Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.4.3-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have today voted in favour of the Van Hulten report for it contains a lot of good recommendations regarding reform of the Commission. We especially want to emphasise the radical reform of staff policy, as well as the reform of financial control so that this is efficient and decentralised.
There are, however, a number of points on which we have chosen to vote against the submitted proposals. We have voted against establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. We think that extended intergovernmental cooperation on research in criminal matters, as proposed at the Tampere Summit, is a better idea. There is, moreover, a more urgent need for reform of the staff regulations since only a few matters have consequences in criminal law.
We have voted against completely abolishing
financial control. A certain amount of
control should be retained. It is not enough merely to exercise control on a spot-check basis once the money has been spent. Instead, control should be reformed and decentralised. We have voted against limiting Parliament’s access to information. Parliament ought to be entitled to all the material which the Commission made available to the Committee of Independent Experts. We have also voted against establishing a number of experts’ committees. It ought to be the competent committee in Parliament which undertakes investigations and proposes reforms. The danger with committees of experts is that you can end up undermining Parliament as an institution elected by the people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples