Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to echo what some speakers have already expressed before me: after last year’s events, this Commission will need to have all its wits about it if it intends to ignore what this Parliament has to say in resolutions. All I can say at the beginning of this first debate is that the Commission would do well to go through the resolutions with a fine tooth comb, because this time Parliament is serious.
As far as the Stauner report is concerned, the liberal group is able to support the compromise resolution. We are in favour of the Commission publishing an extensive report before 15 May which covers all the points we have raised. In common with Mrs Theato, we hope that everything will be signed, sealed and delivered before the summer. I should add that we, as a group, have less appreciation for the explanatory note which the rapporteur has added to her own resolution. This was already mentioned last night. In our opinion, an explanation should reflect the resolution itself and should not include any new elements.
I would like to make a brief comment on the report by Mr Kuhne. We too have a great deal of appreciation and admiration for the way in which Mr Kuhne has drafted his report. If we are to criticise the Commission, we should perhaps make sure that we have put our own house in order first. It is difficult to scrutinise somebody else if we as Parliament do not ensure that we are completely beyond reproach ourselves. I also think that Parliament’s administration would do well to stick to the many dates and deadlines included in the Kuhne report.
I would now like to come back to the Stauner report and a number of points made in it. The Court of Auditors will shortly be publishing a report on the so-called Fléchard affair. There have been many speculations in the press, in Parliament, and so forth. We must not get ahead of ourselves. A few things are already clear, however, irrespective of the fraud affair itself.
Firstly, how is it possible for documents intentionally to go missing from the four Directorates-General or directors dealing with these? The documents disappeared everywhere simultaneously. The big question to the Commission is: what has it since done on this score? Secondly, we would like proportionality explained. Should large businesses pay larger fines than small businesses? Thirdly, where does the Commissioners’ responsibility lie? To what extent can officials decide some things for themselves? This is an extremely political issue.
The following general rule will need to apply to this Commission: the error rate is too high. It is not enough to say that it should come down. We need a plan of action: by such and such a year, the Commission should bring the error rate down to such and such a level. Then Parliament would know where it stood. The Commission would then have a goal to work towards and we could market ourselves better to the general public. This is what it is all about at the end of the day. Europe’s ideal needs to be preserved."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples