Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-14-Speech-2-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990914.5.2-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Honourable Members, I should like to thank you for holding this long, interesting and very thorough debate. Many of you have pointed out that not much can be said in the space of two minutes, but I have taken full note of your remarks. Please excuse me if I am unable to answer all the points raised in depth because of the lack of time available. I have tried to group together the most important problems, namely those which may sway votes or determine a change of course by an institution.
I personally think that there are good reasons for supplying information about the Commission’s work too and, after the event, about the Minutes of Commission meetings, and we must reach precise agreement on this too. It has also been suggested that at least during the Strasbourg week, the agenda for plenary should include an item designed to inform Parliament about the Commission’s meeting. I shall devote a great deal of attention to these initiatives and I would also like a debate to be launched on the issue of confidential information. I consider that considerable progress has been made towards an interinstitutional agreement on this issue – I refer in particular to the discharge – and we ought to continue in this direction in the interests of mutual collaboration.
With regard to equality of the sexes, I feel it was quite right to raise the question. Unfortunately, it is a gradual process – we have made some progress, for example in the cabinets and the administration. I can only assure you that it will be high on the agenda, since it is linked, as many of you have said, to other problems of equality, not only of the sexes, and in the interests of avoiding other forms of discrimination which are habitually practised in our society.
Another series of questions dealt with the issue of assigning and modifying portfolios. The distribution of portfolios raises questions for me too. We have split the portfolios in what I myself consider to be an arbitrary way but I also think that it is the best possible distribution at the moment. For example, you asked – Mrs Theato asked the question a short time ago – whether it is appropriate for the budget and financial control to come under the responsibility of a single Commissioner. I feel that we must discuss these issues further. I consider the division of tasks to be sensible, decided in all good faith but on an experimental basis, and since I have the power, under the terms of Amsterdam, to redistribute these competencies, I believe I will be able to do so fairly easily. I am therefore devoting particular attention to the critical points; I would only ask you to put forward considered reasons so that a firm consensus decision can be reached.
Finally, the issue of the answerability of the Commissioners and possible sanctions, a problem which hovered over the hearings and which has come up several times today in your contributions to the debate – the issue of the answerability of the Commissioners and possible sanctions to be adopted in the event of behaviour which does not meet the standards of correctness which must be observed by the Commission, as by any public institution – the issue of fraud, on the one hand, and the issue of the behaviour of the government, hence the Commission, on the other.
I should like to make a distinction between two aspects: one is Parliament’s loss of trust in an individual Commissioner and the other the relationship with an individual Commissioner accused of criminal offences. I believe we must keep these two aspects separate, although they are part of the same set of problems.
As regards Parliament’s loss of trust, I should like to remind you that each Commissioner has undertaken to resign if I ask him or her to. A vote of no-confidence against an individual Commissioner by the European Parliament would obviously for me be a reason for the most lengthy, serious and thorough consideration. When I say ‘reason for the most serious and thorough consideration’ what I mean exactly is that I can undoubtedly not take lightly the wishes expressed by the European Parliament. However, I am well aware that politics and political dispute can also have unforeseen results and we must therefore consider the subject in depth and, above all, reflect on the fact that the Treaties do not provide for the possibility of individual sanctions. It must therefore be a non-political move, it must be dictated by the relevant authority, not by a legal provision which at present does not exist.
I obviously undertake to endeavour to ensure that every time this problem arises it will be tackled in the most decisive and clear terms possible. Finally, it is clear that in any case I will have to offer an explanation for any decision I take and I must of course offer it to Parliament.
Now I should like to talk about the other point, that is to say, a Commissioner called upon to answer criminal charges. I clearly understand your message and I would say that as far as I am aware, no Commissioner in the history of the Commission has yet been called upon to answer criminal charges. However, I do not object to considering hypothetical situations which have not happened but can always arise. I must say that, in any democracy, the fact that a member of the government may be required to answer criminal charges would seriously jeopardise the possibility of his continuing to carry out the mandate of minister. The same applies to the European Commission and a European Commissioner.
Today, of course, there has been much talk of criminal charges relating to acts of corruption; other types of charge, which are equally unpleasant, do exist and should be taken into account, but I think the talk has been restricted to criminal offences linked to corruption merely owing to the present context. However, we must not – and do not wish to – forget the existence of the rule of law, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. And let us not forget also the fact that our legal systems, which are so diverse throughout Europe, provide for different procedures between which it is often impossible to draw a meaningful comparison. Therefore, all issues of this nature must be approached with the utmost care, considered in good faith and then explained before Parliament. Situations of this kind need to be considered in depth so as to ensure that no political decisions are taken until a full and intimate knowledge of the facts at issue has been gained.
I would therefore assure you once again that in the event of such situations arising, I would examine the facts of each case with the utmost thoroughness.
First of all, however, allow me to turn again to the question of East Timor, a problem raised by Mr Barón Crespo, Mr Soares and many others. I wish to inform Parliament that at 2 p.m. today, I had a long telephone conversation with President Habibie of Indonesia, following his meeting with the Ambassadors of the 15 Member States of the European Union in Djakarta. During this conversation, President Habibie formally undertook – and I repeat, formally – to give all foreign journalists free and unlimited access to East Timor, to give full and unconditional support to the intervention by the United Nations, to create the conditions for this to take place as soon as possible and to make every effort to alleviate the conditions suffered by the population of East Timor, stressing that there are 200 million Indonesians facing difficult circumstances. Lastly, he undertook to respect the decisions taken by the people of East Timor. For my part, I told President Habibie that we would seek to monitor compliance with these conditions as strictly as possible and I told him that I would report the content of our conversation to the European Parliament, as I am now doing.
I should like to conclude with a general comment. Mr Méndez de Vigo said that I would be voted in without any great enthusiasm. One could, of course, say that votes are votes, whether enthusiastic or not. But I believe it to be extremely important for a vote to be given with enthusiasm, since we are in not just any old Parliament and are about to embark on not just any old political project. We are heading in a wholly new direction, and one which has never been taken anywhere in the world. When I think about what monetary union really represents, I realise that nothing of its like has ever occurred in the past. When I think of these fifty war-free years in all the countries in and around the Union and of the wars outside those countries, I realise that we are not faced with something for which one can vote against one’s real wishes; we are faced with something which we must see as being a new frontier in the history of humanity. Will we be capable of taking up this difficult challenge? I do not know. What I do know is that I have attempted to do so by adopting the sort of tone appropriate to such moments: a tone of responsibility, in full awareness of the events which have occurred over the past ten months within the Commission, which needs to restore its credibility by keeping its word on each statement it makes and which cannot therefore at this present moment allow itself to make the ambitious pronouncements which are needed – and which I myself firmly believe are needed – and which we will be able to make only if we manage to elicit trust in each of the pledges we are now making. These pledges are, Mr Méndez, like all pledges on matters of detail, unexciting, because everyday life is not made up of important issues alone. But I can assure you that I am fully aware of the fact that we are faced with what I myself called ‘a major project for Europe’.
If we do not succeed, it will obviously not take long for the grudging vote in favour to become a quite deliberate vote against. But it is this project which must bring us together; a project which you called for yourselves and which many of those who voted against also called for. All are looking for an appropriate response to the major challenges ahead; all are looking for a European project, a project for Europe, a project in which the impetus for a new Europe will be found not in the Secretariat or the Council, but in the Commission, the Council and Parliament.
This is what we intend to achieve, and I should like to thank those who have acknowledged that, despite the difficulties involved, we have put together a serious and balanced Commission. These are the two qualities on which I want us to base our work for the time being. In future, I believe that, starting with our programme in January, which is a strong programme, we shall also be able to offer you a Europe which has moved out of its period of crisis and can start building again, and which can thus be voted for not with a sense of resignation but with joy.
He then told me of his keen desire to maintain good relations with the European Union, a position we reciprocate in our desire to see the rights and dignity of the people of Indonesia respected, a point I impressed upon President Habibie. Commissioner Nielson has told me that we are doing everything in our power to provide direct aid and we shall use all possible channels. The problem is that it is not easy from a technical point of view and we are using all the organisations which currently have direct access, including the United Nations, the Red Cross and others.
A second point I should mention, of which I was reminded this morning, is that the committee chaired by Mrs Ana Palacio has called on Commissioner Bolkestein to consider resigning from his position as president of the Liberal International. Commissioner Bolkestein has now done so and has instead become honorary president of that organisation.
My third remark concerns a matter frequently raised in this House and one which I believe is in the thoughts of all Members of Parliament. I am referring to the important problem of organising measures to combat fraud. We have strengthened our anti-fraud campaign and shall continue to do so, but what we need is a specialised body of high-level inspectors – and this is not just a question of increasing the numbers – for I am firmly convinced that this is of crucial importance. As in any organisation which has grown, shall we say, more quickly than we would have liked, and has taken on new tasks, what is lacking – and the report of the five Wise Men provides an extremely useful analysis of this question – is an organisational model with the firmness and, above all, the necessary links to ensure that fraud can be prevented. Unfortunately the problem of fraud is on a vast scale and I can assure you that it will be the focal point of our activities, not least because these problems tend to occur where there are fewest controls, namely at the new frontiers of the European Union, the very ones which project our image to the outside world. Consequently, it is also a very serious problem from a political point of view.
With reference to other matters raised, such as food safety or air-traffic control, I would remind you of what I said in my earlier speeches to Parliament. As this is now the fourth time I have addressed this House, I am trying to avoid boring you by repeating the same things over and over again. Let me repeat, however, that I stand by what I said in my four previous speeches, which can be taken as a single statement of position.
Today, however, I wish to touch on a number of essential points. One vital issue – which everyone has mentioned – concerns transparency and openness. I have already stressed the importance of this issue. Transparency is an objective which goes beyond the mere fact of mutual openness on the part of institutions; it is the foundation, the social contract of the European institutions. On the basis of the Treaty of Amsterdam, we are being asked to legislate on the question of public access to documents. We must seize this opportunity – and we intend to do so – to open up this sector and ensure that all institutions and not just Parliament help to define the rules, which must be rules rather than general principles with operating rules derived from them.
With regard to certain specific documents, the problem remains, for example, of how to obtain documents just released by the Commission, which Parliament should receive before anyone else. This is right and proper and whenever the press asks to receive documents before Parliament, there is clearly a problem. I am afraid that there may be cases where the problem cannot be avoided because of procedure involved, but I am determined to ensure that it does not happen, while seeking also to speed up the information provided to Parliament. With this in view, we have already begun to make extensive use of electronic communications and I would also stress the Commission’s commitment to attend Parliament’s debates and discussions at plenary and committee level, since I believe that exchange of information is of the utmost importance.
Needless to say, this is a process which we must try out together and it will not be easy to do so. It is one of the most delicate issues, because Parliament too needs to be fully and actively involved. This means better links with the Commission’s decision-making process, not only at the planning stage but also as regards information and the decisions which each Commissioner – Commissioner-designate today and confirmed Commissioner tomorrow – takes and which must be distributed in an appropriate pre-established way."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples