Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-09-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021009.11.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr Bösch, honourable Members, I would like to start by thanking Mr Bösch for the support expressed in his report and which he has just reiterated. The Commission's initiative both forms an important part of the work of reform as a whole and has a part to play in the Commission's overall strategy for the protection of financial interests. As you have emphasised, its aim is to improve the fraudproofing of Community policies and legislative proposals. The prevention of fraud is nothing new. It was and is a matter of major concern, and it must be comprehensive, meaning that it must, so to speak, be present right from the very outset, and hence – as you also emphasised – in the initiative and the proposal; it cannot be introduced later, at the implementation stage.
Fraud prevention is not the province of a few specialists alone, a fact that has led us to declare that inter-departmental cooperation must start at an earlier stage, rather than leaving all the work to OLAF. The expertise of the Directorates-General must be combined with the specialist knowledge that OLAF has gained from its practical experience. This sort of cross-fertilisation can be useful as a means of developing fraudproofing in such a way that legislative drafts are examined with a view to making them fraudproof. This is about establishing a method of working intended to combine this expertise with knowledge about prevention, and doing that without needlessly prolonging the legislative process. I fully agree with the emphasis you have put on it.
Another important aspect has to do with making lawmaking simpler. It of course has a preventive function for the legislative process not to be so complicated that it becomes incapable of being monitored; simplification, on the other hand, also creates good openings for legal control. The fraudproofing mechanism is meant to help shape legislation in a way that makes it clear and fraudproof.
I would like to enlarge on what you mentioned in that context; on the one hand new draft laws, and on the other, the checking of laws already in force. That, of course, again raises the question of the human resources available. We are now starting on current lawmaking processes, which is of course the first step. Once a procedure has become established, we will see to what extent we can apply this also to the amendment of laws, with which we are also constantly occupied.
OLAF is now getting on with drawing up criteria, appointing contact persons, and installing this mechanism. Let me, however, point out that making legislation fraudproof is not just a matter for the Commission, but legislators are also of course obliged, for their part, to treat this principle as a decisive criterion when framing laws.
Let me conclude with the additional observation that even the best policy of prevention can only be a success if it goes hand in hand with a credible framework of deterrence, as indeed, Mr Bösch, you emphasise in your report. Fraudproofing measures must not be allowed to limit in any way OLAF's firm action in bringing fraud and irregularities to light; they are merely supplementary to it. I might add that the Commission is endeavouring to bring about improvements in the area of criminal law. We have just had the hearing on the European Public Prosecutor, and will take this opportunity to thank Parliament for the great support it has given."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples