EU BUDGET: CONTROVERSY OVER PROCEDURE FOR APPROVING 1998 ACCOUNTS.

The direction the voting session would take was already obvious during the general debate on 4 July. This was overshadowed by a row over the general discharge procedure for 1998 as a continuation of the debate within the context of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Unveiling her report, Gabriele Stauner recalled that that the aim of postponing ratification (agreed on 13 April) was to ensure the Commission did its best to improve the budget implementation process, to root out fraud, mismanagement and corruption, in line with the pledge the Commission President Romano Prodi, gave when he entered office. The MEP said that in spite of the Commission's reaction to the 17 conditions the European Parliament set last April, there was still a lot of work to do on the side of disciplinary measures and the forwarding of documents to ensure the Parliament had the fullest possible information at its command. The rapporteur said the Flechard butter fraud case would remain open until the Commission had recovered the amount deducted from the initial fine, during a special meeting of Cabinets in January 1994. The minutes of this meeting seem to have gone astray. Ms Stauner dwelled at length on this matter because she claimed the Flechard company is reported to have continued to be included on the list of Commission-sponsored operators for farm exports. Under this heading, it is reported to have received FF 29 million worth of refunds in 1996, 5 million in 1997 and 72 million in 1998.The European Commissioner for the Budget, Michaele Schreyer, recalled that the measures taken to improve budget management highlighted the shortage of staff required to make efficient checks and regretted the lack of co-operation from the Member States. As for disciplinary measures, she said the Vice President in charge of administrative reforms, Neil Kinnock would be coming up with proposals ahead of the Summer recess. On the subject of the Flechard fraud case, Ms Scheyer acknowledged a difference of opinion win the Court of Auditors over applying the principle of proportionality which had prompted the Commission decision to reduce the size of the fine imposed on the relevant company. As far as she was concerned it was no longer legally possible to reopen the case and urge Flechard to refund the missing amount more than six years after the event. She said the Commission/Parliament Framework Agreement would help improve the way documents are forwarded to the Parliament under...