Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.4.2-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to emphasise the point I raised to the effect that, out of the 19 recitals and the 30 paragraphs of the Bösch report, there were only 11 recitals and 6 paragraphs to do with the subjects that Mr Bösch was supposed to be discussing.
The other paragraphs are about something completely different. Important matters, I do not deny, but matters which have already been dealt with in the van Hulten report and the Theato report, or matters which will be dealt with when we come to discuss the White Paper, the reform and OLAF, with the judgement and the ruling of the Court of First Instance.
I am astounded that Mr Bösch is pleased with this because he was one of the people who thought that Parliament’s text was fine and that OLAF was entitled to poke its nose in everywhere, though this is not the case. The European Central Bank was thus quite justified in saying that it was not very sure what authority OLAF actually had in this area.
My criticism of the Bösch report, then, is the very simple reason that we have other instruments. A situation whereby the Committee on Budgetary Control’s many reports keep bringing up the same subject is not normal. Let us take the proposal for an independent Prosecutor. Mrs Theato attempted to have this adopted as a legislative initiative. She did not succeed. The Committee on Budgetary Control tried to do so, and Parliament rejected it. This is not a proposal for a legislative initiative. What, then, is the point of harping on all the time about something which is, obviously, a problem area? Even though the fraud problem primarily affects the Member States, you wish to set up a special court, ad hoc courts. You know, Mr Bösch, in the past, in Italy and other countries, they had special courts. Probably in your own country too, and these were not exactly models of democracy.
So I would adopt a more cautious approach. I think this report is a waste of a lot of paper. Mrs Stauner might well write another letter asking why so much money has been spent in order to repeat things that have been said already, Mr Bösch, but which it was not worth repeating. What is more, many of the amendments seek to remove paragraphs. We shall readily vote in favour of these because we must confine ourselves to the points included in the reports and it is high time that this practice, which is common to all the committees, were adopted by the Committee on Budgetary Control too."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples