Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.9.2-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Parliament now has to reach a decision, in plenary sitting, on whether to grant the Commission the discharge for the 1997 financial year that was refused on 4 May last year. Therefore we must ask what has changed, against a background that is truly historic as far as the EU is concerned. What improvements have there been? What is there to justify granting the discharge today? First of all there is – to some extent in any event – a new Commission. There has been a plethora of declarations of intent and announcements to do with reform, none of which have a great deal of substance to them. So far, no consideration has been given to creating codes of conduct for Members of the Commission and their cabinets.
I have taken note of what Mrs Schreyer had to say this morning on the complaint against the two banks and the support for creating protection under criminal law of the financial interests of the EU. These are also positive signs. Nevertheless, it has to be said that these will cost the Commission relatively little. The Commission has announced that it will present its reform programme in February 2000. Announcements and declarations of intent are one thing, fulfilling promises quite another. However, the Commission’s endeavours can only be measured in terms of actual results, for only in this way will it be possible to restore the enormous loss of confidence that the EU has suffered amongst the citizens of Europe, on account of various shortcomings and machinations.
We have been able to take stock since May 1999 and our conclusions offer no compelling reasons whatsoever for forming a decision on the granting of discharge. If, nevertheless, discharge is granted to the Commission for the 1997 financial year, this then will mean that we will – once again – be giving them a major vote of confidence. It is another story as to whether our citizens will have any sympathy at all for a renewed vote of confidence of this kind on the part of the democratically-elected monitoring institution that is Parliament, in view of the grave errors committed by the previous Commission which are, of course, a millstone around the new Commission’s neck. In addition, and after all this is important as far as the general impression held by the people is concerned, there is the fact that so far – at least as far as I know – the Court of Auditors has been unable to deliver a positive statement of assurance since this instrument was introduced.
Nevertheless, I would advocate granting discharge for 1997 and also call upon my fellow MEPs to decide in favour, for, in so doing, we would be setting down a clear marker for a fresh start, as well as giving the present Commission the opportunity to make a fresh start – which would also be apparent to the outside world – in terms of coping with its admittedly onerous legacy. Furthermore, this would entail continuing to track down and resolve once and for all any irregularities or incidences of fraud.
If the Commission is now to be granted discharge for 1997, then under no circumstances should this be interpreted to mean a clean bill of health for the past or
for poor financial management in the future, for it is known that friendship does not extend to money matters. This expression also holds true for the relationship between citizens and European institutions. And friendship, which means confidence in the reliability of the work of the European institutions in this context, is something we have more need of today than ever before. It is, above all, the forthcoming enlargement of the EU to include the states of Central and Eastern Europe that will produce far-reaching problems and impose burdens on internal structures and administrative developments. A Commission shaken by financial scandals could very quickly become the pawn of certain interests and objectives that most definitely do not feature in the Treaty of Amsterdam’s catalogue of aims.
Unfortunately, in the past, particularly in the year under review, problems have tended to arise in those assisted areas which are set to accrue greater importance when enlargement takes place; for example the structural funds and the deployment of Technical Assistance Offices. We must put a stop to this unacceptable situation with all haste, for we cannot ask something of the new Member States that we cannot deliver ourselves; nor does it help matters when the Commission and Member States point the finger at each other in turn and pass the buck from one to another.
As rapporteur for the 1998 Budget, I would like to give advance warning that, in the course of the next few weeks and months, I intend to keep a very close eye on how and whether the Commission implements its reform proposals and how it shapes relations with Parliament in this very area."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples