Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-15-Speech-1-015"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991115.3.1-015"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I agree with the two former speakers that this is an annual report of the first rank and of the highest political order. It is precisely because I agree that I believe this Parliament should use this occasion to signal to the Court of Auditors its intense disquiet at the fact that a document of substance of the sort prepared by the Court should, whether correct or incorrect in terms of its content, have found its way into
of 8 November.
This is not the way to do business. In a matter as weighty as this it is not right, on whoever’s part – and I do not know who is to blame for this leak – to seek a route which chooses the sensational over the institutional management of this issue.
We are the body with the political competence to take into account the substantial and professional work of the Court of Auditors. It does not make sense that we should now be negotiating with the European Commission, following all the events of the past several months, a new code of conduct which, inter alia, insists that where there are issues of importance the Commission first comes here to tell this House what they are and then to take a procedure, such as the annual Report of the Court of Auditors, and say: there was a leak, it is a bit unfortunate, but let us get on with business as if nothing happened. No. This is the moment to draw a line and say to the Court of Auditors – whom my group holds in very high esteem – that we have separate functions: they audit and we do the politics.
One of the tasks between now and December, if we choose to postpone this matter – as was the view of the majority of the Conference of Presidents – would be to invite the President of the Court of Auditors to undertake an extensive investigation as to whether it was to the Court or another institution that the leak could be traced.
It was the Committee on Budgetary Control of Parliament which began years ago to insist that we should give, as parliamentarians, this report the weight that it deserves. In saying “postpone it” we are saying we want to take command of what is in it – not to sweep it under the carpet. We are saying that from now on there are new rules of engagement, not just with the Commission. The creeping propensity to find ourselves, as parliamentarians, on the back foot, explaining leaks that were inspired by one source or another is not the way to do business. Let us claim our rights as the institution. Let us stop sensationalising the work of the Court of Auditors."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples