Kallas heeft vragen aan Jan Mulder over zijn rapport inzake de kwijting van de EU-begroting over 2004 (en)

COCOBU

Brussels, 22 February 2006

I'm grateful for the kind welcome. I'm always pleased to come to COCOBU. I take our common work very seriously. I try to be open and frank - also today, in my reaction to Jan Mulder's draft report. The Commission welcomes the proposal to grant discharge for 2004. Thank you! Overall, the Commission can draw satisfaction from the messages in the report. Some will improve our management. Others are being implemented already.

But one key point needs to be clarified; it concerns the Parliament's proposed reaction to our Action Plan. I hope you agree that we have worked together well to clarify what we must do to get a positive DAS. I took last year's discharge resolution, drafted by Mr Wynn, as the starting point for my Road Map. Over the summer, the Commission worked with its DGs, with the Court and with Member States to assess the gaps between the current situation and a credible system.

I defended our main ideas in Council, and we got Council conclusions in November. These conclusions are not perfect. But we can work with them. On the basis of all this, the Commission adopted an Action Plan in January. The 16 actions in the Action Plan are meant to be a definite list of things "to do", based on last year's discharge resolution, adapted to Council's reactions.

The action plan is addressed to the Commission, Parliament, Council and the Member States, and Court of Auditors. I had hoped this year's discussion would focus on the 16 points. I do see implicit support for in various paragraphs. But my question is this: What does paragraph 19 mean when it "notes" the 16 concrete actions and then underlines that an ex-ante approval of the efforts and the intentions in the form of an "agreement" or "convergence of positions" by the European Parliament is in contradiction with its role as independent discharge authority and that it as such only can judge the Commission ex-post on the achieved results." ??

To me, this could mean:

Either that you only " note " the Action Plan, because you don't think it fairly represent the outcome of our discussions, with Council, over the last year? If so, what have we missed?

Or are you saying that with or without the Action Plan, the "independent discharge authority" will decide on discharge each year, and not give a guarantee. If so, I think I can understand. But then I would very much like to see concrete support for the Action plan's 16 actions. And you could then add that this obviously does not prejudge the result of the annual discharge process. This is the sort of caveat we usually hear from the Court, but OK....

In either case, I hope you're not saying that the European Parliament will not be party to any political understanding with the Council and Commission on this issue?

If so, how could we expect to get any commitments from Council on what Member States should do?

I can tell you that the Council would rather be without the Action Plan. A part from three Member States [UK, NL and DK], Council thinks the November conclusions would be sufficient as their first and last general contribution to putting in place an overall system for sound financial management. Their interest in this topic is not overwhelming.

As you know, the Commission cannot alone ensure the conditions for getting a positive DAS. I would therefore welcome if you could clarify the language in paragraph 19 and relate specifically to the Action Plan throughout the resolution.

A working document of the Commission services commenting on the motion for a resolution is available for Members to help you in your reflections. I look forward to hearing your comments. Thank you!

Contingency points

Parliament and Council adopt the laws that will govern programmes for the period 2007-2013. These laws contain provisions that can make control easy or difficult. The Commission has argued for simplification. I am happy to see the support of the rapporteur for simplification of the regulatory environment and hope that your colleagues in the specialised committees will support that line.

I welcome the proposal to include a new principle in the Financial Regulation on effective and efficient internal control.

A synthesis report prepared by a national authority of the assurances and control reports of paying agencies in each sector would provide the counterpart to the Commission's treaty responsibility for the implementation of the budget.

The Commission's Synthesis Report is an act through which the Commission already exercises its political responsibility, by analysing the annual activity reports and their declarations and by adopting a position on major horizontal issues, including appropriate actions for issues requiring remedy at Commission level.

On the proposals on "signing off" by the Director General of the Budget, by the Secretary General and by the individual Commissioners: I would ask that Parliament does not try to impose a structure that the Commission believes is worse that what we have now, and will not provide the clarity that we both seek, nor will it bring us closer to achieving a positive DAS.

The Commission would have to consider the possibility of presenting a modified proposal of revision of the Financial Regulation, which will further develop the role of the Accounting Officer.

I welcome the support that the rapporteur gives to further embedding risk management in the Commission. We have to make more progress here.