The European Parliament yesterday voted not to approve the European Commission spending reports under the 1996 EU budget and to refer it back to the Commission's budgetary committee, writes Patsy McGarry from Strasbourg.
The vote, by 270-225, with 23 abstentions, means that the parliament's all-party budgetary control committee will once again have to examine the Commission's management of public funds in 1996. The vote, which is being seen as a major embarrassment for the Commission, followed a highly charged debate in the Parliament yesterday.
Members were particularly resentful of a letter sent by the Commission to MEPs on Wednesday evening which pointed out that if such a vote were to take place it should lead to a motion of censure on the Commission. Mr Pat Cox, Independent, said that this strategy was an attempt by the Commission to interfere with the Parliament's decision, and he also objected to it on the grounds of procedure.
Other MEPs criticised the Commission's action, which some predicted would backfire.
The Socialist group has prepared a motion of censure but it is not to be debated until the new year. The leader of the group, Ms Pauline Green, described yesterday's vote as "extremely damaging to the development of EU policy".
She also said she was appalled by what she described as the absolute hypocrisy of the Belgian former prime minister, Wilfried Martens MEP, who said that while he could not approve of the budget yesterday he had full confidence in the President of the Commission, Mr Jacques Santer. "The President of the EC is, of course, responsible for the way in which European money is spent," she said.
The European Union has long been concerned over reports and allegations of fraud. Last month the EU Court of Auditors estimated fraud and financial irregularities amounted to 5 per cent of the EU's 1997 budget of £58 billion.
The EU Commission has defended itself against these attacks. The Budget Commissioner, Mr Erkki Liikanen, argues he has met all demands for tighter financial controls. Yet many in the Parliament claim he has not gone far enough to guarantee regular fraud reports, to keep national justice officials informed of investigations or to create an independent anti-fraud office.