Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-15-Speech-3-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001115.1.3-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – First of all, on the procedure for presenting the annual report to Parliament and the Budgetary Control Committee, I am happy to listen to the assurances from Members of Parliament that the situation this year is more satisfactory than before. I hope that we can jointly conclude that we have found the right approach to the discharge procedure.
Now, to the question of naming: I cannot accept Mr van Hulten's view that this report is too political in the sense that we avoid naming the names that should be named. You are listening to a Member who, as rapporteur for the Committee on Development, was once responsible for naming not only two countries but two companies and where the Court of Auditors was taken to the Court of Justice because of that.
He implies that for political reasons we are scared to mention the names necessary for the audit that we independently find important, but I have evidence to prove the opposite. It was quite clear, in this particular case, that the Court of First Instance supported us by saying we not only have the right to mention these names but also a duty to do so.
If you look at the report of the Court of Auditors on the anti-pollution measures of the Commission, you will find not only countries named but also regions and the French Member of the Court of Auditors from Brittany, Mr Jean-François Bernicot, did not protest at the fact that we dealt with his Brittany page after page.
When it is relevant, from the audit point of view, we mention everything that has to be mentioned. This is the policy and principle of the Court. The intention of the Court of Auditors is not to become a political instrument but to be an objective instrument for your political control here in Parliament and we will continue to work towards this end.
Having said that, I pledge that we will listen carefully to Parliament's requests for more precise instruments of analysis and we will ensure that we can use all these instruments to satisfy the needs of political control. I will come back to that next time when I report and give you the plan for the programme of work for next year when we see each other again.
I stress, Mr Mulder, what I said yesterday. From a technical, statistical point of view, specific DAS figures on each country and major political field would require an enormous amount of personnel because when you diminish the population you increase the need for the sample so the amount of sampling will require an enormous amount of work that I do not think anyone would find feasible. That is why we should use other methods and adopt the approach that we have agreed on the specific observations field and bring the DAS exercise more in line with the other audits, not only of the Court, but also of the Commission and of the Member States, in the clearance of accounts.
I was also thinking about Florida this morning, Mr van Hulten, and I am thankful that I was not responsible for auditing the election procedure in that specific state. There is always something to be happy about.
I hope that the debate is over so that I can answer any question that I may have forgotten. I must comment, Mr Blak, on what you said. You want us to restructure the report and we have done that.
I would just like to remind you that after the dialogue that we had between the Committee on Budgetary Control, we have restructured the report. You suggested that the report should reflect the portfolios of commissioners or directors-general. I would warn against that. Commissioners, like Mr Fischler who is responsible for executing half of the budget, must have a bigger chapter than those commissioners who have no dealings with the budget. Let us be open and discuss how we will structure the reporting so that it will be as satisfactory as possible.
I say to Mr Staes that I am sorry I did not have the chance to answer all the questions that were asked in yesterday's meeting. I may also have that problem today. However, I pointed out that we are only at the beginning of this discharge procedure. I sincerely hope that we will be able to give a reasonable answer to any question that Parliament or the Budgetary Control Committee wishes to ask and that all questions that were asked yesterday and in this debate will be properly answered.
I now turn to the construction of the Statement of Assurance and the question of figures. First of all I point out – not only to Mr Blak, rapporteur for this year's discharge, but to Mr Mulder – that we have gradually changed and developed the procedure for drawing up the Statement of Assurance in close collaboration with this Parliament and the Budgetary Control Committee, to meet with the wishes of the Committee by including in the Statement of Assurance the specific observations in the different budget areas. This is a result of the discussion that we have had hitherto.
I emphasise – to Mr Mulder, Mr Blak, Mrs van der Laan, Mrs Morgan and to all the other speakers who have expressed themselves on this issue – that the Court will continue to develop that. But I should like to make it abundantly clear that a procedure of this kind has to develop very gradually so that we do not have a complete change in the method of data collation because then the value of this exercise would not meet the requirements we are set under the Treaty.
Concerning the accuracy of the figure that Mr Blak queried: 5.5% or 3%? I do not want to sound demagogic but this question is intellectually on the same level as the question "when did you stop beating your wife". Do not ask me questions that are impossible to answer. We did not produce a figure last year and we have not produced a figure this year. So the question of whether last year's figure corresponds to this year's figure is unreasonable.
A Statement of Assurance is a very detailed exercise, including not only specific observations on the different budget areas but also a global appraisal. We will study that in detail, with your excellent secretaries. I am very happy to hear that you have staff at your disposal able to summarise the Court's report in one hour. I am extremely happy. Perhaps we will steal that person from you. But we will have a chance to go through all that. I will see to it that the rapporteur for the discharge is fully informed of all the details.
Members of the Budgetary Control Committee point out the need for more precision. You are right that we have to be more precise in our observations. When you study this annual report you will find that what the Court is trying to do is to see to it that the clearance of accounts becomes a real instrument for analysing shortcomings in implementing the agricultural policy. But a delay of more than two years makes the value of this exercise very limited.
What we also point out is that, in the other area of the big bulk of spending in the Member States, we do not have a procedure corresponding to the clearance of accounts. That is in the Structural Funds. It is very difficult to be more precise when we do not have a clearance system that would give the answers that we ask for, for instance in respect of the Social Fund.
I pledge that we will continue, together with the Committee on Budgetary Control and Parliament, to see that we develop more precise information so as to tackle the real problem. The Court entirely agrees with Parliament that it is not only a question of reform of the Commission or of Parliament reforming its way of working with financial control. The Court of Auditors also has to change its working methods."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples