Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.6.4-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". (
) The European Parliament, during its sitting of 13 April 2000, quite rightly decided to delay the decision giving discharge to the European Commission on the implementation of the budget for the year 1998. This decision was legitimate, insofar as the citizens of our nations have the right to be told how the money of the European Union, their money, is being spent.
Our group is entirely in favour of any vigorous attempts to combat fraud and embezzlement. Indeed, the irregularities noted, both those covered in Mrs Stauner’s report on the questionable management of the Commission, and those underlined in Mrs Rühle’s report on the various European Development Funds, cannot leave anyone indifferent, and necessarily damage the image and credibility of the Community as a whole.
In addition, we must draw the proper conclusions, in terms of sanctioning those responsible, certainly, but also in establishing far more transparent procedures. As shown by the votes of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the reports by Mrs Rühle and Mrs Stauner are heading in this direction.
Mrs Rühle’s report on the various EDFs clearly confronts the Commission with its responsibilities; it demands more clarity for all future aid distributed by the Community for the benefit of developing countries. The desire to raise moral standards regarding aid policy and increase the efficacy of the use of aid is a principle which is now clearly defined and our group is pleased with that.
There is no question, however, of accepting that, on the pretext of better monitoring, in order to achieve a more honest and rational use of the European funds – and I am thinking of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in particular, that our action should be a pretext for also organising the unfounded trial of certain countries of the European Union – incidentally one of the main net contributors (I am talking about France) – by means of a witch hunt which, it is said, targets certain high-ranking civil servants of that nationality.
Greater transparency is also our primary concern with regard to the finances of political groups within this House; the citizens of Europe, moreover, would not understand if we said otherwise. We must also take note of the responses of our institution to the observations of the Court of Auditors, and without delay encourage all relevant reform in accordance with the financial regulation and the principle of transparency.
In conclusion, I will say – so much is clear – that we should not introduce confusion between the discharge procedure, which represents an overall appreciation of the management of the European Commission as laid down by the Treaty, and the handling of a number of isolated matters which, although clearly serious, are still only isolated cases and represent a low figure with regard to the total budget. We must keep a sense of proportion!
Equally, as far as our Group is concerned, taking note of the further clarification we asked the Commission for in spring, in the context of the Stauner report, is no reason at all for our institution to then be affected by amnesia when it comes to tracking down unacceptable practice at the expense of our fellow citizens’ contributions.
Our Group congratulates the rapporteurs, Mrs Stauner, Mrs Rühle and Mr Kuhne, on their commendable efforts. We should, however, remain alert and be in a position to observe what the European Commission’s attitude will actually be with regard to the commitments it has made. Our Group therefore considers it necessary, for the time being, to abstain."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Caullery (UEN ),"1
"FR"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples