kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
i think that the good example of the private sector should be followed and earlier deadlines set for the publication of the relevant documents.
too often the remarks we receive from the auditors are already old news by the time we get our hands on them and too often we are discussing matters that are already gone and taking positions on issues that are no more. there is a definite need for an accelerated procedure. the discharge has to be streamlined towards n one
and we need all stakeholders involved in this.
controls and checks can guide eu policies towards a more effective efficient and economic direction but we need decent tools and appropriate timelines to achieve this.
we will need interinstitutional cooperation to make this happen.
the council also stresses the fact that controls are not without cost taking into account the complexity of policies and programmes.
therefore we call on the commission to anticipate an orderly disbursement of payments in order to avoid any shortage of appropriations.
the council calls upon both the commission and the member states to implement the council's recommendations.
this will require from all institutions and stakeholders a more careful management of eu funds as well as better forecasting of long term funding requirements.
one must recognise what has already been achieved and in this context the council appreciates the efforts and actions taken by the commission and the member states.
the council is concerned about the court's observation that the outstanding commitments are increasing.
two thousand and sixteen this positive result is particularly relevant as market and direct support represents three quarters of the expenditure of the heading.
in this context the council regrets that not all actors involved made full use of the available information to prevent detect and correct a significant proportion of the errors. this could have substantially reduced the estimated level of error bringing it closer to the materiality threshold across all chapters of expenditure.
the commission should apply preventive measures such as interruption and suspension of payments strictly in line with the relevant rules.
the efficient use of eu funds in full respect of the principle of sound financial management is of utmost importance.
additionally the council welcomes the gradual reduction of the overall estimated level of error reported by the court during the last years.
the delivery of good results is particularly important.
we reached a political agreement on the revision of the financial regulation three weeks ago and this revision should have a positive impact. i would like to emphasise that prevention is always better than correction.
it calls on the commission to continue monitoring this matter and to ensure an orderly balance between commitment and payment appropriations. the council takes note of the court's observation on the increasing financial exposure of the eu budget due to long term liabilities guarantees and legal obligations.
but there is still work to be done.
in. two thousand and sixteen we acknowledge that the pressure on payments can be expected to increase in the coming years.
the council calls on the commission to improve the transparency simplicity and accountability of all eu budgetary instruments. to conclude let me recall that the pressure on the eu and national finances is still a reality in the current economic outlook.
it also calls on member states to continue cooperating with the commission and to prioritise an increase in the quality rather than quantity of first level checks in order to prevent detect and correct errors.
let us ensure that eu money is used to achieve results that could not be achieved as efficiently or effectively by other means.
mr president honourable members let me now turn to budgetary and financial management and the predictability of eu funding.
while welcoming this progress efforts have to go much further in order to meet the pledge taken in two thousand and five and to achieve the sustainable development goals.
i would like to conclude by making reference to the use of budget support.
of course the possibility of an early agreement very much depends on the proposal itself and we will do our best to achieve as much as possible with the close cooperation of the european commission.
in a situation where resources are scarce we cannot afford to misuse one single euro.
i can agree that an unqualified audit opinion of the court for the management of eu funds remains an ultimate goal and that further improvements are still necessary.
allow me also to repeat that all financial actors need to fully assume their responsibilities in this respect.
so the council is in principle providing the ep with all the recommendations according to the treaty because as we all know the parliament on the recommendation of the council gives discharge to the commission.
to conclude i would like to say that this debate has shown that we share many concerns.
it has been a real privilege to be in this enlightened bunch of members.
but i ask commissioner oettinger to ask his colleague whether he is aware of why bismarck invented pensions.
pensions are not meant to be paid out to people with the full ability to do an important job.
he invented pensions so that after long decades of hard work the person who has lost his ability to work will have the means to survive in his elderly days.
i appreciate that the commission has made changes in this particular case but the rule as such has not been changed.
so i am suggesting with the support of the house that we would grant discharge on all eight joint undertakings which have been assessed for expenditure
i think it is important and i have said this at the committee on all of the hearings we have had that we demonstrate to the public what we get for this money and how industry across all of the different facets of the european union is making a difference.
one eight billion in terms of collaboration with the private sector. that's about. one three of the total budget. it is a crucial part of the public and private mix so the public expenditure the eur.
we are beginning to see some improvement on project completion and the timelines therein ex ante controls have been improved and the error rate reduction i think has to be welcomed in all of the reports.
shining a light not just on the expenditure itself but shining a light on the outcome of that expenditure in the various joint undertakings which do such an important task. why is it important?
the discharge procedure is an important procedure.
it's crucial for jobs it's crucial for growth and it's crucial for europe's fightback after the crisis.
so investing with industry in key areas is good for jobs and good for the economy.
first and foremost it is important because we need more research and innovation across the european union.
first and foremost because it shines a light on public expenditure that we vote through in the seven year multiannual framework expenditure.
year; innovative medicines because of payment issues concerning their lag between where the average payments were across other joint undertakings.
one eight billion in expenditure in two thousand and sixteen unlocks much more private expenditure which can then be used in industry for the purposes of innovation and research.
so of the reports we have seven unqualified opinions and we have one qualified opinion.
and that's what is important in terms of the projects which we are looking at. i also think it is important and this was a key part of the texts that we put through in all of the reports that we highlight that smes especially should gain a portion of this in terms of their work with the joint undertakings.
issue. both of these are difficult issues and both issues i believe require further work in the future if we are to get a final solution to these problems. but for the time being i would hope that colleagues will support the wording on these issues in the discharge report.
these words have been chosen very carefully to try and reach a compromise amongst all the different views we have in parliament. i hope colleagues will accept this wording as a good compromise for the time being until we get a solution in the future.
the first is a simple message to each of the joint undertakings within our remit that citizens want to see results the results of things that change in medicine in the environment in transport and airline policy often innovations where citizens are not aware
that the expenditure for those innovations has actually come from the european union.
we need to brand that we need to explain to people that it was european taxpayers who have helped those innovations.
my second remark is that the joint undertakings must also explain their results within the industry.
frequently we have industry fighting against another part of the industry that's understandable in the context of any kind of industrial setting but there needs to be an explanation of what people are getting for that.
thirdly often when it comes to joint undertakings the expenditure profile is over a number of financial frameworks. so it is really important to take up the message that the commissioner gave to this house and the challenge he gave to this house today between the parliament and council that we need to come to an early view on the future framework. it would be wrong to go into this constant world war iii that exists over a year and a half on the next multiannual financial framework.
we need to show as europe that we can agree something stick to our position and make sure that that expenditure is robust and strong to deliver the results we want to see.
if we do that i think there will be a good outcome.
i do hope that the eight discharges which i proposed in my reports will be accepted by this house today because i think it will send a very strong signal to the european union and to industry that we can make results that ordinary people can see and understand.
my concern revolves around the impact this correction has on the audit. what i have established is this prior to the eca audit the commission and the member states carry out audits.
those audits result in corrections where errors are found.
in carrying out its own audits the eca establishes a gross error rate.
occasionally they come across the commission's member state audit from which they establish the error rate correction. but here is the problem the activities within the audited sample are reflective of what has happened across the entire budget. thus the gross error rate found in those samples can be extended to the entire budget.
however we know the corrections took place only in the samples audited by the commission and member states so we know also that the correction rate cannot be thus extended.
has the eca been issuing erroneous results the true picture distorted by these corrections?
can you explain why this is happening commissioner?
i do it myself.
we take note of your comments and indeed colleagues have worked really hard on these important reports.
madam commissioner therefore we would like to ask you to establish an independent eu type approval authority. there is also a very inconvenient truth.
as we all know air pollution across the eu is already causing more than four hundred premature deaths a year. madam commissioner the mere fact that it was the epa in the us and not our national approval authorities in the eu that discovered the defeat devices is really embarrassing and i do not share your confidence in our national authorities.
i think the european system as it is today where car makers pay national testing organisations and they can choose themselves where they want their models to be tested is not working.
in addition especially in this case it damages the health of our european citizens.
even the cars that passed testing in a proper way or let us presume in a proper way are polluting much more than they should.
in fact its co two emissions are only marginally below those of petrol and in any case co two is not a pollutant.
it was wrong to do so but so were we as legislators wrong to impose conflicting and contradictory demands on the industry.
