Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-076"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.3.3-076"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted against discharge for the following reasons: I welcome the explanation given to plenary by the Commissioner for budgets on the Fléchard case on 3 April 2001. However, this alone is not tantamount to a fresh start in the Commission’s policy on dealing with cases of fraud. There is no clear statement that the way in which the case was handled after January 1994 was illegal.
Nor has there been any significant change in the Commission’s inadequate information policy vis-à-vis Parliament compared with the 1998 discharge. I find it unacceptable that the budgetary authority called for but, as the rapporteur details in annex 2 to his report, failed to receive 11 audit reports, including all the delegations’ audit reports. This inadequate Commission information policy is exacerbated by the framework agreement which only allows the rapporteur access to documents.
I also feel that I must abide by the resolution passed by plenary in December 2000 on the so-called Morgan report to the effect that, in future, discharge must be postponed if the documents requested have not all been submitted by the Commission. According to the rapporteur’s own information, this applies here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples