Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union lacks moral authority. That is particularly problematic in matters of finances. Parliament could achieve it, and it does wish to, which is clear from the reports now under discussion, but it lacks credibility in this area. To maintain its own self-respect Parliament must accept the rules and regulations for the Members forthwith. Parliament must investigate the misappropriation of funds by its political groups. Our group will not agree that the practice of party aid should be introduced at the taxpayer’s expense to cover up such malpractice. Parliament must investigate why it was so lax in its vigilance when it came to millions of euros’ worth of Parliament property disappearing. I do not really understand why it should discharge itself just now, when the report by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities on monetary and economic issues for 1998 is being prepared and is about to be published.
I would remind you how difficult it was in Parliament to raise the issue of malpractice on the basis of the accounts of the Commission for 1996. I would remind you how the Social Democrats in particular defended Mr Santer’s Commission, and how we were obliged to compile a list of Members’ names when passing a motion of censure. Those parliamentary members that compiled the list were obviously right. The 1998 accounts and data give weight to earlier conclusions: Mr Santer’s Commission appears to have approved a framework of budgetary discipline in which it was possible for malpractice to exist. The members of the Commission in many cases are not themselves guilty of furthering their own interests, but the officials continue to act as before, and this Commission must take them to task. To support them will be the fifty or so trade union officials employed by the EU, defending people who are guilty of malpractice. They are the home guard for the officials that have behaved dishonourably. Most of the officials in the EU are diligent and decent people. In this case there is a need for increased vigilance, and that is something Mr Santer’s Commission was unable to achieve. It would appear that Romano Prodi’s Commission has not got off to a very good start in this respect either, and the President of the Commission, in particular, has delivered opinions that show that the notions of public accessibility and transparency are not being honoured in this Commission. However, postponing the discharge is justified and is the correct course of action in this situation. We want to give the Commission the opportunity to improve the way it does things and show that it is able to do the job it inherited from the previous Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples