Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.2.2-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Union for a Europe of Nations Group is unable to recommend giving discharge for the 1998 accounts concerning either the Union’s general budget or Parliament’s budget. We are, however, able to give discharge for the European Development Fund. It is true that what happened in 1998 is not the responsibility of this Commission, but I think there has been insufficient willingness to assign responsibility for the mistakes of the past. Where the general budget is concerned, I just want to highlight two serious issues, the Fléchard case and the problems surrounding ECHO's humanitarian aid, and also to emphasise that the whole budgeting process is characterised by a lack of precision. This is what we normally view as the existence of unused appropriations. Budgeting is not just about coming up with a few figures. It is just as much about designing one’s administrative and production machinery in such a way that the objectives laid down in the budget can be achieved. Like the ECHO case, the Fléchard case is an example of the irresponsible use of European taxpayers’ money. It has not happened during the period of the present Commission, but in both cases I have just mentioned we see an insufficient willingness on the part of the Commission to hold high-ranking civil servants accountable. The Commission knows that there are criminal activities behind these cases. The Commission knows that certain illegal forces have made anonymous threats to our colleagues, Mrs Stauner and Mr Blak, and this ought to make the Commission realise that a much more vigorous approach is required if action is to be taken against the internal forces partly responsible for the fact that European taxpayers’ money can disappear into the pockets of criminals.
We now seem, of course, to have two spokespersons for the Commission: the official one, Commissioner Schreyer, and the unofficial one, Mrs Morgan. The latter’s statement here aptly illustrates why this Parliament is in no position to be more effective in cleaning up the administration. In the Danish Parliament, we have a saying about the Finance Committee. We ask, ‘Do you know what a cat is?’, and the reply is, ‘A cat is a tiger which has been to a consultation with the Finance Committee.’ That is not the case here. Mrs Schreyer can always come here sure in the knowledge that Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control will not hurt a hair of her head. Where Parliament’s 1998 accounts are concerned, I would note that the problem is the same as in other areas of the Union, namely an all too careless attitude to the way in which the money is used. On the subject of the Spinelli building, I would point out that it was acquired at too great an expense and in an unusual way, not easily seen through. I should like to add that this is not a criticism I am directing at the Secretary-General, for I do not believe there is any basis for such criticism. Rather, it is a criticism to be directed against the system itself, for this is not good enough."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples