Traduction de «Comité d'examen des SMA - Réforme des budgets » (Français → Anglais) :

ADM Review Board - Reform of the Estimates

ADM Review Board - Functional

ADM Review Board - Departmental Co-Ordination and Implementation

Budget Planning and Review Committee | BPRC [Abbr.]

In order to deepen policy coordination, the Employment Committee has this year adopted new working methods, with a series of peer reviews that will enable the Committee to reach a multilateral position on the implementation of reforms, feeding into the assessment by the Commission and the Council.

However, analysis of the progress made in the light of the 4 common objectives reveals that: (a) the measures concerned with promoting access to the labour market have, in tandem with the NAP/empl, achieved considerable success; (b) pursuit of the reform of the social protection system has not affected attainment of the goals inherent in the Minimum Guaranteed Income scheme (scheme combining financial benefits with a socio-occupational integration plan); (c) the aim of having all persons in a situation of exclusion sign a "social integration contract" within one year was too ambitious and was difficult both to implement and to evaluate ...[+++], since it requires multisectoral involvement and since the universe of individuals to be covered remains undefined (the same comment applies to the individualised follow-up of children and young persons within three months); (d) the setting up of a national social welfare helpline has made it easier for certain priority groups to obtain information and a rapid response to their problems; (e) the "Urban Social Development Contracts" and the "Rural Areas and Social Development" project, which were aimed at tackling the problems of the regional nature of exclusion, were abandoned for budgetary and policy reasons; (f) as regards mobilising stakeholders in the process, the Interministerial Monitoring Committee, set up expressly to monitor the NAPincl, operated only intermittently and its composition had to be altered following the change of government, hence its impact as an institutional co-ordination forum has been established only gradually; as regards civil society, the vague reference to the Co-operation and Social Solidarity Pact and the project for the creation of an NGOs Forum illustrates the low degree of involvement of these players.

8. Considers that the Joint Bureau and Committee on Budgets Working Group on the Parliament budget could, on the basis the work it began in 2012, play a useful role in this reform, by identifying possible savings and reflecting on and presenting to the Committee on Budgets ideas for improving efficiency; notes that the working group has already largely achieved the objectives established for it at the end of 2011, in particular as ...[+++] regards the reduction of travel expenses; in the light of the Group’s preliminary findings based, inter alia, on comparative studies of the European Parliament’s budget with the budgets of the US Congress and a sample of Member States’ parliaments, encourages the continuation of its work and the development of a corresponding action plan, to be presented to both the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau for consideration in the 2014 Parliament budget process; recalls its resolution of 23 October 2012 in which it expressed the expectation that these studies will ‘create long-term savings in the Parliament’s budget and present ideas for improving efficiency in 2013 and the following years’; notes that the European Parliament has lower overall spending per inhabitant than comparable Member State parliaments and the US Congress; notes further that there is a need to strengthen the scrutiny role of Parliament and to provide it with better-targeted research support so that it is able to fulfil its role in democratic representation;

60. Notes that in 2013 OLAF issued 353 recommendations for administrative, disciplinary, financial or judicial action to be taken by the relevant EU institutions, bodies, offices, agencies or the competent national authorities, and that about EUR 402,8 million was recommended for recovery; is concerned that the rate of indictment following OLAF’s judicial recommendations for the period 2006-2013 is only about 54 %; is worried, as the low rate of indictment also sheds a bad light on the quality and usability of OLAF’s investigative results; calls on the Commission to urgently improve the effectiveness of OLAF; ...[+++]deems that a fully-fledged and proper oversight over OLAF’s affairs by the Supervisory Committee (without interference in ongoing investigations) is indispensable, and therefore urges the Commission and OLAF to improve the current situation in which the Supervisory Committee is not able to fulfil its purpose; also regrets the lack of information available on conviction rates in cases involving offences against the Union’s budget;