Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-147"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.7.2-147"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is getting late, so I would just like to make a few brief comments to wind up this debate. Firstly, how will the Commission deal with uncovered or suspected fraud? Fortunately, we now have OLAF, which was set up in 1999, so today's approach is naturally very different from cases such as Fléchard in 1991. Let me re-emphasise this point: in a similar case, the approach adopted and the decisions taken in Fléchard would not arise today. Of course, the individual factors are also important. We have just been talking about the
. Here, the current situation is that only companies which have been prosecuted successfully can be blacklisted, and only by the Member States. This is a shortcoming, of course, so we are working on a proposal to grant the Commission the right to blacklist companies as well. But I should mention at the same time that this is a Council regulation. It remains to be seen how the debate on this issue will continue.
As to the question: if fraud is discovered and a prosecution takes place, how will the courts in the Member States proceed? Yes, we know about this. Various procedures are applied which vary in their speed and thoroughness. I am not implying anything about any Member State, this is simply an observation. So the issue of a European public prosecutor is still on the agenda, of course. Let me say again: we consider that we have no legal basis on which to appoint a European public prosecutor without an amendment to the Treaty. We will present the green paper, and we will also try to exert greater pressure through a directive based on the regulation on the protection of financial interests. So we will keep this issue alive. I am still quite optimistic: perhaps by the time the next Inter-Governmental Conference comes round – although hopefully it will have a different name by then, so perhaps I should say "at the next Convention" – this issue can be dealt with and decided in a different way.
Another important point in this context is that we have presented a communication for an amendment to the disciplinary procedure. I should point out yet again that as part of the budget discharge procedure, the Commission provides Parliament with a list of disciplinary proceedings which commenced or were concluded in a given year, together with their outcomes. As far as I am aware, no Parliament in any Member State is as well-informed about problems and proposed solutions, even in countries which pride themselves on their transparency.
A further point which was raised was the execution of the budget. A number of speakers highlighted the continuing shortcomings in the execution of the budget – i.e. the translation of the budgetary authorities' decisions into tangible policies – especially in the field of foreign policy. Last year, for example, the budget for the Structural Funds was very poorly implemented. I have to make this clear, because the new programme could not be approved and implemented in all areas. In the area of foreign policy, a great deal has improved; one reason is that for the Agency for the Reconstruction of Kosovo, a different administrative approach has been adopted in line with Parliament's resolutions, which has really proved its worth. And that is also something which we must take into account when considering reforms. As regards the execution of the budget, I should like to reiterate that we will be presenting budget management data to Parliament on a weekly basis from now on. Here, too, I am not aware of any Member State which furnishes its Parliament with such up-to-date information as is the case here.
On the issue of a positive DAS: as the Budget Commissioner, I am responsible for the discharge procedure as well, so I would naturally be delighted to have a positive DAS sooner rather than later. That goes without saying. But I also realise that a Statement of Assurance from the Court of Auditors – and it is the Court's decision, and the Court has not yet decided when it will produce the Statement – cannot be achieved through a single campaign or a few small-scale campaigns and improvements. Instead, we must plough a broad furrow, because each of the difficulties faced in combating fraud and mismanagement in the individual areas – the Structural Funds, agricultural policy, research policy, etc. – demands highly diverse measures. Mr Blak's report makes this very clear. It really is a very broad field, and – to continue with the metaphor – improving the execution of the budget, reducing errors, and avoiding fraud sometimes turn it into a minefield. The Commission's Action Plan and administrative reform are therefore also a mine-clearance programme, so that in future, the budget decisions fall on safe and fertile ground.
On behalf of the Commission, I can assure Parliament once again that we will not be downing tools once the discharge decision is taken. On the contrary, we intend to roll up our sleeves even further and continue our labours with renewed vigour."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples