44 Amendments of Markus PIEPER related to 2013/2195(DEC)
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1
Heading 1
Agricultural and regional policy, subject to political approval - management shortcomings on the part of the Commission and Member States
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission in view of repeated error concentration in a few Member States, to assume greater and more substantial responsibility for safeguarding the EU budget against financial losses;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b
Paragraph 5 – point b
(b) further suspend payments and halt programmes, if legally possible, in cases where serious shortcomings have occurred,
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Welcomes the Commission communication on the protection of the EU budget, which for the first time gives an overview of the situation regarding financial adjustments in the individual Member States, while calling for a more detailed annual assessment of the situation in each of them, indicating how much money could actually be channelled back into the EU budget;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. NotesWelcomes the fact that, in the new programming period 2014-2020, net financial corrections can be imposed in the event of serious shortcomings in the implementation of cohesion policy;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the effectiveness of this instrument alsofor cohesion policy cannot yet be assessed because its application depends on the drafting and adoption of a delegated act;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes furthermore that the audit reports of the Member States, on which the Commission’s risk analysisdeclaration of assurance is based, are themselves often faulty and therefore, underestimate the level of risk and error and are therefore partially unreliable87a; notes furthermore that the Court of Auditors only recently confirmed that ‘(…) the European Commission cannot unquestioningly rely on the results of audits performed by the Member States in relation to EU regional funding appropriations’88 ; __________________ 87a Commission Staff Working Document – Summary of Executive Summaries Internal Audit Engagements finalised by the IAS in 2012 (SWD(2013)0314 final), p. 22 ff as well as Annual Activity Report of the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, p. 6.; 88 Press release ECA/13/47 of the Court of Auditors on Special Report 16/2013 on the ’single audit’, 18 December 2013.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. underlines that Parliament only delivers political reservation for areas for which it has not received adequate assurance from the Commission and/or the Court of Auditors to refute its concerns, deems it a priority that the Commission proves to Parliament in the case of a political reservation in which way convincing remedial measures has been taken to overcome the latter's concerns;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Cnotes that the Commission reports the errors in the LPIS in France and Portugal since 2006; notes that before 2010 no own initiative action plan had been initiated in these countries; criticises the fact that "action plans" instigated by the Commission have only started in 2010 for Portugal and as late as in 2013 for France; considers that the way in which the Commission addresses the deficiencies detected in the LPIS systems (excessively long conformity procedures leading to the flat-rate corrections with delayed action plans and reservations in the annual activity reports) could creates a financial risk to the budget of the European Union;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat-rate corrections by the Member States, the errors detected in 2006 in France and Portugalby the Court of Auditors in France and Portugal and confirmed by the Commission in 2008 were still not fully remedied in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlights that European tax-payers’ money has been paid to final beneficiaries without a legal basis and without being recovered; is concerned about the EU budget because of failure to make the financial corrections in respect of mistakenly disbursed amounts in the years from 2008 to 2013 in France and from 2010 to 2013 in Portugal arising from continuing errors in the LPIS, which were discovered in 2006; notes, however that the Commission applied net financial corrections as early as 2008 in France and 2010 in Portugal; calls on the Commission to offset the entire financial risk of such errors in the EU budget through net corrections;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Observes that the conformity clearance procedures take far too long to protect the EU budget effectively; regrets the administrative capacities that have been frozen for years and the loss in revenue and interest to the EU budget;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Notes that the DG AGRI Director- General identified in his Annual Activity Report weaknesses and errors; specifies the Parliaments political reservation in the area of agriculture to: - Reservation concerning serious deficiencies in direct payments in Portugal, Bulgaria and France; - Reservation concerning rural development expenditure; - Reservation concerning deficiencies in the supervision and control of organic production. acknowledges that the identification of reservations is the first step for achieving concrete improvement.
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Observes that there is no evidence that thboth the Court of Auditors and the Commission consider, based upon their audits, that some audit authorities of some Member States are not carrying out their audits with the requisite thoroughness and that it is not sufficiently apparent whether and in what respect they are permanently improving their supervisory and control systems; stresses the inherent risk involved as the Commission depends heavily on Member States audit authorities;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Observes that the Commission does not conduct enough random sample audits of its own at national audimanagement authorities and final beneficiaries;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Notes that the DG REGIO Director- General identified in his Annual Activity Report weaknesses and errors; specifies the Parliaments political reservation in the area of regional policy to: - The ERDF/Cohesion Fund expenditure from the 2007-2013 programming period disbursed within the 75 Operational Programmes in 16 Member States 1a as the Commission itself maintains full or partial reservations for those programs; - 12 European Territorial Cooperation Programmes 1bas the Commission itself maintains a reservation; - The ERDF/Cohesion Fund expenditure from the 2000-2006 programming period channelled through Paying Agencies in Spain, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania as the Commission itself maintains 9 reservations for ERDF Operational Programmes and 2 reservations for the Cohesion Fund; - The ESF expenditure from the 2007- 2013 programming period channelled through the Paying Agencies in Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Romania; acknowledges that the identification of reservations is the first step for achieving concrete improvement; __________________ 1a Austria (5 OPs and 3 OPs reputational), Belgium (2 OP), Czech Republic (4 OPs, 2 OPs partial and 3 OPs reputational), Germany (1 OP, 2 OPs partial and 1 OP reputational), Estonia (1 OP reputational), Spain (18 OPs partial and 4 OPs reputational), France (1 OP), Greece (1 OP reputational), Hungary (3 OP), Italy (4 OPs, 2 OPs partial), Poland (1 OP), Romania (3 OPs), Sweden (3 OPs partial and 5 OPs reputational), Slovenia (2 OPs), Slovakia (1 OP), , United Kingdom (1 OP and 1 OP reputational). 1b 7 OPs, 3 OPs partial and 2 reputational OPs, involving Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the North Sea Region, Central Europe, the Adriatic Cross Border Programme and the Alpine Space.
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission, in the field of agricultural policy, for conformity clearance procedures to be completed in less than two years as anticipated in its indicative benchmarks almost 20 years ago;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24a. Takes the view that recurrent land parcel identification shortcomings must be met by progressively increasing corrective penalties well beyond existing net and flat-rate corrections; calls for a Commission proposal along these lines;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Calls on the Commission to identify in this communication on shared fund management the three Member States with the highest error rates and financial corrections, which will subsequently receive a hearing from the discharge authority as part of the discharge procedure;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Regards the newly elected Parliament as being in a position to investigate theindividual reservations in the fields of agriculture and regional policy and lift them if appropriate progress is made;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Requests that the next Parliament follow up on the remedial measures referred to under points [22-30] and to ensure that the designated members of the new Commission commit formally, during their hearing, to implement these remedial measures in full and within the defined timeframe; considers those binding commitments of the Commission as a prerequisite to grant the next discharge without reservations; ([22 - 30] refer to text under subheading 'measures to be taken' and is intended to be dynamic, should be adjusted to relevant points after adoption of amendments)
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Welcomes the fact that the Commission succeeded in rapidly imposing a significant number o financial corrections in 2012 whilst many financial corrections are in general made many years after initial disbursement of funds; is critical of the fact that the EU budget incurs additional administrative costs and losses of revenue and interest due to excessively protracted procedures, thereby blocking budget resources;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Takes note that 142 directors-general and two directors of executive agencies made a total of 23 quantified reservations related to the expenditure and that the Director-General of DG Budget qualified his declaration on revenue;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Points out that, as the Commission quantifies the amount at risk at between 1.,9 % (EUR 2.,6 billion) and 2.,6 % (EUR 3.,5 billion) of total payments for the year, it acknowledges that the level of error in expenditure is likely to be material, especially since the Commission itself states that amounts at risk in a number of areas, in particular rural development, are likely to be underestimated; urges the Commission to adequately protect the Union budget and finds the average level of past financial corrections and recoveries encouraging ;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Deplores the fact thatStresses that the authorities of the Member States for the majority of transactions affected by error in shared management areas (e.g. agriculture and cohesion), the Member State authorities had sufficient information to detect and correct the errors; therefore, once again requests the Member States to urgently reinforce the primary controls to address this unacceptably high level of mismanagement; moreover, calls on the Commission to shield the Union budget from the resulting risk of irregular payment by applying financial corrections in the event that such weaknesses in Member States' management and control systems are found; calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission once again to urgently reinforce first-level checks to address this unacceptably high level of mismanagement;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)
Paragraph 75 a (new)
75a. Calls for the Council to adopt a more critical position on the discharge and the ultimate use made of European tax revenue in the Member States, and welcomes in this connection the critical stance taken by Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands on the discharge for 2012; endorses the calls for voluntary national management declarations;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Heading 2 a (new)
Heading 2 a (new)
The Council discharge recommendations
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75 a (new)
Paragraph 75 a (new)
75a. Requests that the Council report on the implementation of the remedial measures falling under the Member States' responsibility, at the same time it adopts its next discharge recommendation;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. In particular, points out that the most frequent accuracy errors relate to over-stated area declarations of land and to administrative errors, and that the larbigger accuracy errors relate mostly to excessive payments for permanent pasturegrassland; regrets that overdeclarations in the cross- checks of declared parcels withon the basis of the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) failed to detect over-declarations because the LPIS database is only reliable to a limited extentin certain Member States have not been discovered since the LPIS database is only partially reliable;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. NotesPoints out that the Court of Auditors also takes accounts of breaches ofincludes deficiencies in the area of the cross-compliance in their calculation of the error rate while noting that, in the view of the Commission, cross- compliance requirements in calculating the error ratedoes not concern the eligibility to payments but only triggers administrative penalties98 ; __________________ 98 Footnote 15, point 3.9 of the annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2012.
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Deplores the fact that the results of this new approach confirm that only limited assurance can be gained from thecertain Member States’ inspection statistics, from the declarations of the directors of paying agencies and from the work carried out by the certification bodies;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. Shares the concern voiced by the Court of Auditors as regards the length of theslowness of conformity procedure leading to thes resulting in financial corrections (paragraph 4.31 of the annual report of the ECA for 2012) and deeply deploregrets the fact that a sample of conformity procedures showed that in 2012 the actual time, duration (more than four years,) was twice that set down inas long as the Commission's internal guidelines, resulting in a considerable backlog and therefore ultimately substantial losses to the EU budgetbenchmark, which therefore ultimately led to a considerable backlog; takes note of the fact that the contradictory procedure, the conciliation mechanism and the for calculation of corrections makes it difficult to close conformity clearance procedures in time; expects the Commission to make all efforts to reduce the duration of the conformity procedure in standard cases to maximum two years101 ; __________________ 101 See also the answer to Written Question No 12 to Commissioner Cioloş, hearing of 17 December 2013: average duration of audits with financial corrections after conciliation procedure 1124 days.
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has increased the total amount of financial corrections in recent years whilst reducing the proportion of flat-rate corrections significantly in 2012; recognises at the same time that flat-rate corrections, under certain circumstances, can also be an appropriate means to protect the Union budget
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Stresses that this assertion makes it difficult for justifies that the discharge authority requires formal commitments withe budgetary authority to reach objective conclusions as to whether or not to grant the discharge;inding requirements and deadlines for the Commission and certain Member States to implement in full all remedial measures referred to under points [22-30], leading to a reduction of the error rates in the future; ([22 - 30] refers to text under subheading 'measures to be taken' and is intended to be dynamic and should be adjusted to relevant points after adoption of amendments)
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat- rate corrections, the errors detected by the Court of Auditors in 2006 in France and Portugal and confirmed by the Commission in 2008 were still not fully remedied by the Member States in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlight; is concerned about the EU budget, since financial corrections that European tax-payers’ money has been paid to final beneficiaries without a legal basis and without being recoveredve not yet been made for wrongly paid appropriations between 2008 and 2013 in France and between 2010 and 2013 in Portugal, as a result of persistent errors in the LPIS that were detected in 2006; notes, however, that the Commission has already applied net financial corrections in both Member States, in 2008 in France and 2010 in Portugal; calls on the Commission to cover the entire financial risk of such errors in the EU budget through net corrections, and to make higher recovery claims in the event of recurrent problems;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
Paragraph 135
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. For this reason, and in the light of the Commission's reservations [paragraph 18a new], reserves its position as regards the regularity of transactions and the effectiveness of systems inpecific instruments of the common agricultural policy (direct payments and rural developments); will lifcalls on the next Parliament to demand that thise reservation only on the basis of a commitment to fully protect the budget of the European Union given by the relevant Commissioners-designate during the parliamentary hearing preceding their appointmenlevant candidates for the post of Member of the Commission give a binding commitment at their parliamentary hearings to implement the measures listed in paragraphs [22-30]; expects the Commission to reach binding bilateral agreements with Member States which have attracted particular attention, along the lines of the European Semester; regards corresponding binding pledges by the future Commissioners as a precondition if it ais Members of the Commission in 2014 and on condition that convincing plans foto be able to grant the next discharge without reservations; ([22 - 30] refers to text under subheading 'measures to be taken' and is intended to be dynamic and should be adjusted to relevant points after adoing so are presented;ption of amendments [18 a new refers to amendment introduced on the reservations of DG AGRI])
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142
Paragraph 142
142. Observes that the Court audited the supervisory and control systems of four audit authorities in four countries, finding the systems in Belgium (Wallonia), Malta and the United Kingdom (England in the case of ESF) to be only partially effective, while it found the systems in Slovakia to be effective;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Regrets furthermore that the term ‘serious deficiency’, the discovery of which would lead to netcriteria for assessing the systems ("serious deficiencies") and for establishing the level of flat rate financial corrections, wasere not conclusively defined in the Regulation, but left to be fleshed out by a delegated act; now, however, has great expectations of the formulation and implementation of this act;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154 a (new)
Paragraph 154 a (new)
154a. Recognises that in the course of the discharge procedure a number of bilateral meetings have taken place between the rapporteur and the Commission on horizontal issues of the delegated act specifying further how "serious deficiencies" could be more clearly defined and on how financial corrections could be tightened in case of persisting serious deficiencies; regrets that the rapporteur's proposals on the level of financial corrections (adding a 50% and a 75% rate) were not taken into consideration; deplores that in the latest draft delegated act (of 4 February 2014) the initial automatism for inflicting financial corrections at a higher level, if the same serious deficiency is identified in a subsequent accounting year, has become optional and, as a consequence, the requirement for Member States to put in place supervisory and control systems guaranteeing sound financial management has been weakened;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
157. Reserves its final judgment of this policy sector in the light of the above considerationposition on the correct implementation of some sectors of the Structural Funds, particularly for the following reasons:
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 157 – point e a (new)
(ea) with regard to [Art. 21a] the reservations of DG REGIO ([21 a ] refers to new tabled Art. 21 a on the reservations of DG REGIO)
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 a (new)
Paragraph 158 a (new)
158a. Calls on the next Parliament to demand that the relevant candidates for the post of Member of the Commission give a binding commitment at their parliamentary hearings to implement the measures listed in paragraphs [22-30]; expects the Commission to reach binding bilateral agreements with Member States which have attracted particular attention, along the lines of the European Semester; regards corresponding binding pledges by the future Commissioners as a precondition if it is to be able to grant the next discharge without reservations; ([22 - 30] refers to text under subheading 'measures to be taken' and is intended to be dynamic and should be adjusted to relevant points after adoption of amendments)
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 169
Paragraph 169
169. Is very concerned that DG EMPL adjusted the error rate reported by the Member States in the case of 313 out of 117 annual audit reports for 2012 or dubbed them unreliable (in 2011 this had been the case for 42 of the 117 annual audit reports); considers this particular cause for concern because the Commission takes the opinions, the annual audit reports and the management declarations of the Member States as a basis for its risk analysis and for its own audits;