Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-25-Speech-1-039"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Changes to the Rules of Procedure following the interinstitutional agreement (OLAF)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991025.3.1-039"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-25-Speech-1-0402
lpv:speaker	lp:Herbert Bösch2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PETI (1999-09-16--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; CONT (1999-07-21--2001-12-11)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees and delegations for relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"d Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am able to follow on from where the preceding speaker left off. We give our unqualified support to the report by our colleague Mr Napolitano. We, on the Committee on Budgetary Control, have recommended that the changes that have become necessary as a result of OLAF should be incorporated directly into the Rules of Procedure. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has suggested that a single basic rule be incorporated into the actual Rules of Procedure and that the full wording – consistent with the interinstitutional agreement – be added as an appendix. That is perfectly acceptable. It is crucial that the substance remains unchanged. The key point, as has already been mentioned, is that we, as a Parliament, should give a clear signal that we are not just demanding or stipulating that others should be subject to investigations by an external, independent authority, but that we want to subject ourselves to this process too. I would have liked us to be able to discuss this decision of Parliament’s together with the question of appointing the new director of OLAF. We had planned to hold the hearing for shortlisted candidates last week, in the Committee on Budgetary Control. The Commission, however, did not draw up the definitive list of candidates in time. Some people, moreover, have the impression that we have sought to interfere improperly with an appointment procedure that is, and must remain, the responsibility of the Commission. Yet those who have this impression overlook or gloss over the fact that this is by no means a normal appointment procedure, rather it is a matter of filling a key post that has far-reaching powers and the right to conduct administrative investigations into every organisation and institution of the Union. The Regulation on OLAF of 25 May 1999 lays down specifically that the Commission can only appoint its director once Parliament and the Council have voted. Therefore, there must be harmony between the three bodies. This procedure was chosen to guarantee the director’s independence. I hope that this week, here in Strasbourg, we will succeed in resolving the confusion over the procedure which has emerged. Ultimately, we must not be the ones to delay any decision of this kind when, almost exactly a year ago, the overwhelming majority of Members of this House gave their support to the idea of launching an independent anti-fraud office."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph