Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040331.4.3-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Before we return to the scheduled business of the House I should like to take this opportunity to respond, on the record, to the invitation made earlier today in my absence while I was at the press conference with the Irish presidency and President Prodi to comment, on behalf of this House, on a number of issues that have a prominent media focus in some Member States at this time.
Let me turn to a specific case. Recently there was an anonymous allegation made in respect of two observers from an accession state. That anonymous allegation, like so many other allegations of course, first saw the light of day in the media. When it came to our attention we decided that since there were alleged disputes about the bona fide signatures of some observers, we would invite an opinion from an external, independent and recognised handwriting expert.
Only this lunchtime, by coincidence, has that report come to me. The expert concludes that all 27 signatures submitted to analysis are authentic – that is to say written by the person alongside whose name they appear.
Let me be quite clear here and now. On the basis of external independent expert evidence there are no grounds on which to base a
suspicion of fraud or irregularity in this particular case. Indeed the institution arguably has a special duty of care to ensure that no residual suspicion should point to the individuals in question.
Sadly, I can only conclude in this particular case that these allegations, which proved to be unsubstantiated, were made with malicious intent.
As President of this House I refuse to allow our work to be derailed by malicious or unsubstantiated rumour or prejudice from whatever source within or without.
Let me say for those who do not know – and so I am not addressing the House but through you those who may be following our proceedings at this moment – that it is the practice of this House to ensure that a Member signs on each day of attendance. That may be done here in our plenary session. It may be done when we meet in our groups. It may be done when we meet in committees. It may be done, if we wish, in a central register.
When a Member signs that register in the plenary, that does not constitute an obligation to spend the rest of the day sitting in plenary; nor an obligation to spend the rest of the day sitting with one's group, if one signs in a group; nor in a committee; and most certainly not an obligation to sit all day in the central registry, if one signed there.
As President of this House I have a double duty: I, and we, have a duty to our electorate and the public to be accountable; and I have a duty to this House to be fair. I intend to try to fulfil both duties to the best of my abilities.
Demanding signatures as evidence of attendance is not the universal practice in the parliaments of Member States. I should like to point out that we demand more in this House in that regard than many parliaments who are states of this Union and who have parliamentary democracy at their core.
I say to our friends within and without that if, beyond what I have just recorded here, there is evidence of fraud, then produce it and we will deal with it as we dealt with the evidence to which I referred earlier.
I want you in this House to know – and the public to know through this House – that we will treat every case without fear or favour. But we will treat everyone on the presumption of innocence until there is clear evidence to the contrary. We will be led only by evidence. We will not be led by prejudice and we will not have tabloid newspapers writing our script.
In recent days and weeks there has been a fevered climate generated by the tabloid press, not least, but not only, in Germany. I first wish to make a general point. As President of this Parliament I refuse to accept that we, the elected Members of this House, should suffer some kind of collective guilt. We should not be presumed guilty if we do not individually establish our innocence.
I want this to be clear, especially for some of the German tabloids who have led this campaign. The German media, of all the media in Europe, should know in their hearts that collective guilt cannot be visited upon any people or any institution.
Through you I want to give to the wider world the clearest assurance that we will respond to any evidence or substantiated allegations that come to our attention, but these must be based on evidence not prejudice.
Let me repeat here today that the most substantial exercise in reforming this House – the attempt to provide ourselves with a statute which took so many years and which secured a majority in this House – failed because of governments, not because of our will. Let those who failed us shoulder their responsibilities."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples