Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.17.4-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mrs Rühle has produced an excellent report on this subject. I am the newly appointed rapporteur on the EIB, the European Central Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
I agree with the amendments proposed by Mrs Rühle as they express clearly real concerns about the EIB's transparency, efficacy, accountability and conformity with the Community's objectives and policies. I will address briefly each of these concerns.
Firstly, there is widespread concern about the EIB's transparency. My predecessor from the Socialist Group, Mr Freddy Blak, Mrs Rühle, the author of the report, many Members of Parliament and the Court of Auditors have all expressed their opinion about the lack of transparency in the operations of the EIB. Even the World Bank and the East European NGO called Bankwatch have publicly stated this view.
Secondly, let me turn to efficacy. Mrs Rühle states the need to evaluate the effectiveness of EIB operations. I, as the new rapporteur for the Bank, requested Sir Brian Unwin, the President of the EIB, for an initial meeting to set out a framework to assess the efficiency of the Bank. I am sorry to report to this House that Sir Brian has not even bothered to ring me or arrange to meet despite numerous telephone reminders. Such disregard for this new European Parliament will erode, yet again, public respect and confidence in the European Union.
Thirdly, what about public accountability? In May 1999, my predecessor, Mr Blak, Vice-President of CoCobu, asked 26 specific questions about alleged fraud, mismanagement, corruption and cover-up – I mean cover-up – in the Bank's activities, including in treasury operations, over the period 1993-1998. The questions are specific, detailed and relevant. They require a written response from the Bank. I have asked Sir Brian for such a response but, once again, he has chosen to ignore my request. I have been told by Mr Martí, one of his vice-presidents, that the EIB is owned by the Member States and, as such, according to the Treaty, it is not an EU institution obliged to respond to the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors or OLAF. Only matters relating to loans to non-EU countries where the Community gives loan guarantees can be discussed with Members of Parliament.
I ask this House, what are the Member States? Are they not the governments of the people who live, work and pay taxes in the countries that we call Member States? Are we not, as the only elected representatives of the people of these Member States, expected to safeguard the interests of the people who live in the Member States? Does the Treaty specifically forbid the European Parliament from having access to information? Certainly not. Therefore, if the EIB is confident that it functions well and has nothing to hide, why is Sir Brian Unwin, its president, denying access to Parliament, the Court of Auditors and OLAF?
Clearly, the Treaty needs to be amended to specify such access in bold print. I suggest that those involved in the IGC take note. Clearly there is support for this as Ecofin, in its meeting on 8 October in Tampere, reinforced its previous criticisms of the EIB's management and performance by directing it to open its doors to OLAF and the Court of Auditors. I have seen the decision taken by the EIB concerning this directive and according to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the decision taken by the Bank it will not open its doors to OLAF. It is about time this House told the Bank to open its doors to OLAF and the Court of Auditors."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples