Strasbourg, 16/05/2000 (Agence Europe) - The members of the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) of the European Parliament did not seem truly satisfied, on Monday evening, by the responses made by the Commission to the EP resolution of 13 April on deferral of the 1998 budgetary discharge (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.12).
Presenting these responses, Ms Schreyer insisted on the importance that the Commission pays to improving the Union's financial management and to the significant reduction of the rate of mistakes currently noted. The current situation is not at all satisfactory, admits Ms Schreyer, who specified that the action plan must concern specific sectors, by identifying the responsibilities of each directorate and by giving the possibility to make comparisons from one year to the next. Access to documents, which is one of the points of the agreement being discussed between Parliament and Commission, must be improved. There remains the problem of regulation concerning disciplinary procedures, which are confidential. One could envisage making independent outside elements take part, thus ensuring greater neutrality. The Commission would thus show that it is not seeking to hide anything. Ms Theato wished to know whether the Court of Auditors receives the minutes of these disciplinary proceedings. Ms Schreyer replied that it has received them in the past, when it requested them, under certain conditions.
Several MEPs questioned Ms Schreyer on the Fléchard affair, which was then the subject of a debate in camera. The Parliament's resolution invited OLAF to carry out an inquiry to identify the persons responsible for the disappearance of the documents in this affair. The Commission replied that the loss of the minutes of a meeting is not a criminal affair and that it must give rise to an administrative inquiry, if it has not already taken place. "What a bureaucratic reply", was the astonished response from Dutch Liberal Lousewies van Laan, who asked Ms Schreyer whether she was not curious to know where these documents had disappeared to. "We do not wish to dwell on these stories but rather bring them to an end, obtain satisfactory responses and go on to the Union's real problems, such as enlargement", said the Dutch elected member. Welsh Labour member Eluned Morgan (author of a discussion paper on discharge procedure) also calls for a clearer response: Should this administrative inquiry take place or not? She also asks how the Commission will manage to obtain the indispensable commitment of States for reducing the rate of error. This debate is under way at the Council, replied Ms Schreyer.
Jens-Peter Bonde, Danish Co-President of the group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities, asked about the possibility for those responsible for the budget at the Commission to be fully informed of the activities of the many groups and committees within it. The Directorate on budgets has the possibility to obtain information, replied Ms Sxhreyer. Portuguese Socialist Paulo Casaca posed the question of irregularities in Structural Funds, which are even more frequent than in the context of agricultural policy, said Ms Schreyer, who specified that irregularities may concern spending not eligible for European financial assistance but regular as regards the legislation of the Member State. Under these conditions, two major points were not settled in a matter that was satisfactory for the members of the budgetary control committee (Fléchard affair and access to documents). A decision on discharge does not seem possible for the month of June but could take place in July.
Furthermore, the exchange of letters between Commissioner Schreyer and the rapporteur on the general budget, Gabriele Stauner, on the purchase of the Spinelli building by the EP (see yesterday's EUROPE) caused a heated exchange between Gabriele Stauner and Helmut Kuhne (SPD Germany), rapporteur on the section 1 of discharge. In this correspondence, Ms Stauner showed, according to Mr Kuhne, the attitude of "usurper", giving the impression that she is the only person responsible. Ms Stauner, in her brief response, took offence at this ("why do you speak to me in that tone?"), and said that this interpretation is "absurd" - her interlocutor did not seem convinced.
The debate on the 1998 discharge for the European Development Fund gave rise to far less tension. Most of the Cocobu members, except for Mr Bonde speaking on behalf of the Group of Europe of Democracies and Diversities, took a stance in favour of granting discharge.