Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-13-Speech-1-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|
| rdf:type |
|
| dcterms:Date |
|
| dcterms:Is Part Of |
|
| dcterms:Language |
|
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990913.5.1-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent |
|
| lpv:speaker |
|
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I, along with my Socialist colleagues very much welcome this report which underlines the work that we have done in the Budgetary Control Committee and really is built upon that. There are several very radical recommendations, not least the one that establishes the post of the European public prosecutor. Time and again many Eurosceptics have used fraud within the European Union institutions as a battering ram to beat us with. Of course any degree of maladministration and fraud must be weeded out. But this makes clear that 80% of the problem lies within the Member States themselves.
The recommendation to establish a European public prosecutor, as proposed, would mean that there would be a mechanism to present criminal cases relating to EU fraud throughout the Union but it would not impinge on the jurisdiction of national courts. That is the way it has been written. It is sensitive to Member States’ worries. A series of shortcomings within the institutions have been identified in this report and recommendations are made here for correcting the problems. We look forward to developing the action programme for reform with the Commissioner responsible and although we have not had time to look at it in detail, I believe it would be fair to ask the Commissioner for a clear discussion and justification on why steps are not taken if some recommendations are left out. I am sure we will not agree with every single detail in this report but that would be a useful exercise nevertheless.
The whole question of outside bodies doing work for the Commission is an area that needs clear attention. Whose responsibilities are the bureaus for technical assistance? Can we tighten-up the contracts granted to these bodies? How can we simplify procedures and make staff within the Commission more knowledgeable about tendering processes? The proposals outlined by Commissioner Kinnock in his hearing, in particular in the field of training, need more detailed response. We look forward to hearing more of his ideas over the next few months.
I hope people will take time to read the report which clearly distinguishes between fraud and irregularity. The report states that of all the thousands of transactions which take place within the European Union institutions there are only 30 investigations involving Commission officials in fraud. Of course that is 30 too many, but the main cause of concern are the many examples of irregularities. This is an administrative problem, not a criminal issue. But measures are needed to tighten up the slack administrative practices, to rewrite poor regulations, to cut down complicated payment mechanisms, dispense with excessive exceptions and derogations which lead to the far too many irregularities and errors. It is these irregularities that give rise to alarmist headlines when we are presented with the Court of Auditors’ report on an annual basis.
The report also correctly referred to the regulation on the protection of the financial interests of the European Community and points out that only three Member States have ratified the regulation. I am sure this report will give food for thought to those Member States that have not signed. It will be interesting to note how they respond in particular to the recommendation on the creation in each Member State of a national prosecution office for European offences.
It is indeed appropriate that this report is published this week when we are about to decide on the fate of a new Commission. It is interesting in particular, in the light of recent events, that the Committee of Experts recommends that legal powers are given to allow the Commission President to sack individual Commissioners. This week we also received from the Commission a request on the supplementary and amending budget for money to establish the staff necessary to operate the new fraud office, OLAF. We would also concur with the report that specialised expertise is needed for these posts, and the need to make more effective use of information technology in intelligence gathering.
The report itself should also be a lesson to us all within the European Union institutions. It has been clearly written, is really easily accessible and avoids jargon wherever possible. It is really a model on how to write European legislation. Having said that we welcome the move from ex ante to ongoing ex post control in the budget control mechanisms within the Commission. We would like to see that implemented. Again, we will have further discussions on that in the committee.
We are at the dawn of a new era within the European Union institutions. We look forward to a time when officials are promoted on merit. We look forward to recruitment of people with appropriate expertise in specific sectors. We look forward to the commitments already made on whistle-blowers being implemented. But most of all we look forward to a time when every official and Member State Government responds to a new culture of responsibility. The next few months and years will be critical. But let us not forget that we have a base on which to build. The report is clear in its praise of the commitment and experience of most officials. From this week on a new chapter is being written. The plot is outlined in this report. It will be written by the Commission but Parliament will insist on strong editorial control. In partnership we can rebuild confidence in the institutions, not only for the people who work within them but most of all, for the people they serve."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs |
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples
Context graph
