Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.6.4-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, as rapporteur I would very briefly like to make two or three comments. First, a general observation. I think it would be sensible if in future when we discuss discharge procedures in this Parliament, people do not just start showing such sensitivity about the wording of certain passages when their own interests are at stake. Secondly, I myself proposed in my original report, which was adopted in committee in March and voted on here in April, to include a problem relating to my group in that report. At that time, my group and the Greens voted in committee to resolve that problem. It is to do with the payment of party workers out of group resources. At the time, the PPE Group and the Liberals voted by a majority to take this proposal out of the report. Perhaps Mr Poettering does not even know that yet; I am informing him of it now.
Let me now make a very fundamental comment as rapporteur for a discharge procedure. It was an PPE proposal in April, in the name of Mr Elles, that linked the discharge of Parliament’s budget to the question of group finances. That was your proposal, which was carried! That is why this point is incorporated. At the time there was an explicit reference to the Court of Auditor’s report. No rapporteur for a discharge procedure, in which the groups are involved, can have this discharge taken from him by an agreement between group chairmen, whether or not such an agreement exists. To call on the fact that group chairmen discharge themselves is in itself a matter that requires further discussion.
I have a final comment on compromises. On a number of occasions we have had people declaring that their own amendments are compromises. No-one has at any time discussed with me whether or not this was a compromise amendment. All I was asked was whether I could live with this amendment, to which I said no. That is because this amendment in no way enhances transparency, which is the issue, and that is why I remain, as before, opposed to it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples