30 Amendments of Marta ANDREASEN related to 2008/2186(DEC)
Amendment 5 #
Paragraph 1
1. .........Postpones the decision to grant the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2008;
Amendment 18 #
Paragraph 1
1. ................Postpones approval of the closure of the accounts of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2008 for the reasons set out in, inter alia, points 1, 2, 5, 19 and 45 of the motion for a resolution that accompanies this decision;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Deplores the fact that the European Court of Auditors cannot state that the accounts are ‘true’ as the Court’s external auditor, Price Waterhouse, states about the Court’s accounts;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Expresses nonetheless its concern at the Court’s obreservations regarding weaknesses identified in certain bodies and Directorates-General of the Commission in the accounting system for invoices/cost statements and pre-financing which put at risk the quality of financial information, and considers such reservations to be critical for the European Parliament when considering discharge and approval of closure of the accounts;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets that the Statement of Assurance (DAS) still remains qualified iEuropean Court of Auditors gives an adverse opinion on extremely important Community spending areas of the budget for the 2008 financial year (Rural development, Structural measures, Research, energy and transport, External actions at the level of implementing organisations and Enlargement), where payments are still affected by large-scale material errors;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the Court’s assessment, made each year since the Maastricht Treaty, on how the Commission manages the EU funds has proven to be a useful tool for improving the management of these funds, and recognises that the Commission has made great efforts to improve management, albeit not enough to allow for a positive DAS after 15 years of promises of getting the accounts cleared;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Nevertheless, considers also that having only one global and annual assessment does not reflect the complex structure of the European Communities´ finances, and fFurther considers that to continue to have a negative annual assessment after 15 consecutive years may havehas negative repercussions amongst citizens who do not understand why the Court always gives a negative opinion;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned that outstanding budgetary commitments (unused commitments carried forward to be used in future years), mainly on multiannual programmes, increased in 2008 by EUR 16,4 billion (11,8 %) to EUR 155,0 billion (point 3.9 of the 2008 Annual Report), whilst acknowledging that this is due to delays in certain cases in the start-up phase of the new programmes while in others it reflects a poor budget planning process;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Draws attention to the first paragraph of Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which clearly provides that Member States are to cooperate with the Commission to ensure that the appropriations are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, and remains convinced that progress will be made by obtaining national management declarations covering all EU funds coming under shared management, as requested by Parliament in its last five annual discharge resolutions; considers, however, that such management declarations will not enable significant progress to be made unless the Commission exercises adequate controls before releasing payments;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Calls on the Commission to propose, within the framework of the review of the Financial Regulation, the obligation for Member States to issue national management declarations signed at an appropriate political level and certified by their national supreme audit body, as a means of administrative relief as well as improveding administration of funds under shared management;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Proposes that national audit bodies, in their capacity as independent external auditors, and with due regard for international audit standards, issue national audit certificates for the management of EU funds, which wshould be the basis ofnot be confused with national management declarations, as one is a declaration issued by the recipient of the funds and the other that of an auditor, with all the differences that this implies;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Notwithstanding the progressive improvement in the DAS since 2003 (5647 % of expenditure given the Court’s green light in 2008 compared to 6 % in 2003), remains concerned by the Court’s assessment that it is not yet possible to determine whether the Action Plan has had a measurable impact on the supervisory and control systems, and that the Commission is not able to demonstrate that the steps taken by it to improve supervisory and control systems have been effective in mitigating the risk of error in some areas of the budget (points 2.28 and 2.33 of the 2008 Annual Report);
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Believes that this will be a crucial tool for assessing what future improvements can be achieved and at what cost, as recommended by the Court in its 2008 Annual Report (point 2.35(a)), and for achieving progress on the question of tolerable risk of error; considers, however, that control on the use of taxpayers´ money should not be limited by the cost implication of any such control;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission communication of 16 December 2008 on a common understanding of the concept of tolerable risk of error as a sound methodological basis for an economic analysis of acceptable levels of risk, while insisting that any use of taxpayers’ money on ineligible programmes should be considered unacceptable;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recalls Action 4 of the above- mentioned Action Plan, which, in line with the recommendations of Parliament, proposes the initiation of ‘interinstitutional dialogue on risks to be tolerated in the underlying transactions’; notes, however, that implementation of this action has scarcely begun and that the risk is not to be confused with the actual level of error;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 61
Paragraph 61
61. Regrets that, in the 2008 Annual Report, the Court once again stresses that some of the annual activity reports still do not include sufficient evidence for its DAStie in with the conclusions arrived at by the Court from its own testing;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Expects the Commission to begin the process of consulting Parliament on revision of the present Code of Conduct of the Members of the Commission in accordance with the common understanding reached on 27 January 2010 between President José Manuel Barroso and Parliament’s Working Party on the revision of the Framework Agreement between the Parliament and the Commission, and to adopt the revised version of its Code of Conduct of the Members of the Commission by August 2010 at the latest, whilst observing that this revision should have been done prior to the appointment of the new Commission;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Reiterates the importance of taking into account Parliament’s first-reading position of 20 November 2008 on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), and wishes to re- emphasise that, for the future strength of OLAF, it should remain within the Commission whilst retaining its independencebe externalised as its present position within the Commission seriously compromises its independence in the eyes of all concerned, notably those of the taxpayer, who sees the Commission as judge and party, which is the reality of the situation;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Stresses its proposals regarding the profile of an appropriate candidate for the post of Director-General of OLAF, as contained in Parliament’s above- mentioned first-reading position of 20 November 2008; takes the view that the terms of the vacancy notice need to reflect this demand and stresses that the entire selection procedure needs to be carried out in an interinstitutional framework which fully respects Parliament’s prerogatives; points out that the said first-reading position should not impose any limitation on consideration of candidates possessing a strong understanding of financial flows and processes, a background which a magistrate or an investigator may not have and which is essential to be able to lead OLAF into areas of prevention and detection of fraud which should be its core functions;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
Paragraph 84
84. Regrets the Court’s finding concerning Rural Development expenditure, which is still affected by an unacceptably high level of errors, althougheven if the estimated error level was lower than in previous years;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 97
Paragraph 97
97. Is concerned that errors in the area of Cohesion funding indicate that at least 11 % of the total amount reimbursed should not have been paid out, with no improvement on 2007, and that, as in former years, the complexity of the system and the effects of shared management are clearly indicated as major problems, although they do not explain the high percentage of funds which have been wrongly paid; notes that the Commission has failed once again to simplify the rules;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
Paragraph 99
99. Notes that the Action Plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions, presented in 2008, was not fully implemented in 2008 and would not have remedied the main problem, namely that of over-complex rules combined with implementation requirements which differ from one Member State to another and sometimes even between different regions; stresses moreover that its impact cannot be assessed as errors committed in previous years are still affecting the expenditure reimbursed by the Commission, as the Court has rightly pointed out in its Annual Report (point 6.34);
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 104
Paragraph 104
104. Is concerned that, with the 2000-2006 programming period coming to an end, national authorities, under pressure to absorb all committed funds, may have submitted an increasing number of unforeseen projects; stresses the need to ensure that this situation will not be repeated in the current programming period and calls on the Commission to strictly apply corrective and dissuasive measures (suspensions of payments and financial corrections) against Member States where appropriatenot to encourage such policy;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
112. Welcomes theDeplores the fact that there has been only a slight reduction in errors compared to previous years for this policy group as; wellcomes the improvement concerning late payments, the Court having found that the Commission considerably improved its performance in 2008 in making timely payments to beneficiaries;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 117
Paragraph 117
117. Is concerned that the EU’s public image may suffer as a result of the stakeholders’ realisation that stricter control systems are applied to the agricultural domain than to research implementation, which is not under shared management;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the implementation of EU policies is characterised by the ‘shared management’ of the Community budget by the Commission and the Member States, under which 80 % of Community expenditure is administercorresponds to programmes implemented by the Member States,
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas improvement of the financial management in the Union must be supported by a close monitoring of progress in the Commission and in the Member States, and whereas Member States should assume responsibility in cooperation with the Commission for the management of EU funds, ensuring the completion of an EU integrated internal control framework with the aim of obtaining a positive Statement of Assurance (DAS),
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgets should take due account of the 2008 discharge results and recommendations during the next budgetary procedure – a process that did not occur in respect of the 2007 discharge,