it was wrong to do so and it should rightly face appropriate and proportionate penalties but we must understand the regulatory environment in which this scandal has emerged.
by mandating ten biofuels and then rowing back later we sent confused signals to industry and caused great damage to investors.
i am concerned that the potential hit to volkswagen could damage all of us especially if as many expect other companies are drawn into the scandal.
i see a parallel here with our ill judged rush to promote biofuels before we understood the issue of energy inputs to agriculture and the impact of indirect land use change.
it is no part of my job to defend german industry but nor is this a time for schadenfreude.
volkswagen was trying to follow the pressure by moving to diesel power but found that it was unable at the same time to meet emissions targets so it decided to cheat.
it is a natural non toxic gas which is essential to life on earth.
the truth is that legislators were consumed by climate hysteria and carbon phobia and as a result we pushed car owners and the auto industry towards diesel which was seen as a lower emissions fuel.
with the prospect of multimillion dollar fines in several countries recall costs class actions from owners and so on it is not inconceivable that vw could fail.
so the tdi technology is not able to solve the problems and that is going to be a huge problem for volkswagen in the future.
i believe we will be able to overcome it.
we must start by establishing the facts.
we noticed that the system of testing emissions in laboratories is not the right one and the commission proposed draft regulations on real driving emission testing a few years ago.
the new legislation will improve the test procedure for directly assessing the regulated emissions of light duty vehicles under real driving conditions.
however in light of the volkswagen problem and drawing conclusions from what has occurred we will analyse our proposal again and will suggest further changes that will prevent similar events from happening.
here again national authorities have a very crucial role to play.
and finally i have a message to us all. we need to ask ourselves what lesson we can draw from this fraud and this behaviour. we have to remind companies that they should respect the letter and the spirit of the law because socially and environmentally responsible companies have been one of europe's biggest
the commission does not have the power to carry out our own investigation in the automotive sector.
i have asked member states to work together on this because i think uncoordinated national action will make things even worse.
these institutions are professional.
it will then be presented to you and to the council and we expect that our common work will be
you ask me how the commission will investigate any potential wrongdoing.
we rely on the authorities of the member states.
the new testing procedure will eliminate the possibility of using defeat devices and it will ensure that the regulatory emissions limits are actually met. the second package of the rde procedure setting out the exact timing and level of what are called conformity factors is planned to be voted on this year.
it. on the third point improving the approval and surveillance system so this cannot happen again where should we act at eu level?
so far i want to stress so far' the conclusion of our studies has been that this system has been effective in ensuring safe and environmentally friendly cars on our roads. it has also ensured that the internal market is fully harmonised and that every time a member state authority approves a vehicle type it can be bought and registered in twenty eight member states.
let us not jeopardise what we have built together so far a widespread feeling of mutual suspicion is not helping coherent and effective european action.
i thank the european parliament for giving me this opportunity to share information and also at the very beginning i want to say that i am ready to continue providing you with every piece of information about my future actions to ensure that such a fraud will not happen again. the commission and member states agreed at the competitiveness council
in fact one of the first things that happened to me as rapporteur was a presentation from the commission which set out quite graphically in numbers how it had not been working over the last three iterations of euro standards. so this is no surprise to anyone. maybe and i want to emphasise that i am being ironic here i am the only member who is actually pleased that this has happened. i am pleased because now everybody is talking about one of the major issues one of the major scandals
that we need to deal with.
so first of all on the investigation can you confirm that this investigation is not only into nox but also broader taking in the other substances like co two where you also see a growing gap between the test and reality?
where exactly are you going to look again?
secondly on european type approval you said that we have done our analysis and now because of this scandal we are going to look at it again.
all joint research centre studies were made available on the internet.
this crisis.
nothing more and only this.
we have to approve and implement new rules as quickly as possible and we need your support on this.
the jrc only indicated that defeat devices could be one of the reasons for big differences between emissions in the laboratory and those on the roads.
the us environmental protection agency is now investigating but it has in the past argued before the us copyright office not to allow the circumvention of technological protection in cars. volkswagen itself sold millions of cars which could be opened by anyone who had a fake remote key. in two thousand and thirteen volkswagen was alerted and then went after the researchers preventing them from publishing their security relevant findings because they were disclosing trade secrets.
parliament has a role to scrutinise delegated acts and five hundred million people expect us to do our job properly.
they want to know why officials did not act sooner.
if our member states agree laws they must implement them because the strength of any approval across the eu including type approval is only as strong as the weakest link.
twenty eight so our member states must work together in a coordinated fashion. we know that the emission tests are already being updated.
the commission is i believe trying to deliver better lawmaking.
consumers who are looking to buy a new car from another company are also very uncertain.
people expect us to do our job to scrutinise both the primary and the secondary legislation and we must get the details right.
i know that it is not possible to regulate away fraud but proper oversight can minimise it.
this principle has to apply all across the single market all across all twenty eight member states and each of these standards must be applied in every country because once we lose the trust of consumers it cannot easily be restored.
consumers want answers to all those questions and i agree with them.
we have to have time to understand it and we have to have time to listen to both consumers and manufacturers and to expert advice too if necessary.
cheating the standards brings a massive and fundamental breach of trust.
we cannot let the actions of one company tarnish an entire sector.
the commission needs to make these announcements soon because manufacturers need to know what they have to deliver and they have to deliver in line with the new tests any new cars that are approved after the end of next year.
that is why the commission is already due to announce new testing processes by the end of this year.
indeed early last month before this broke out commission officials came into my committee to discuss what they were doing but without any details.
we have known for many years that the emissions test and fuel efficiency claims do not represent real world experience.
for the market to work properly there must be trust trust that a service or a good is what the supplier claims it is trust that it complies with the relevant laws or regulations trust that your competitors are acting honestly and trust that official bodies have done their jobs properly.
we need drivers to use diesel cars and to have confidence that when they purchase one they have made the correct choice.
in parliament we talk a lot about better lawmaking.
so we need a full investigation an investigation that people can have trust in across the entire single market.
they want to know why this was discovered in the us before the eu.
currently volkswagen customers face chaos. they do not know if the car that they own is going to be recalled or upgraded or what they will be paid.
i get a bit fed up with secondary legislation being written in the commission but then arriving in parliament very much last minute with some comment saying not to worry as it is just detail.
national regulators are required by law to enforce legislation.
the commission must also keep parliament involved.
they want to know whether or not it is just volkswagen who has used defeat devices or if there are other companies involved.
every single national regulator must work to the same high standard.
otherwise there is a race to the regulatory bottom and turning a blind eye in one member state means that those goods can be sent across all.
they should not be rewarded for these illegal actions by again watering down the european standards or allowing further delay in their enforcement.
were the commission and certain member state authorities aware of the cheating?
i ask the commission here today was the commission aware of the practices by the car industry?
several reports including a report from the commission's own research body the jrc reported unexplainable differences between real emissions on the road and the laboratory test results.
therefore a european independent oversight body must be established with the means to test cars itself.
i also expect the commission to change the surveillance system.
we still do not know whether this is just the tip of the iceberg but all signs point in that direction.
why then did the commission never initiate any investigations into this matter?
but there is another very important political question that has to be answered.
the two thousand and seven regulation explicitly prohibits the use of defeat devices so their existence has been known for more than a decade.
so firstly i expect the commission to now stop stalling the process and to have a new real driving emissions test up and running within six months.
we will need to change the system and i think it is worthwhile looking into how exactly to be decisive and to be very concrete.
i would wonder what the commission has been doing since the time of the first suspicion since the first communication and of course your communication.
you have mentioned that you will tell us what you have been doing in the past ten days.
at all. yet it was the us regulators that found this not the
the wheel? maybe we should start looking to the us for help
on this. this scandal resonates across the atlantic and it also shows the need for regulatory coherence which is a key part
of ttip. one final plea here let us find out what happened before rushing into legislation.
that is the only way we will get better legislation.
i am very confused by some of the comments i have heard particularly from my conservative opponents stating that they recognise the problem that we are all talking about but they do not want to put the tools in place to actually deal with it. it is absolutely incumbent on the commission to act at european level because we have to take european action in order to hold individual countries' industries to account.
we need independent testing;
and we need real driving emission rde standards as part of that.
what are your views on this?
we expect a full investigation and the full accountability of those who are responsible.
america shares our standards and perhaps is even more advanced in scrutinising them.