Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-20-Speech-2-414"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040420.18.2-414"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I am very pleased that the proposal of the Committee on Budgetary Control to grant discharge to the Commission for 2002 and close the accounts is now before the House. The draft discharge decision is based on the detailed work carried out by the European Court of Auditors and on the outstanding, highly professional and comprehensive report by the rapporteur, Mr Bayona. The European Parliament's decision on granting discharge for 2002 is therefore a balance-sheet and a guideline for further measures. This is in line with the intentions of the Treaty and the Financial Regulation. I would like to congratulate Mr Bayona on his extraordinarily full report which is almost a compendium in itself, and thank him very warmly on behalf of the Commission.
The Commission's handling of the Eurostat case is also an example of transparency. Where else would an executive body be so rigorous in investigating, uncovering and drawing conclusions from the mistakes made before its entry into office? The Prodi Commission – as my colleague has already explained once again on the Commission's behalf today – took action as soon as the scale of the problems became known. Naturally, this was a risky process in political terms, but this Commission's watchword was, and remains, 'zero tolerance to fraud'. This watchword does not guarantee that fraud will not occur. However, it does guarantee that nothing – absolutely nothing – will be swept under the carpet. Instead, investigations will be launched and action taken. The Prodi Commission has faced up to this responsibility.
Two offices have played a prominent role in dealing with the aftermath of the Eurostat case. The first is the office of the Internal Auditor, which was established in 2000 and, from the outset, was accountable to the Vice-President of the Commission, which underlines the great importance attached to the role. Secondly, we have OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, whose primary task is to uncover fraud and irregularities within and outside the institutions by means of administrative investigations. Despite all the teething troubles – and we admit that these have occurred – OLAF is an effective anti-fraud mechanism.
Last but not least, I would also like to mention the overhaul of the system of accounting and financial reporting as a key element of the reform, although I can discuss this in far more detail in the quarterly reports that I submit to you. This is an important element of our modernisation measures. Modernising the system of accounting will result in significant improvements: the introduction of accrual accounting, the adoption of financial statements into line with international standards, and the use of an integrated system to generate all accounting data. In the last 15 months of this project, a massive amount of work has been undertaken, as Mr Bayona de Perogordo and, indeed, Mr Sørensen and other members of the committee have seen for themselves. We are on track to fulfil the stringent requirements set out in the Financial Regulation by 2005 – and indeed, before the start of 2005. Let me make this point very clearly too: this modernisation strategy maps the Commission's progress towards fulfilment of the most up-to-date public sector accounting standards.
Many of these measures adopted by the Commission stem from proposals and demands made by Parliament, especially by the Committee on Budgetary Control. Hundreds of people have been involved in the reform: Commission officials, MEPs, and staff of the Court of Auditors and the Council. The report by Mr Bayona de Perogordo reveals how comprehensive this reform has been. Is there anything left to do? Certainly. Mr Bayona's report reveals this as well. The amendment of the OLAF Regulation is just one example – it is now on the table – but above all, I should mention the project to establish the post of European Public Prosecutor to protect the European Community's financial interests. This project really should be given a chance to be implemented. On the basis of the new Constitution for the EU, it should be possible to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and if that is ever done, it will be due in no small measure to the work undertaken by Mrs Theato. Mrs Theato, you have lobbied tirelessly and competently for the establishment of this post and, more generally, you have made a lasting impact on the European Parliament's work in the field of budgetary control. Indeed, your name has become synonymous with parliamentary control of budgets at European level. I would like to express my warm thanks, on behalf of the Commission but also on my personal behalf, for your critical but very positive cooperation.
The Prodi Commission was the first European Commission to accept that its management and administrative tasks are of equal value to its conceptual and negotiating agenda. Through its pro-active approach and spurred on by Parliament, the Court of Auditors and the Council, it has created a management system which equips the Commission for the challenges of the twenty-first century. This management system will have to prove its worth in a Union with 25, 27 or more Member States, with 20 or more official languages, and with a constantly new set of tasks and expenditure assigned to the Union. I am convinced that the reform work undertaken by the Commission has created a sound basis for this process, and I would like to conclude by thanking the European Parliament very warmly for its tireless support in this context.
I also welcome, on behalf of the Commission, the reports by Mr Sjöstedt on the European Development Funds, by Mr Mulder on the European Agencies, and by Mrs Rühle and Mr Staes on the ECSC. All the reports recommend that discharge be granted. They are full and detailed and make a range of recommendations to the Commission on how it can further improve financial management in these areas.
The draft decision granting discharge to the Commission expressly recognises the Commission's achievements in relation to the reforms. Yet the draft also claims that the administrative reforms announced by the Commission were barely more than window- dressing. With respect, this is difficult to reconcile. Let us take stock and remind ourselves, once again, what the situation was like five years ago. There was, after all, a general consensus among the Committee of Independent Experts, voiced in their report, as well as among the European Court of Auditors and the overwhelming majority of Members of this House that it was not enough to make individual adjustments to the management of the European Commission: fundamental reform and modernisation were required. The Prodi Commission addressed this task with great commitment from the outset. The White Paper 'Reforming the Commission', which was adopted as early as spring 2000, sets out 98 measures and I can today confirm that 95 of the actions defined have been implemented in full, and that implementation of the remaining three measures is progressing well.
What are the key elements of this reform? Firstly, the regulations on human-resource and financial management have been completely overhauled. Secondly, the entire system of budget management – from the establishment of the budget to budget structure, budget implementation, budgetary control and financial reporting – has been radically reformed. Thirdly, rules and organisational structures have to be implemented by real people, and the Prodi Commission, with the European Parliament's support, has not only rectified the gross staffing deficits, especially the shortage of financial managers, controllers and auditors, but has also defined financial management and internal auditing as recognised occupations in the Commission for the first time. In 2003 alone, 7 100 participants attended the training courses on financial issues. Twenty-nine courses were run in total, and more courses will be added in 2004. Is this really mere window dressing?
Let me focus on several aspects in detail. On the new regulations: the Prodi Commission has developed, negotiated and introduced two key management regulations. Firstly, there is the Staff Regulation: under the leadership of Mr Kinnock and his team, and after four years of intensive work, this proposal was finally adopted by the Council in March. We now have a fundamentally new, performance-oriented Staff Regulation for the public service in all the European institutions. I would also draw your attention to innovative features, such as the regular rotation of senior officials and officials in sensitive posts, which have now been introduced.
Secondly, the new Financial Regulation: I hope you will allow me to dwell for a moment with some measure of pride on this achievement, for the new Financial Regulation has been realised within two and a half years. The old Financial Regulation was 25 years old. I am pleased that we – the Commission, Parliament, all the Member States, and the European Court of Auditors – have achieved this together. It is an outstanding piece of work by this House’s Committee on Budgets and the Council’s Economic and Financial Affairs Committee.
We now have a new financial management structure, a transparent legal framework for financial assistance and public procurement, clear definitions of the responsibilities of the financial actors, and, if necessary, penalties. Naturally, I was particularly gratified by the praise from Transparency International. All this makes the Financial Regulation a great success.
As regards the management and control structures, it was necessary to modernise structures which, in some cases, dated back to the founding of the European institutions. In the field of financial management, we had central control of commitments and payments. This was a relic of a time when the budget was still small and its role was negligible. The main weakness of this system was that responsibility was transferred from the Directorate-General that managed the allocations to a centralised system of financial control. It was high time to change this format. We have now introduced, at last, a division of responsibilities which ensures proper and efficient financial management at European level too, in line with the mechanisms which are generally taken for granted at government level in the Member States. Under the new system, the responsibility for sound and efficient financial management lies with those who manage the funds. The Directors-General, as the authorising officers, now bear full responsibility for ensuring that appropriate financial systems have been established in their Directorates-General.
As a corollary, this decentralisation process naturally also requires the adoption of uniform standards of financial management, and this is what we have done. By the end of 2003, the Directorates-General had fulfilled 90% of these standards. This task too – the setting of uniform financial management standards – was far from being a minor undertaking; indeed, it was akin to a cultural revolution in our international organisation. Now, each Director-General must produce an Annual Activity Report in which he accounts for the management of the resources for which he is responsible. He must also provide a Declaration highlighting any weaknesses of which he is aware in his particular field of responsibility and outlining the related remedial measures taken or planned. These reports are submitted to Parliament and can also be accessed by the general public via the Internet. Please, give me other examples of such transparency – if there are any."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples