Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.5.2-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, strangely enough, this is the first time in many years that the discharge is likely to be given on time. Therefore, it will be a great moment, for Parliament as well as the Commission, when we put it to the vote tomorrow. Has the Commission lived up to expectations, then? Maybe not quite yet. However, I think a general change of attitude has taken place in the Commission. A shock wave went through the system when the Santer Commission was removed in 1999. The Commission is now aware that the threat is real. Parliament can and will use the discharge to remove the Commission if it does not live up to expectations.
This year, there are certain MEPs who will refuse to grant discharge. I believe that would be a very big mistake. This is something we must only do in special circumstances when we have really good arguments for doing so. If we do it every year, the threat, of course, loses its value. We must cooperate with all those forces that wish to make European cooperation more efficient and open. I think that this is what most MEPs want. I have therefore collaborated with all the political groups represented in the Committee. Undoubtedly, this has improved the report, as well as the atmosphere in the Committee. The new Commission has initiated large-scale reform. Mr Kinnock has promised us the best administration in the world. We shall now see whether the fine words can be put into practice.
I have prepared a very critical, yet constructive report. It also recognises the fact that the Commission is in the process of implementing large-scale reforms and, at the same time, addresses the sore points. In 1999, things were simply a mess. There was no overview of the internal and external audit reports, and the archive was also in something of a mess. We must hope that the reforms will remedy this. I have drawn up a 10-point plan which is largely based on the spirit of the reforms but which goes further in some areas. I look forward to hearing the Commission’s response to my proposals. We have received a lot of information this year. We might have wished for more extensive and more timely information, but many of the delays can be attributed to the framework agreement. In my experience, this is a poor framework agreement. It is used to withhold documents and to keep documents confidential for, in the end, it is the Commission which decides whether a document should be deemed confidential. I have respected the framework agreement because it is currently in force. However, I think it should be revised. In my opinion, we should work towards a re-negotiation of the framework agreement.
One of the greatest dangers of this agreement is that ordinary committee members are reduced to second-rate members. Considerable information is provided to the rapporteur and the committee chairman only, and so the taxpayers are not given the optimum guarantee that nothing is kept secret or swept under the carpet. It will never be discovered. However, Parliament should certainly also ‘look nearer home’. Why have we not yet arranged for a secure archive to be set up to which Members may come to read confidential documents under proper conditions? We must therefore ensure that the Commission can trust us. I am delighted that the Commission has put its trust in me as rapporteur. We have been provided with more information than ever before in the history of the discharge, and I should like to commend the Commission for that. We could sense quite clearly that the Commission wanted a timely discharge . Some of us can surely confirm this.
All in all, the Commission has taken the discharge very seriously this year. It is the first time that so many Commissioners have been present in the Committee. The Committee saw all 12 Commissioners. This indicates that the new Commission is interested in, and respects, the discharge procedure. However, I do not fully agree with the Commission’s view of what Parliament’s discharge should be based on. Basically, the Commission believes that the discharge should be based on the various reports from the Court of Auditors. That is something I do not agree with. Parliament should not be a detective agency. We should concentrate on structural problems. However, we should have the same access to information as the Court of Auditors. It is the Commission to which Parliament must grant discharge, and that is why we must hold the Commission primarily responsible.
However, there is a complex interplay between the Commission and the Council, Parliament, the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the Member States. I therefore made a great effort to incorporate all the institutions in my report. Both the Council and Parliament set limits upon the Commission’s work. Agricultural policy is a good example. The Commission has fought hard to reform agricultural policy. Time and again, it has tabled proposals for countering malpractice, fraud and over- charging and, time and again, Parliament and the Council have voted against these. Unfortunately, there are many such examples, for example in the flax, milk and butter sectors. Every year, the Council has given the Commission the green light in its discharge, so I became curious. What do they really discuss behind the closed doors of the Council? I sent a letter to the Swedish presidency requesting permission to attend the Ecofin meeting where the discharge is adopted. I was very disappointed in the Swedes, who normally boast about their openness. They rejected my request. But then I was very impressed to receive the rejection in all 11 Community languages. I have other things to say, but I shall return to these at the end of the debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples