Traduction de «Programming-error management » (Anglais → Français) :

168. Reiterates the importance of the supervisory role the Commission exercises in order to be able to bear the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the budget including the areas of shared management; recalls the action plan to strengthen the Commission's supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (COM(2008)0097) and the improved legal framework for the 2007-2013 programming period which aimed at reducing the level of error in structural actions and thus to protect the Union budget; notes, however, ...[+++]that the action plan of 2008 came only into force at the end of the programming period 2000-2006 and could therefore cover the closure process of that period only; calls on the Commission therefore to fully enforce measures as stated in the action plan for the 2007-2013 programming period and beyond; expects in this context from the Commission a considerable and steady decrease in error rates, in particular of programmes that are expected to have the highest error rates; proposes that the Court of Auditors carry out a regular assessment of the technical and ethical quality of national audit authorities, with particular regard to their independence, and that it report its findings and conclusions to Parliament and the Council;

The error rate for cohesion policy nonetheless still stands well below the levels reported from 2006 to 2008, thanks notably to the general improvement of the preventive and corrective measures and the stricter provisions in the management and control framework in the current programming period.

22. Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hind ...[+++]er or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

Mr. George Ens: Not from 2003, no. Ms. Sue Hum-Hartley: If there is a review, what normally happens, in my understanding and my colleagues will leap up if I'm in error as we also, as I mentioned, do annual building condition reports and building management reports, is that requirements such as can improve the accessibility would then be integrated into our maintenance and operations and the work program for the following year.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed, in order to remedy this situation, that the one year limitation on overpayments that are not the result of fraudulent acts be imprescriptible so as to force the government to improve management of the program and to not unduly penalize seniors, who could have to pay back significant amounts a number of years after an error was made.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois therefore proposes that the one-year limit on overpayments not occasioned by fraud be retained-there would be no limit in the case of fraud-so as to force the government to improve the management of the program and not unduly penalize seniors, who could have to pay back major sums a number of years after an error had been made.