Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-13-Speech-1-062"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990913.5.1-062"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I am sure you will join me in regretting that there are many more questions than there are Members in the House. Indeed, even after four and a half years, I am constantly struck by cultural shock since at Westminster, unlike in this Parliament, to speak in the debate is to impose an automatic requirement to sit in that debate throughout and never to depart unless and until permission of the Chair is given, the understanding of fellow Members in the House is received or business is so pressing as in fact to forbid you from participating in the debate in the first place. Nevertheless there are differing traditions throughout this democratic association of Member States and I respect all of them
Mr Elles raised several interesting questions. I will not be able in the time available to answer all of them. I would just like to touch if I may on two. I have already touched on the question of the European public prosecutor which he raised. In trying to secure real and durable improvement in what he described as the financial control environment, he will know that there have been efforts to achieve this through more effective allocation of responsibilities and effective central coordination monitoring unnecessary control. The idea set out in the report of the Committee of Wise Men for the establishment of the internal audit service in the way that they described it represents in my view and the view of my colleagues a significant step ahead. We can I suppose be blamed for not making this change spontaneously – it is one of several recommendations in the Committee of Wise Men which we should take, which we should think about quickly and exploit to the full. I hope that we will have Parliament with us on that.
Finally, if I can simply say that on the question of whistleblowers, raised by many Members including Mr Elles, I hope that I made clear last week what my intentions are for securing change in the current system, that will ensure, if I can put it briefly, complete fairness and security for those who exercise their duty of reporting, for those who are the object of accusation and for the institution as a whole and through that the European taxpayer. We know that there are innovative systems now in existence amongst many Member States. We want to learn quickly from the best of those and seek radical reform in this area. It is a basic requirement of effective and accountable public administration. I cannot give an absolute date for the introduction of change. To some extent its full introduction will depend upon agreement between the institutions, but in terms of setting out in detail what I and my colleagues want and pursuing that with vigour, Parliament has absolute undertakings on that. The changes I want in my view cannot come quickly enough. They will work to the benefit of the whole of the Union.
I hope the House will forgive me, Mr President, if I end there. There is much more than I would like to say. Can I offer reassurance on a point that has been raised by many Members. As I said, I think in my first or second sentence this afternoon, this Commission-designate will, if the Parliament votes for it on Wednesday, have years of opportunity to demonstrate how seriously it takes the recommendations and indeed the admonitions of the Committee of Wise Men. We will strive to do that, to our best endeavours and in good faith. In the course of doing it we will have extensive opportunities to discuss in detail what was produced last Friday by the Committee of Wise Men. As I indicated earlier, it is not just the discussions that will be important, it is the decisions and actions following from it. In this, as in many other things, it is the verb that matters more than the noun.
Can I begin by taking issue with one tiny point put forward by my very good friend, Mr Colom I Naval who said that he hoped that this was a full stop to an unhappy episode in the history of the Union. I can certainly sympathise with his sentiment, but I rather regard the publication of the second report of the Committee of Wise Men as more of a stage in necessary progress than any sort of a finishing line. I am sure on reflection that will be the view of a large number of Members of this House.
Can I also say to Mr Schori that I congratulate him on his maiden speech. As he has discovered, on previous occasions, politics is about the only profession in which it is possible to be a maiden more than once! It is difficult to think of Mr Schori as a maiden of any description after his very long and distinguished career in democratic politics over many years. I firmly underline and endorse his view that he hopes that we are at the beginning of the kind of reforms the people want. I am certain that he, throughout his parliamentary career here, will as on previous occasions be vigilant in ensuring that we try to achieve those objectives.
Mrs Theato who is not with us at this juncture, but nevertheless made important points, as she invariably does, raised the question relating to this Parliament getting access to documents that were given as part of evidence to the Committee of Wise Men. I can only say what I said in answer to my written answers to the questionnaire and repeated last week that transparency should be maximised. It is important, however, to respect the right of individuals who give evidence in confidence, and confidentiality must therefore be observed where necessary. I consequently believe that the Commission and Parliament should work together to ensure that these dual objectives – transparency and the need to honour undertakings given to individuals who gave their evidence in confidence – are met in deciding on the final destination of the complete archives and on rules relating to access to those archives in a secure environment.
(para)I hope I can say conclusively that in all the words I have used, both in that written reply and last week in the hearings, there is no intention of trying to obscure or to evade the full requirements of transparency. I do not think I can say it any more clearly and strongly than that, and if any misunderstanding persists, I will do everything I can to completely remove it. We are in agreement about the objectives. I am certain that nobody in Parliament would want to fail to honour commitments given to people who gave evidence on the understanding that they would enjoy confidentiality; but in all other respects, if we can agree on a workable means of ensuring the proper depositing of that evidence with the agreement of the Committee of Wise Men, then I am sure we should do it. I hope that will be very clear.
Can I now move to this question of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office that has been suggested, not for the first time. Indeed, it was first suggested by this Parliament. All I can say is that we can only speculate about the response of Member States on that proposal. However, without going into the immense complications that will attend any further developments in a manner suggested by the Committee of Wise Men, I should like to say that crime is increasingly internationalised. All efforts to fight crime equally have to be internationalised and, whatever else happens, there has to be improved coordination and cooperation between the judicial and other relevant bodies of this European Union. I am certain that no responsible person, certainly no elected representative or Member of the Commission, would want it otherwise. I look forward to the continuation of the debate launched in many ways by reports from this Parliament. I am absolutely certain that if we understand that we all have this shared purpose in combating and deterring fraud, we shall want to maximise the means of doing that by any rational means available to our democracies.
Can I say to several Members, including particularly Mrs Morgan who has just spoken and Mrs Van der Laan who explained to me why she had to be absent from this part of the debate, that the Committee of Wise Men is extremely explicit about the way in which there has to be a joint and cooperative approach by Member States, by this House and by the Commission in securing the extent and depth of reform which this European Union in its fourth decade must achieve. It was said indeed during the debate that we should try to ensure that we get that kind of association as a precondition for successful change. I understand and completely accept that as a basic purpose but I have to say that there are changes that we must secure in the Commission, the executive administration of the Union, that simply will not wait for what by definition will be a prolonged and very thorough activity.
I am sure that Parliament will excuse us if we make some innovative departures by ourselves.
If I can come very quickly – because I do not want to detain the House for too long and I am conscious of the fact that this is the second speech that I was invited to make by the Parliament – to this question of Recommendation 36 and Commissioner’s responsibility. I am grateful to Mr Lagendijk for the way in which he raised the question, not only because he was right to draw our attention to the provisions of Recommendation 36, which I happen to agree with, but also because it gives me an opportunity to reply to another Member who chose to represent my references in answer to the questionnaire and the references made by some of my colleagues in the Commission-designate to effective management by the services in the services as somehow abdicating the responsibility of Commissioners. It is no such thing. I believe that Commissioners must have and accept overall political and managerial responsibility. But it would be absurd and inconsistent for us in one breath to be advocating the effective decentralisation of responsibility and the increase in accountability that derives from that and at the same time presuming to sit on the shoulders of every manager in the European Commission. That is not the way to enhance efficiency and accountability, it would simply be a more rigid form of centralisation that would not help anyone."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples