Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-253"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.9.2-253"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as we are political anoraks in the Committee on Budgetary Control and there are a lot more people listening to us tonight, I will try and explain to them what is going on because budgetary control and discharge are really not terms that normal people understand.
One of the primary tasks of the European Parliament is to assess the way the Commission is functioning. We are here to make sure that the Commission carries out its work properly. Therefore when people say that the Commission is unelected, we can tell them that we keep the Commission under control and hold them to account. One of our formal responsibilities is to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget. We have to be able to account to the people who elect us and explain to them how their money is spent.
The Committee on Budgetary Control is the principal committee responsible for leading this task on behalf of the European Parliament: we scrutinise budget lines, follow up potential scandals, we see how the money is being misspent and we try and find out why processes are so complex and cumbersome.
It was the discharge procedure that ultimately led to the forced resignation of the Commission back in 1999. That is what started the whole process.
However, there is a danger – we must not be naive about what is going on – that the whole process could be hijacked for more sinister and for more political motives. It has become almost established practice within the Committee on Budgetary Control to postpone the discharge and to ask for more information. That means that there are now three options. In the past there were two options: we could give or refuse discharge. Now, as Mr Bourlanges has explained, we can give, refuse or postpone discharge. It is much easier if we have only two options and that is what is being put to us today.
The Commissioner has a point when she says that the Commission could probably comply more quickly. I do not see this October part-session as the date by which we have to have the answer. That is the latest point at which Parliament gives its decision. We do not have to stick to October, but we have to do it by October. That is a slightly different interpretation. It is clear that we all want to complete it before the summer. It is also right that the Commission should have this additional breathing space, because if Members refuse discharge and want to criticise the Commission, then it needs time to try to put things right. The new process will also ensure that the process does not go on and on. That is what has happened in the past. It is what happened in the 1996 discharge – it just carried on. We are giving you an end date, we are telling Parliament that by this time it has to decide one way or the other. That is why this system is much better. The situation is clearer and the process will not be hijacked for political aims."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples