Levendig debat over structuurfonds tussen EP-leden en nationale parlementariërs (en) - Hoofdinhoud

The errors identified in the use of €4 billion in EU structural fund money in 2006 gave rise to a lively debate at a meeting of members of the EP Budgetary Control Committee and their counterparts from national parliaments this week. As a result, the committee may hold another hearing of the European Commission in early 2008 to examine the management of the structural funds. This hearing will be crucial for the decision to be taken by MEPs on the 2006 discharge.

The management of the structural funds for 2006 was discussed in the first part of the joint meeting with national parliaments.  In its annual report the Court of Auditors had stated "with reasonable confidence" that around 12% of these funds, i.e. €4 billion, had been "reimbursed incorrectly" in 2006.

When the court's report was delivered on 12 November, Parliament's rapporteur on the discharge, Dan Jorgensen (PES, DK), warned "the questions raised regarding the management of the structural funds require clear answers. The European Commission must provide us with these answers or suffer the consequences at the 2006 discharge".

In her explanation, Commissioner Danuta Hübner assured MEPs that the measures taken by the Commission would enable the errors detected to be put right. She also stressed that the errors could often be attributed to national administrations but that, in the end, the recovery procedures reduced the final percentage of errors significantly.

This led to criticism of the court's methodology. Henri Grethen (Luxembourg parliament) asked "Why was the problem not clearly identified at an earlier stage?". The Commission replied that "sampling and projections" did not necessarily signify an error rate as high as 12%. For his part, Commissioner Spidla pointed out that "error" did not mean "fraud".

In response, the shadow rapporteur of the EPP-ED group, Alexander Stubb (FI), said it would be difficult for him to recommend granting of the discharge in spring 2008 if there were no clear answers on the structural funds. "At best, the discharge might be postponed", he warned, before calling for a new hearing of Commissioners Hübner and Spidla. The coordinators of the Budgetary Control Committee will discuss this request on 21 January.

The second part of the inter-parliamentary meeting examined closely the question of national declarations, an issue raised by MEPs during the last three discharge procedures.

In a colourful presentation, Jules Muis, head of internal audit at the Commission between 2001 and 2004, made a ringing speech in favour of national declarations (see link below).

He argued that such declarations could lead to major progress in the management of the Community's money.  A desire by Member States to emulate each other and a sense of responsibility fostered by the act of signing such declarations would lead to better management, according to Mr Muis. However, "they should be laid down in the treaties", he added.

Mr Muis twice urged Parliament to use its firepower, saying "How many more times will the EP accept modest progress and grant the discharge despite negative Statements of Assurance 13 years running?".

Feelings did not run so high among the national parliaments. For example, Donatas Jankauskas (Lithuanian Seimas) said "We must weigh the benefits against the costs and the red tape this would cause".  Jan Mulder (ALDE, NL) called for "more passion for the cause" from his national parliamentary counterparts.

The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which have started making national declarations, described their methods. Saskia Stuiveling, president of the Dutch Court of Auditors, said the declarations had created an image of "greater accountability and credibility" regarding EU funds.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts of the House of Commons, wanted more simplification of the rules governing EU expenditure delegated to the Member States, arguing "whoever says more rules, says more errors".

The EU Court of Auditors, represented by Vítor Silva Caldeira, voiced reservations as to the national declarations, while Brian Gray, chief accounting officer at the Commission, thought that the existence of "around 1000 payment bodies for the structural funds" meant that not everything could be supervised. He added that "errors are above all the responsibility of the beneficiaries who apply for payments".

"Things have to move", concluded Dan Jorgensen. Although some progress had been made, clear answers were still needed, especially regarding the structural funds. Mr Jorgensen echoed Mr Stubb's call for a second hearing to be held on this subject in the next few months.

The last word was spoken by the chair of the EP Budgetary Control Committee, Herbert Bösch (PES, AT), who said "Colleagues from the national parliaments, go back and ask your finance ministries what they will have to say about the €4 billion in structural fund money which is the subject of errors!".

18/12/2007

Committee on Budgetary Control

Chair : Herbert Bösch (PES, AT)