Strasbourg, 14/11/2006 (Agence Europe) - In Strasbourg on 14 November, MEPs once again expressed their disappointment on reading the latest Court of Auditors' report, which still does not grant a positive Statement of Assurance (SOA) for the totality of expenditure from the EU budget (see EUROPE 9293). They called on the European Commission and Member States to assume responsibility for this failure and to take the necessary measures to improve control of Community funds.
Hubert Weber, President of the European Court of Auditors, pointed out that the Court considers the majority of the EU budget in 2005 continued to be characterised by “material errors of legality and regularity in the underlying transactions”. The Court also gave a qualified opinion in the areas of agriculture, structural measures, internal policies and external action. Mr Weber said the investigation showed the weakness of the EU's internal expenditure controls. The Court condemned Member States' insufficient controls in payments under shared management - agriculture and structural measures - and noted also that “the Commission has failed to lead by example in respect of directly managed EU expenditure” (internal policies and external action).
In substance, the Commission believed the errors picked up by the Court were not of great importance since the various multi-annual correction mechanisms detect and correct errors and irregularities when the programmes are finalised. Mr Weber, however, said that the work of the Court showed that in practice “these corrections are insufficient and are not directed towards final beneficiaries in all areas”. Furthermore, the Court brought to light “many weaknesses” in recovery procedures for agricultural spending and for structural actions. Mr Weber announced that a meeting of the Contact Committee of the Heads of the Supreme Audit Institutions would take place next month in Warsaw. The Court intends to propose extending current cooperation to cover assessment of internal control systems in the Member States. The Commission and MEPs welcomed this event.
Siim Kallas, the Commissioner responsible for budgetary discharge, admitted that the Commission deserved the criticism of the Court on controls in the research programme area. He tried to defend the Commission against statements, particularly in the press, that the EU budget was fraud-stained. “The figures show that some 13-15% of irregularities notified are cases of suspected fraud. This corresponds to 0.05% of agricultural spending and 0.53% of structural and cohesion funds”. Mr Kallas criticised the Court for failing to assess the impact of errors detected, and for focussing only on the statement of errors. He then stressed that the Commission would study carefully the “interesting” report from the UK House of Lords recommending that the Court “should distinguish clearly between irregularity and fraud … listing those Member States demonstrating poor management of European funds”. In response to questions from MEPs, Mr Kallas pointed out that the Commission was doing all in its power to encourage Member States to improve controls, and particularly to obtain from them a statement (at national level) on the reliability of the Community appropriations they manage. He acknowledged the commitments already made by Member States to provide summaries of audits and statements in the areas of structural funds and agriculture.
Salvador Garriga Polledo (EPP-ED, Spain) said that his group did not want to see this Court report become an “object of scandal”, but rather as an instrument which would allow improvement in public accounting. On behalf of his group, Bart Staes (Greens/EFA, Belgium) said he was “shocked” by the Commission's attitude, consisting of questioning some of the Court's arguments. He pointed out that Mr Kallas had undertaken to receive a positive SOA before the end of this Commission's term, that was, by 2009 at the latest, yet the Court's criticisms remained virtually the same. Kartika Liotard (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) also reproached Mr Kallas for attacking the Court's “exaggeratedly critical” attitude. Noting that errors had been picked up particularly in agriculture, Nils Lundgren (IND/DEM, Sweden) argued for the break up of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Daniel Caspary (CDU) felt that controls had to be introduced in new areas, such as the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the buildings policy of some small institutions (Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee and Court of Justice). Szabolcs Fazakas (PES, Hungary) was more indulgent towards the Commission, pointing out that a positive SOA given that 80% of expenditure was under shared management with Member States. José Javier Pomés Ruiz (EPP-ED, Spain) called on the Court to name those Member States which did things well and those which didn't. Herbert Bösch (PES, Austria) reproached the Commission for wanting to flee its responsibilities, when the Treaty clearly said, as Mr Weber had pointed out, that he Commission had to ensure that internal control systems were in place and that they work effectively at all levels of administration in the EU. “You have to begin to assume your responsibilities, Mr Kallas, otherwise, it means you are not in the right place,” Mr Bösch concluded. (lc)
Plenary session of the European Parliament (end)