Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-25-Speech-1-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991025.3.1-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I think it was a good idea for you to stay and chair this debate, because it is a very important subject. I have taken note of the consensus which seems to reign in this House on this matter, but I have the impression that there are a number of us who, in spite of everything, have doubts and some concerns regarding the wording of this agreement and this amendment to the Rules of Procedure.
Does the creation of an anti-fraud office, logically designed to ensure that the Community budget is handled properly, have anything to do with the establishment of all-round supervision, exercised without discrimination, not only of basic staff but also, as someone has already mentioned, of the members of institutions?
I have read the rule governing members of the Council. Do you really believe that the Ministers of European States, despite the little phrase which was added, will stand for effective supervision of their professional activity? This in a way draws a parallel between the role of the member to that of the civil servant who is subject to supervision both under the Staff Regulations and also within the framework of his responsibilities. I do not want Members to be exempt from all monitoring or not to be subjected to any sort of questioning regarding their activities including their activities as a Member of Parliament in the execution of their mandate, but I am afraid that this agreement may allow some uncertainty to remain and may entail precisely this parallel nature of the roles if we proceed in an over-hasty way, just like the events of recent months, and do not take a step back. For my part, I would have preferred to wait a while, just as some groups suggested at one point, in order to gain a more objective overview.
I think that the provisions which we have implemented require further thought. There is certainly a contradiction between the fundamental decision and the application thereof. We inherited this matter, and indeed I even wonder why it was not considered to have lapsed. This House even decided that it was necessary to proceed to a new vote on Mr Prodi as the decision was taken on 4 May.
On 6 May, the previous Parliament adopted a text which has since been changed. That text has the force of law. President Gil-Robles signed it at a time when everyone was involved in election campaigns and now, two or three months later, we are involved in making it enforceable.
There is food for thought here. My own opinion is that a little time would perhaps enable us to gain more objectivity and better understanding of the margin we must retain within the framework of the protocol on privileges and immunities in the event that we all become subject to OLAF decisions or inquiries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples