Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-294"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.10.2-294"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"This debate on the van Hulten report brings to a close one of the most traumatic periods for the European institutions since their creation in 1957. The refusal of the European Parliament to grant discharge and the definitive refusal for the 1996 budget; the motion of censure tabled in this House a year ago for differing reasons; and the first report of the Committee of Independent Experts on the reform of the Commission which led to the mass resignation of the Commission itself, are now part of European folklore. Those of us involved in these historic events are well aware that none of the upheaval would have been caused had we not acted with parliamentary power to press for changes in the way in which the Commission operated.
Remember that the Council of Ministers, absent again this evening from our debate, approved the 1997 discharge – not the 1996 – on the very day the Commission itself resigned on 15 March.
Now we come to the second report of the Committee of Independent Experts which we already had the opportunity to welcome and briefly debate last September. Our greatest concern in the EPP is to ensure that public confidence in the European Commission is restored. Further steps to build a strong Europe will be to no avail if the European peoples perceive that there is no adequate system of democratic accountability for over-zealous officials. Under no circumstances will we concede ground which we have won over the past few months, which we believe to be in the interests of openness and transparency. We are therefore concerned to see the flurry of Commission announcements in recent weeks by Commissioner Kinnock suggesting policy proposals of various kinds to be put in a White Paper shortly. While conveying a desire to proceed rapidly, it also gives the impression that the Commission is in transmission rather than listening mode.
Our concern is strengthened if the rumour reported a few days ago is true – namely that the Commission wants to limit severely the access of Parliament to information. This was, after all, one of the causes of the downfall of the last Commission. Have the lessons not been learnt?
The knowledge that the framework relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission still remain to be negotiated led to our disagreement with the rapporteur when we debated his report in committee. We could, in no way, agree with his view that it would be demeaning for Parliament to set out detailed instructions as to what we wanted the Commission to take up in its reform package. The less precise, Mr van Hulten, we are in our resolutions, the more room it gives the Commission and your former colleagues in the Council to do what they like. We believe the vast number of recommendations of the Wise Men’s report should be implemented. We have, as the EPP-ED group, submitted all the recommendations of the Wise Men’s report in committee and many of them have now been put into the report, entirely changing the nature of the van Hulten report in committee.
We have resubmitted a few amendments which fell in committee, in particular, our desire to see the codes of conduct revised specifically to include the reference to merit and managerial capacity which you, Commissioner, accepted – when we had our hearings last September – should be included in these codes of conduct, particularly when considering appointments and promotion.
Looking to the future, we know that we are at the beginning of a long process of continuing reform in the European Commission. We want in particular to see the hard-working and highly competent norm for Commission officials acknowledged in the outside world – a reputation that has been darkened by the inappropriate conduct of a few individuals.
Commissioner, you will be aware from your presence in the last Commission why the crisis occurred. In a nutshell: there were programmes being run for which there were insufficient staff resources available. We urge you to take the opportunity to establish the real staffing needs of the Commission based on the essential activities for which it is responsible. Our position was made very clear on this topic in the 2000 budget. We will be vigilant over the next five years to ensure the reforms now being suggested are fully implemented and will support efforts made to modernise institutions. But, equally, we will not hesitate to withdraw our support financially or otherwise should steps be taken which do not correspond to the openness promised by Commission President Romano Prodi prior to his nomination.
Let us hope that we can avoid institutional upheavals by having an ongoing dialogue which assumes from the outset that Parliament will be an equal partner in deciding the outcome of Commission reform."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples