Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-27-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051027.3.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent report, and the European Ombudsman for the work he does every day and for his annual report.
In reaction to this, in agreement with the rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, I have presented several amendments to his report, so that Parliament may respond to the Ombudsman whenever he presents us with a special report.
Since the amendments presented were supported by my colleagues in the Committee on Petitions, they are now part of the report that will be presented to the House. Naturally, it falls to Parliament to decide whether or not it agrees with the recommendations of the Ombudsman.
What is unacceptable is that no position should be adopted, thereby damaging and weakening the crucial and extremely important role of the European Ombudsman.
Commissioner Wallström, although your so-called Plan D to bring us closer to the European citizens, to open up the doors of this Institution and to promote dialogue, is worthy of our support, this does not preclude the right to complain to the Ombudsman, since it is he who offers the citizens an independent analysis in the event that they want to make a complaint about bad government or bad conduct on the part of the European institutions.
There is absolutely no doubt that one of the conclusions that can be drawn from the referendums in France and Holland is that the citizens do not want to be treated as mere passive spectators, but as dynamic players in the process of European integration, who want more transparency and more means for participation.
I believe that the Ombudsman does a very good job. But I would like to mention some of the problems we have faced, one in particular: I would like to express my concern and disapproval at the way in which the Conference of Presidents has dealt with the recent very important special report by Mr Diamandouros.
This report contains an issue which is of great significance to the citizens: the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) apparently did not fully cooperate with the Ombudsman while he was investigating a complaint against it.
The Committee on Petitions — the appropriate Committee — decided, therefore, to draw up a report and listen to both the Ombudsman and the Director of OLAF.
I must express my surprise and amazement at the way in which the leaders of the two main political groups blocked the report and did not allow that hearing to take place. And to make matters even worse, the Conference of Presidents, on the insistence of the two main groups, prevented the Committee on Petitions from hearing the Ombudsman and the Director of OLAF, something which I believe Parliament’s Rules of Procedure do not allow it to do.
I believe that the reasons given — that we were immersed in the process of electing a new Director of OLAF — were not acceptable, and that this House should examine this issue, because it has done no good, either in terms of transparency or in terms of responding to the citizens’ complaints.
I believe that these actions cause collateral damage: they weaken the role of the European Ombudsman, which is completely irresponsible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples