there will be the targeted tracking-down of irregularities by OLAF, the new anti-fraud office.
It is to be welcomed that Mr van Hulten’s report makes the connection between all three areas and also makes it clear as to where the crucial shortcomings lie, which must be tackled. A few salient points: the disciplinary procedures are not taking effect, especially when it comes to calling officials to account for their misdemeanours, including those of a financial nature. There is a large grey area and a great lack of clarity where criminal sanctions are concerned, and it is precisely in this area that the announcements made by the Commission are rather vague. I can only emphasise that these are the really hard nuts that finally need to be cracked."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples