Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-347"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010704.10.3-347"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"May I first of all use up a small proportion of my valuable speaking time to congratulate you on the excellent work you have done in the Conciliation Committee with regard to the Takeover Directive? I have stood up to the group discipline of my delegation to support you, but to no avail.
We still beg to differ with the rapporteur on a number of points. Firstly, his definition of externalisation is rather skimpy. He would like to restrict externalisation to temporary tasks and tasks of a technical nature. In practice, it is true that that will often be the nature of those tasks, but we find it too restricted. A decisive Commission needs flexibility. The question is what is most efficient, what is most cost-effective? That question should be central, and we as European Parliament should not plug that opening. And secondly, this has already been mentioned, Mr Bourlanges proposes to include a minimum percentage for the number of Commission officials who need to work in such an agency.
Needless to say, a certain percentage of Commission officials will need to work in such an agency, but it appears inappropriate in our view to place a figure on that percentage. That will differ for each agency according to the nature and work of the agency.
Mr Bourlanges said in the committee: surely the Socialists are in favour of workers’ rights? I would say: surely, the PPE is in favour of abolishing unnecessary rules and in favour of freedom?
And finally, I should like to ask the Commission its opinion on the amendments tabled by Mr Ellis to this report.
I should also like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report that is before us today. He has adopted a very constructive attitude in the Committee on Budgetary Control and I should also like to congratulate him on the excellent working relationship with the rapporteur of the Committee on Budgets. It is first-class teamwork, which deserves to be emulated.
Our group gives its unqualified support to the proposal of the European Commission. We also back the report by Mr Bourlanges. We are of the opinion that the Commission proposal forms a key component in the reform programme that was set in motion after 1999.
The proposal aims to externalise certain tasks in a clearly defined framework and end the administrative chaos of the technical assistance offices.
The Committee on Budgetary Control did tighten the proposal of the European Commission on a number of scores, as Mrs Theato has already mentioned.
Firstly, the location of the registered office of the agencies. The text now refers to opening branch offices for agencies. According to our amendment, this reference is being deleted. There is still room for improvement. Mr Mulder has tabled a sound amendment and I should like you, Mr Bourlanges, to consider adopting Mr Mulder’s amendment as a supplement to your amendment, so that we do not need to choose between the two.
Secondly, the provisions on financial audit and control are being tightened. The obligation has been included to produce a report annually. That is a major improvement in my view.
Thirdly, we call for one Financial Regulation for all agencies, as opposed to a different Financial Regulation for each agency. If not, we fear that we will no longer see the wood for the trees.
And finally, OLAF’s powers relating to agencies and relating to the European Commission should be the same in our opinion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples