Europees Parlement over begroting: betere controle op structuurfondsen en eigen positie bekeken(en)

The European Parliament i signed off the accounts of all the EU's institutions and agencies for the financial year 2006. However, it is also calling for the creation of a joint Parliament-Commission group to monitor the Commission's i supervision of the structural funds and certain other matters.

Parliament welcomes the commitment by the Commission to give a monthly report in the Committee in charge of the implementation of the 2006 discharge follow up where every month one Commissioner in charge will present the development in his/her area of responsibility, covering national declarations, annual summaries and the EU's external activities. 

The EP rapporteur on the Commission's 2006 discharge, Dan Jorgensen (PES, DK), the decision to grant discharge to the Commission was adopted by 582 votes in favour 77 against and 18 abstentions.

Structural Funds: a practical solution

The proposal to monitor (on a quarterly basis) the Commission's own action plan on better supervision of the structural funds provides a practical solution to the thorny issue of the management of these funds, the key issue in this year's procedure.

MEPs regard as "a major achievement" the Commission's undertaking "to correct all individual errors found in the Court's annual report on 2006" with the commitment to make 100% corrections in all cases of "serious breaches of public procedure". However, MEPs also want the Commission to present "objective, clear and full information on its capacity to recover unduly paid monies".

In addition, the Parliament welcomes the fact that as a result of the 2006 discharge the Commission has "finally committed itself to apply a policy of suspending payments as soon as possible following the detection of serious weaknesses in the system".

"Firm support" for national management declarations welcomed

Another important issue is national management declarations, which represent a major innovation in the management of Community funds and are already used in a number of Member States (Netherlands, Denmark, United Kingdom and Sweden). 

The European Parliament is critical of what it sees as the Commission's hitherto "tacit acceptance of Member States' collective irresponsibility" (with the exception of the above four countries) concerning the EU's financial management. However, it welcomes the "firm political support" now given by the Commission for such declarations, although it says the Commission should encourage them more strongly

External activity: one final effort

The European Parliament believes the management of the Community's external aid raises numerous questions. It considers that, following this discharge procedure, the Commission is showing increasing awareness of the importance of the transparency and visibility of external aid (of all kinds, whether managed by the Commission or jointly managed via international partners.

MEPs accept the Commission's proposal to discuss the matter of a definition for non-governmental organisations following the results of the Court of Auditors' ongoing audit of NGOs (announced as part of the court's work programme for 2008). Lastly, they say EU external aid should be more visible on the ground and more accessible to audit activities in cases of joint management of aid, in particular with the United Nations.

EP discharge - in line with the Bureau's recommendations

MEPs also approved that the European Parliament be granted its discharge for 2006 with 597 votes in favour 50 against and 40 abstentions.

Among key points of the 2006 Parliament discharge (rapporteur: Javier Pomes Ruiz, EPP-ED, ES), the question of Members' own administrative expenditure was the subject of a number of amendments, one of which (a compromise) welcomes the decisions of the Conference of Presidents and the Bureau on this matter. The House believes that the working party on the Members' statute, the assistants' statute and the pension fund (set up following the decisions of those senior EP bodies) should include a member (yet to be designated) of the Budgetary Control Committee.

Parliament also point out that assistance to Members calls for flexibility and mobility, while the new statute for assistants should set minimum standards for pay and social rights in conformity with applicable European legislation.

In this connection, shortly before the vote on the 2006 EP discharge, Vice-President Martine Roure (PES, FR), who chairs the working party on the Members' statute and assistants, urged MEPs to give her their "full support" in finding a solution to this matter.

MEPs not to employ family members

The House says that service providers must be paid [when fulfilling a contract for an MEP] by a payment agency based in their own Member State, and that MEPs may not employ members of their family.

Voluntary pension fund

The House also says it is "surprised" at the recommendation by the Conference of Presidents of 13 March 2008 that MEPs be allowed to acquire new pension entitlements under the voluntary pension fund following the entry into force of the new Members' statute. The discharge resolutions for 2004 and 2005 had stressed that this fund's activities should be limited, from the start of the next term, to making payments for entitlements already acquired. For this reason, the European Parliament insists that the Working Group (of the Bureau) on the Members' Statues should respect the decisions taken by Parliament.

Discharge - a political process

The European Parliament also uses its resolution to stress the political nature of the discharge voted by Parliament. In this context, it aims for both:

closer cooperation between Parliament's Bureau and the Budgetary Control Committee; and better linkage between the budget setting procedure and the discharge process.

Finally, the House welcomes and supports "the firm commitment of [Parliament's] President to ensure the statute for assistants enters force at the same time as the new Members' Statute."

United Kingdom and Ireland

The European Parliament's report urges the Commission to improve checks in the UK "which did not comply with Community legislation when allocating entitlements and paying Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and rural development aid to landlords for land let to and farmed by lessee farmers". It also calls for better checks in some Member States (Austria, Ireland and the UK) "who have failed to correctly apply certain key elements of the SPS and extended consolidation of entitlements beyond the provisions of the regulation".

Budget discharge: background

The purpose of the budget discharge procedure is to enable Parliament to make a political appraisal of how the EU budget has been spent and to recommend improvements.

The procedure begins each year at the EP when the Court of Auditors presents its Annual Report. Parliament then embarks on its own assessment of the way the budget was used. MEPs seek to ensure that any problems flagged up by the Court of Auditors or in investigations by the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) are given political prominence and remedied by improvements in the system.

Parliament's Rules of Procedure say the House may invite Parliament to grant, postpone or refuse discharge in respect of implementation of the budget. This enables MEPs to express their approval or disapproval of the way EU funds have been spent. The Commission must act upon any comments or recommendations in Parliament's resolution.

By granting a discharge through a resolution voted in April, Parliament approves the implementation of the budget in respect of the relevant financial year.

If Parliament concludes that there are serious issues to be addressed, it will postpone the granting of discharge. The Commission then has to take swift action to remedy the problems.

A refusal to grant discharge has no legal consequences but may be regarded as a serious political sanction. This has happened twice in the past twenty years, first in 1984 and then in December 1998, in the latter case leading to the resignation of the Santer Commission on 15 March 1999.

The discharge decision regarding the general budget managed by the Commission concerns by far the largest share of the EU budget, which goes to finance EU policies in the Member States. However, some 80-85% of EU funds are managed and monitored primarily by national and local administrations, under a system of "shared management" with the Commission. Only a small part of the budget is managed directly by the Commission itself.

The rapporteurs for the 2006 discharge are:

Dan JORGENSEN (Pes, DK) - Section III Commission

José Javier POMÉS RUIZ (EPP-ED, ES) - Section I - Parliament

Nils LUNDGREN (IND/DEM, SE) - Other Institutions

Christofer FJELLNER (EPP-ED, SE) - European Development Funds

Hans-Peter MARTIN (NI, AT) - Agencies