Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-21-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990721.7.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I should like to begin by saying that Mrs Read was absolutely right to draw attention to the moderate way in which the resolution is couched and indeed the moderation of the language throughout the whole of this debate. It would have been easy for people to try to make a populist appeal. That was almost entirely avoided. That simply added to the weight of the opinion of this House and therefore to the reaction which everyone has just heard from Mrs Sasi, President-in-Office of the Council.
Mr Elles was quite right to emphasise that it is absolutely essential to see responsibility exercised to the highest standard. I hope – to take Mr Barón Crespo's point – that this experience is not repeated, that we can ensure that specific and very clear provision is made so that there cannot be any repetition of the experience of recent weeks.
There are those who would say, and they have, I believe, rationality on their side, that the provisions of Article 213 of the Treaty and its references to integrity and discretion mean that for anyone who has an understanding of required standards in public life, little more should need to be said, if anything.
But if it is necessary – and I am conscious of being subject to the fact this issue is now before the court – even then to be more specific about what the implications of integrity and discretion are, then I am glad the House welcomes the developments that will take place as a consequence of the initiative taken by the President designate. I look forward to ensuring that there is a full response to both the appeal of Mr Barón Crespo and that of Mr Elles to the demonstration of the highest standards of public integrity.
I would also say that Mr Kreissl-Dörfler was right to emphasise, together with Mr Duff – in a very interesting maiden speech – that if all institutions do not demonstrate the highest standards of rectitude for themselves, by themselves, then those standards will be imposed externally, either in the form of punishment by the general public, initially through its apathy and detachment but maybe in other ways more directly, politically too, or by the Council taking a responsibility which others appear to be unwilling to demonstrate.
I do not believe the European Union, its institutions or its people would be enriched by that experience. It is a fair warning to all of us who serve the institutions and the European people that we are responsible for our own destiny and our own standards and we must therefore proceed without any form of delay to ensuring that those standards are as stringent as possible.
I was interested in the point made in another fine maiden speech by Miss van der Laan which calls for a response. I am happy to report to the House that she is a friend of some years and therefore my joy in witnessing her maiden speech was very particular. I see it was shared in other parts of the House. She said that it would be ‘better if the Commission had taken the step of reference to the Court of Justice’. I should like to say to her, therefore, that the Commission, as I reported earlier, discussed the matter in its meeting of 1 July. In that meeting the feeling was expressed that the issues relating to Mr Bangemann and to Article 213 had legal complexities that could not be speedily resolved. For that reason the Commission made plain its view in its statement of 1 July that there needed to be clarification of implementation of Article 213. There was no consensus at that meeting which supported reference to the Court of Justice at that stage. I say that to ensure that Members of this House understand that the issue is live, it has been a matter of discussion, the action has now been taken by the Council and that determines the path for the future. But there is no lack of concern or consideration in the current Commission, despite the fact that it is coming to the end of its life, in these issues.
I conclude by saying that Mrs Laguiller made an extremely valuable contribution to this debate because, like others, she dramatised the issue quite properly by drawing attention to the economic gaps in society and the way in which those divisions actually serve to emphasise the fact that it is absolutely essential for those of us who have the good fortune to hold representative and appointed positions in the public service to act with complete integrity and discretion. We enjoy a very considerable privilege. We must, therefore, show complete probity. This debate has served to underlined that. If anybody ever needed the lesson, this has added to it. I hope we can look forward to a future where no instruction will be necessary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples