Brussels, 10/04/2002 (Agence Europe) - At the request of the EPP-ED group, the European Parliament decided, on Wednesday in Strasbourg, to refer the controversial report by Eluned Morgan back to committee. The report mainly recommended postponement of Council discharge for the budget, because of the lack of transparency in its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) expenditure (see EUROPE of 23 March, p;15). At the same time, the EP granted the European Commission discharge for implementation of the Budget 2000, with the adoption, by 442 votes to 53 and 31 abstentions, of the report by John McCartin (EPP-ED, Ireland).
The discharge vote on the Commission budget was facilitated by the compromise reached at the end of March within Cocobu on the judgement to be reached by the Commission concerning fraud in the Spanish linen sector (see EUROPE of 27 March, p.12). The EP only recalls that the Commissioners must carry out their duties "in full independence" and refrain from "any act that is not compatible with the nature of their function". Furthermore, it reaffirms that, on the subject of access to the documents, that the provisions of the framework agreement in force in this connection proved of "little satisfaction" to the EP, and entrusts its president with the task of beginning negotiations with a view to revising the agreement. Commissioner Michaele Schreyer welcomed this result, while recognising that there is still much to be done. The EP urged for the export refund system to be changed, with improvements in the EDF field and swifter execution of the budget, she mainly noted.
We would point out that the report by Ms Morgan is expected to be on the agenda of the EP plenary session to be held in Brussels on 24 and 25 April. Cocobu awaits additional information from the Council before it can decide whether to submit the Council budget to discharge procedure again (although it is current practice for the EP and Council to abstain from examining their respective budgets).
Parliament also adopted the report by Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski (ELDR, Finland) granting discharge to the EP for the implementation of the EP's 2000 budget. By 273 to 251 with 7 abstentions the EP recognises the importance of ensuring the necessary guarantees for the protection of the rights of parliamentary assistants (including appropriate insurance and social security); and the adoption of terms of employment for the assistants. An amendment by Jean-Louis Bourlanges (EPP-ED, France) noting that scraping the Friday sitting would lead to a sharp rise (16%) in the average cost of a session was rejected. The EP hailed the continued reduction in the number and cost of staff missions between the three EP workplaces, particularly between Brussels and Strasbourg. It stressed its commitment to setting up an independent internal audit service and called for clear rules on political groups' responsibilities.
As part of the discharge process for the 2000 Budget, the EP adopted reports by 1) Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL, Denmark) granting discharge to the Commission for the financial management of the 6th, 7th and 8th European Development Funds; 2) Esko Olavi Seppänen (GUE/NGL, Finland) granting discharge to the Commission for the implementation of the CECA budget; and 3) Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium) granting discharge to the Commission's decentralised agencies.
During the debate, John McCartin pointed out the 2000 surplus of EUR 11 billion (14%), 2% coming from income with EUR 800 being put in reserves. The remaining surplus of 9%, of which 7.2% are due to underuse of appropriation of Structural Funds loans. Mr McCartin once again criticised the complexity of regional policy regulation. Another worrying subject: irregularities and fraud. For this reason, the Committee on Budgetary Control has put forward some amendments in accounts planning and management. The last point raised by the rapporteur: the "partial" Statement of Assurance (SOA) of the Court of Auditors. Mr McCartin believes that it is necessary to make this statement clearer, notably when receiving information from the Court on error percentages, which was estimated at 1% for the Community budget (according to exclusive Commission figures) which meant the Commission should certainly not be congratulated by the jury, compared with the only countries to use the system systematically, namely the US and Japan.
Freddy Blak was concerned at the relatively small number of audits carried out by the Commission in 2000, saying he had been told that 12 had been done, which he thinks is tiny compared with the number of ACP countries and the bad quality of the audits might be explained by the fact that they were often done in Brussels rather than in the country in question. He called on the Commission to give a more convincing explanation about the EUR 14 million of ineligible expenditure identified by the Court of Auditors and call on the ACP Secretariat in Brussels to abide by the 1995 rulings of Belgian Courts that it should pay compensation to a former employee). He also regretted the fact that the McCartin did not mention the problems of the Stockholm Bureau (and the conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary procedure) or the IREALA "own funds" of the EU budget. These funds should produce annual interests by way of EUR 45 million, to be earmarked for research in the coal and steel sector (outside framework programmes for research), he recalled. He felt that such supplements should be invested where the money had come from, that is, in the "first" Member States, but that candidate countries must also be able to benefit from ESCS funding. Kyösti Virrankoski felt the EP budget "executed very well in 2000" (99.28% of financing was allocated and 91.16% of the credits carried over from 1999 were used), which can partly be explained by its early reimbursement strategy of the cost of its buildings. He insisted on the problems facing the EP regarding the place of work and buildings (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.8): - the cost of a 5-day ordinary session period in Strasbourg is around 33% more than for Brussels; - the reduction from 5 to 4 days of the duration of the Strasbourg session brings negligible saving of 1% (of the total cost of the meeting); - the price of the LOW building in Strasbourg is considerable, all the more as no agreement has yet been signed with the developer; - and problems for the date of completion of the work have not yet been resolved. Eluned Morgan mainly recalled the grievances voiced against the budget of the Economic and Social Committee. She said it is not normal for so much time to have been taken to assess management of the year 1996, which ended in highlighting the irregularities regarding the travelling expenses of some members. As for the Council, she noted that a critical report had been presented by the Court of Auditors on the subject of common foreign policy, and said it was necessary to wait before giving an opinion on discharge for this institution. Finally, Bart States said he had heard rumours of "fraud" regarding electricity provision in Kosovo. He is said to have asked the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to carry out an investigation on this, the results of which should be taken into account when the time comes for discharge procedure on the 2001 budget.
Commissioner Michaele Schreyer remarked that, for discharge, account must be taken of the European Commission's administrative powers at the central level and the hundreds of thousands of payments, mainly agricultural, that depend upon the various ministries of Member States. "The Commission's range of activities is very broad, with different risks and different sources of error", she stressed. She drew attention to the fact that the Committee on Budgetary Control has considerably criticised the budgetary surplus of EUR 11.6 billion, unlike the Finance Ministers who congratulated themselves on this. "Criticism may come from the fact that spending is lower than forecasts for Structural Funds", she said, explaining that this situation can be explained by the delays incurred in adopting programmes. Regarding Member State requests in favour of strengthening controls in order to avoid errors in Structural Fund matters, Ms Schreyer said that "it is the Member States that do not carry out enough controls". On the subject of the European Development Fund, Ms Schreyer recalled the very serious situation of several ACP countries, where there are "not enough projects that deserve financing". Generally speaking, the Commission provides assessment reports for the different programmes, available immediately on the Internet, with weekly updating and data transmission to the Committee on Budgetary Control. Ms Schreyer, however, recalled that certain information contained in these reports remain subject to rules of confidentiality and principle of sub judice. She finally welcomed the Court of Auditor's positive assessment of the Agency for Reconstruction in Kosovo, which proves that decision-making at local level "is a good solution".
Speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED Group, Gabriele Stauner (CSU) pointed a finger of blame at dysfunction in development policy. She considered as "inadmissible" the fact that it was impossible to use all the funds for those who need them the most. Although it was decided that more trust should be placed in the governments of the countries concerned, "we could not recover the EUR 14 million that were spent unwisely", she recalled. On the subject of inequality regarding the appointment of women to senior positions, she pointed out that an audit had been requested but that the general secretaries of the Groups had not submitted to the audit. German national Helmut Kuhne said, on behalf of the PES, that it was necessary to "go forward" concerning separation between what comes under the groups and what comes under the institutions. In his view, the Parliament must make this distinction itself, without waiting for the Commission's proposals. Jan Mulder (ELDR, Dutch) stressed that there was a growing number of agencies that have their own financial rules and their own discharge procedure. He urged for there to be a uniform model. Regarding the budgetary aspects of CFSP, he insisted that these should come under the control of the Parliament and called for conclusion of a new interinstitutional agreement so that Council CFSP spending might be controlled. Speaking for the Greens, German member Heide Rühle also took a stance in favour of separating administrative spending and the political groups and called on the Council to adopt the statute of the European political parties as soon as possible. Rijk van Dam (EDD, NL) found it particularly shocking that each Parliament session costs EUR 11.2 million, simply, he said, to flatter the ego of a single Member State. He therefore suggests that this Member State pay the bill. Jean-Louis Bourlanges (EPP-ED, France) advised that ESC discharge should not be refused twice in a row, given that a reform effort had been made.