Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-135"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Assessment of OLAF2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031203.10.3-135"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-03-Speech-3-1362
lpv:speaker	lp:Freddy Blak2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (2001-12-19--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; CONT (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Den frie Socialdemokrat (2002-12-09--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I should like to give Mr Bösch the highest praise for a splendid report, which is both penetrating and thorough, and I should like to say to Mrs Schreyer, who is my favourite Commissioner: you should ask someone else to write your speeches instead of coming out with the nonsense we have heard this evening. It is unacceptable. There has been a great deal of criticism of OLAF of late, and rightly so, but OLAF must not be made a scapegoat for the Eurostat case, for example. The Commission must not use OLAF as a dustbin for all the cases it does not feel like dealing with itself. Even if a case has been forwarded to OLAF, that does not release the Commission from its obligation to act. OLAF must be fully independent, and we must admit that we were wrong to set OLAF up as an administrative part of the Commission. The secretariat of the Supervisory Committee must be fully independent of the Commission. The staff working for OLAF must be independent of all the institutions, and it is important that staff are not allowed to apply for posts in the Commission afterwards, because we have of course seen examples of cases being shelved because people had to go back to the Commission. I telephoned OLAF about Eurostat in the spring of 2002, after Dorte Schmidt-Brown had contacted me for the first time. OLAF told me that it had neither the time, the inclination nor the staff to look over the Eurostat case. In their words, Dorte Schmidt-Brown was a hysterical woman who should try to relax a little. It was not until Parliament became vociferous on the subject that the investigations picked up speed. It is very worrying that OLAF only prioritises investigations that have the interest of Parliament or the press, and it is also very worrying that OLAF does not take whistle-blowers seriously. I hope that we do not see any more of this kind of case. It is absolutely crucial that we are able to rely on OLAF’s objectivity, and that people work quickly and effectively in the future, but I should also say that OLAF is not known for being the sharpest tool in the box."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph