Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-27-Speech-3-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020227.10.3-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur for this report, which concludes the budget discharge for 1999. Parliament is required to exercise its powers of scrutiny over the Commission's expenditure. However, this is only possible with access to all the documents and information. Otherwise, the discharge decision does not constitute genuine scrutiny but is merely a formality. I therefore draw your attention specifically to the demand set forth in paragraph 4 of the report, which states that Parliament must have the same access to Commission documents as the Court of Auditors has.
The Commission must stop devising a wealth of new strategies and delaying tactics to withhold documents from us. The latest example is the van Buitenen report of 31 August 2001. I was the rapporteur on the first phase of the Leonardo programme in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, yet the Commission gave me absolutely no indication that fresh accusations of mismanagement had been raised and were being investigated by the Commission and OLAF. Indeed, if a third party had not drawn my attention to the situation at the very last minute, the Commission, despite its superior knowledge, would have allowed Parliament to grant discharge for Leonardo I. Since then, the Commission has played down the situation and deployed a variety of stalling tactics.
I ask you, Mrs Schreyer, is this the trust and cooperation which you and your colleague Mr Kinnock never tire of demanding from this House? What have you got to hide? The entire report is apparently already in the hands of at least one German newspaper, together with the relevant OLAF report. Is not it time, Mrs Schreyer, for it to be made available to us as well?
The Framework Agreement, which was cobbled together and presented to Parliament immediately after the 1998 general discharge without any opportunity for discussion, has shown itself to be ambiguous and misleading, and clearly conflicts with our Rules of Procedure. It is therefore unacceptable in its current form. The Agreement must be brought into line with the Rules of Procedure, not the other way round, which is what Mr Bourlanges' proposed amendment appears to be demanding. I therefore ask you to reject Mr Bourlanges' amendment and to leave Parliament's rights of scrutiny – set forth in the EU Treaty – intact.
No committed European can genuinely be in favour of curtailing the rights of Parliament to benefit an already excessively powerful Commission, putting Europe at risk of becoming an uncontrolled and uncontrollable bureaucracy. This is the last thing our citizens want to see.
As regards the disgraceful affair of the adulterated butter, known as the Flechard case, I would have preferred more plain speaking. However, I have no doubt that the spineless investigation into the Flechard case – which concerns not only wasted money but also the risk these products posed to health – is an issue which will give us plenty to talk about during the 2000 discharge procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples