The Committee on Budgetary
Control adopted the report by Hans-Peter MARTIN (NI, AT) recommending
that the Parliament grant the Director of the European Training Foundation discharge
in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2006.
The parliamentary committee notes
that the final annual accounts of the Foundation are as annexed to the Court
of Auditors' report.
MEPs make a series of general
comments on the agencies of the EU before referring to the specific case of
the European Training Foundation.
1. General comments on the
majority of EU agencies: MEPs note that the budgets of the 24 agencies
and other satellite bodies audited by the Court of Auditors totalled more
than EUR 1 billion and that the number of agencies is constantly
increasing. The number of agencies subject to the discharge procedure evolved
from 8 in 2000 to 20 in 2006. They conclude therefore that the auditing/discharge
process has become cumbersome and disproportionate compared to the relative
size of the agencies and that, in the future, this type of procedure should
be simplified and rationalised for decentralised agencies.
On the basis of the financial
analysis, MEPs are of the following opinion:
- Fundamental considerations:
given the constantly increasing number of agencies, MEPs request that, before
the creation of a new agency, the Commission provide clear explanations
regarding agency type, objectives of the agency, internal governance
structure, products, services, clients and stakeholders of the agency,
formal relationship with external actors, budget responsibility,
financial planning, and personnel and staffing policy. They also request
that each agency be governed by a yearly performance agreement which
should contain the main objectives for the coming year and that the
performance of the agencies be regularly audited by the Court of
Auditors (and extend the financial analysis of expenditure to also cover
administrative efficiency and effectiveness). More generally, MEPs take
the view that, in the case of agencies which are continually
overestimating their respective budget needs, technical abatement should
be made on the basis of vacant posts in order to reduce the assigned
revenue for the agencies and therefore also lower administrative costs
of the EU. They recall that it is a serious problem that a number of
agencies is criticised for not following rules on public procurement,
the Financial Regulation, the Staff Regulations etc., and consider that
the principal reason for this is that most regulations and the Financial
Regulation are designed for bigger institutions rather than for small
agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to seek a rapid solution in order
to enhance the effectiveness of the legislation by grouping the
administrative functions of various agencies together or by establishing
implementing rules which are better adapted to the agencies. MEPs also
insist that the Commission, when drafting the Preliminary Draft Budget,
take into consideration the results of budget implementation by the
individual agencies in former years and revise the budget requested by
the particular agency accordingly. If this revision is not undertaken is
not undertaken by the Commission, MEPs invite the competent committee to
revise, itself, the budget in question to a realistic level. At the same
time, MEPs recall that they expect the Commission to present every five
years a study on the added value of every existing agency and to not
hesitate to close an agency if it is deemed useless by the analysis.
Such an assessment is expected as soon as possible given that this type
of assessment has yet to be presented. Furthermore, MEPs insist that
recommendations of the Court of Auditors should be promptly implemented
and the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be aligned with
their real cash requirements.
- Presentation of reporting
data: noting that there is no standard approach among the agencies
with regard to the presentation of information, MEPs recall that they
already invitedthe directors of the agencies to accompany their
annual activity report with a declaration of assurance concerning the
legality and regularity of operations, similar to the declarations
signed by the Directors General of the Commission. They therefore ask
the Commission to amend its standing instructions to the agencies and to
produce a harmonised model for presenting information, including: i) an
annual report intended for a general readership on the body's
operations, work and achievements; ii) financial statements and a report
on implementation of the agency’s budget; iii) an activity report of the
Directors of the agency (as requested by the Parliament since 2005); iv)
a declaration of assurance signed by the body's director.
- General findings by the
Court of Auditors: MEPs refer to certain recurring findings by the
Court, including the disbursement of subsidies paid by the Commission (not
sufficiently justified estimates of the agencies' cash requirements),
the non implementation of the ABAC accounting system by some agencies or
the accrued charges for untaken leave which are accounted for by some
agencies. They call for rapid measures in these areas as well as
improvements to the internal audit procedures of the agencies. MEPs also
calls on the agencies to consider an inter-agency disciplinary board, as
some individual agencies have difficulty in setting up their own
disciplinary boards due to their size.
- Draft inter-institutional
agreement: MEPs recall the Commission's draft Interinstitutional
agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory
agencies (see ACI/2005/2035),
which intended to create a framework for the creation, structure,
operation, evaluation and control of the European regulatory agencies
and insist that it be completed as soon as possible. They particularly
welcome the Commission's commitment to bring forward a Communication on
the future of the regulatory agencies during the course of 2008.
2. Specific points
concerning the European Training Foundation: while MEPs express their
satisfaction at the proper implementation of the Foundation’s budget for the
financial year 2006, they regret the poor presentation of the Foundation’s
accounts. They express surprise that the Court's report makes no reference to
the fact that the Director's declaration of assurance was made subject to
reservations (including in terms of financial management of the Tempus
convention or, more generally, the possible reputation of Tempus technical
assistance in the Foundation).
At the same time, MEPs note
that two MEDA and TEMPUS multiannual contracts entered into in 2004 were
incorrectly listed in the total revenue amount of the budget. Furthermore,
they note the inclusion in the balance sheet of an "occupational
right" valued at EUR 5 million (corresponding to a contribution to the
cost of reconstructing a building), and EUR 12 million in bank accounts.
Lastly, MEPs note the statement
in the Foundation's annual activity report concerning the applicability to
agencies of the Staff Regulations and Financial Regulation that:
- by limiting standard
recruitment grades, the Staff Regulations do not cater for the
recruitment needs of specialist agencies;
- the Financial Regulation is
not necessarily appropriate for a small agency such as the Foundation
that manages funds from different sources and executes its activities
through relatively small transactions in partner countries which may
have high levels of corruption.