Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.5.2-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my report winds up the 1998 discharge procedure. As this is the first discharge to which the Prodi Commission has been subjected, it has been full of suspense. The 1998 discharge decision was postponed in April 2000 and discharge was subsequently granted in July 2000, but all this leaves a lot to be desired.
I would like to address just three particular matters of concern. In 1998, for the fifth consecutive time, the Court of Auditors declined to give a positive Statement of Assurance, or in other words to certify that European taxpayers' money had been used carefully and thriftily. Parliament therefore certainly did the right thing when it called on the Commission to arrive at a positive Statement of Assurance for the financial year 2003 at the latest.
Unfortunately, the Commission has failed up to now to take concrete and measurable steps in this direction. It is not enough that the Commission has repeatedly referred to the general reform programme. I would therefore like to ask the Commission if careful use of European taxpayers' money should not be a priority theme for the Commission. Or does the Commission perhaps want to celebrate an anniversary in 2003 – ten years of being refused a positive Statement of Assurance? We judge the Commission not by its words, but by its deeds. That is why I specifically welcome the deadlines that we have set you for achieving this objective. The Fléchard case in particular has made it clear that the role of an independent Financial Controller is vital in determining whether a fraud case is admitted or not. You now want to scrap the independence of the Financial Controller and make him report to the relevant Director-General as part of the reform programme. There can be no doubt that this would lead to a spectacular fall in the error rate, but probably not because no more errors or frauds were being committed, but rather because the authorising Directors-General would ensure that such matters never came to light at all.
The introduction of an independent disciplinary chamber able to carry out a fair and neutral disciplinary procedure, with the officials responsible being appropriately held to account, is also another long-standing request from Parliament that the Commission has failed to comply with. The Commission has equally failed to seriously pursue the creation of a European Public Prosecutor to prosecute cases of fraud.
On the subject of access by Members of Parliament to information and documents, I would like to seriously ask the Commissioner how we are to carry out our verification duty if you refuse to let us have information and documentation? At the beginning of its period of office, the Commission espoused the cause of transparency and openness. I myself saw during the 1998 discharge procedure how wide the gap is between rhetoric and reality here. Nor was there any substantial improvement for the 1999 discharge procedure. You only have to look at Annexes I and II to the Blak report to see that the rapporteur received 22 of the audit reports he requested and, believe it or not, did not receive 11 reports. I think these figures speak for themselves.
The framework agreement between the Commission and Parliament has dealt a fatal blow as regards this inadequate access to information. As you know, that agreement was approved here in the House in July 2000 without our having an opportunity to debate it. This framework agreement is driving a wedge between Members and is creating a two-tier Parliament. It is encouraging a policy of
divide and rule. We can no more tolerate this than we can tolerate a lack of access to general documents.
I would also like to remind you that last December we agreed, by adopting the Morgan report, that in future we would defer discharge if the Commission had not made available all the documents requested. We have actually found ourselves in that position sooner than many people expected.
One more comment on the Fléchard case, and let me be clear about this: the Commission cannot in all honesty avoid making a clear admission that the procedure adopted at the time was wrong and that everything must be done to prevent such an unlawful decision ever being made again. Mrs Schreyer, as the Commissioner responsible you have an opportunity to make a statement to that effect. Please take that opportunity here today. I will make no bones about it: my decision whether or not to vote for discharge will depend on what you say today."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"divide et impera –"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples