Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-25-Speech-1-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991025.3.1-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to give my heartfelt thanks to Mr Napolitano for his fine report and for the way he exhorted us to keep making strides forward. I am also reminded of a past event. On 7 October 1998, so a good year ago, there was an overwhelming two-thirds majority here in Strasbourg for Mr Bösch’s report on OLAF and thus for the establishment of an operationally independent anti-fraud office. In view of the reproaches that were already being made in the Chamber at the time, we had asked that OLAF be an investigative body that should be able to pursue cases of fraud or corruption objectively and without reservations. The first draft from the Commission of the time was unusable. We pressed for changes. Then, in May of this year, together with the Council, we adopted the Regulation on OLAF and the three of us, Parliament, the Council and the Commission, reached a decision on the interinstitutional agreement that we are discussing today.
This agreement, if you like, opens the door for OLAF. It sets out the obligations and rights of those affected by investigations. Through this, we are giving, amongst other things, a clear response to the much-discussed ‘whistle-blower’ question. Any official who has concrete grounds for believing that he is dealing with a case of fraud or corruption will, in the future, not only be obliged to pass this on but will also have the right – bypassing their superior if need be – to go directly to OLAF if they feel this to be necessary. The official should not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of taking this action.
There is another important point in this regard which has been a grey area in the past. This concerns the information given to those affected by an investigation. This information must, in the future, be provided as quickly as possible. In no case must Members of this Parliament, officials or employees be singled out in conclusions by name, without the person concerned having been given the opportunity to state their case. With this we have clearly established the contradictory principle. Any exceptions to this will only be possible with the agreement of the President or the Secretary-General and only then in strictly circumscribed individual cases concerning particularly complex investigations and in which providing the individuals concerned with information at too early a stage could endanger the work of national judicial authorities.
These are the two main components of the interinstitutional agreement. They were approved on 6 May 1999 here in Strasbourg with a large majority. The political decisions that were made at that time must now be firmly and formally established in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure so that they can become legally effective. I know from conversations that I have had that some colleagues are concerned, and this concern has been expressed here too, that investigations by OLAF could be misused in order to put pressure on them, even though they are very well aware that it is a matter of our credibility that we as MEPs should not exclude ourselves from such investigations.
There are two different aspects to this. Firstly, through OLAF, the Protocol on privileges and immunities which gives this Parliament and its work special protection, will not be abrogated. Therefore it will still be the case that it will be up to national judicial authorities to apply for immunity to be revoked should the need arise, following which this House will then have to take its own decision on the matter. Secondly, we have taken all conceivable precautions to ensure the independence of this office in its investigative work, even though it is officially, and organisationally, a department of the Commission. As the body of political control, we shall intervene if this independence is infringed. This is why I must take this opportunity to advise the Commission that I do not find the recent appointment of a new divisional head for OLAF acceptable. This is not a criticism of the person concerned, whom I do not even know, but a criticism of the fact that rapid attempts are obviously still being made here to pre-empt matters before the new director arrives. This situation must be reversed.
The new Commission must be careful to ensure that in this regard too, there is not the slightest hint of suspicion either.
A brief word on the appointment procedure for the new director, as there has been some confusion. After the Commission draws up the definitive list of suitable candidates, it becomes a political matter for Parliament and the Council to reach agreement between themselves on the best candidates. I refer to what Mr Bonde so rightly said: the new director faces a huge challenge which will require a high degree of experience, independence and the ability to assert oneself. We are involved then in a very important decision-making procedure. Let us make good use of it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples