Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.4.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, when deciding here in Parliament whether or not to grant discharge to the Commission, we check that there is no irregularity in expenditure by the administration. In the past – as we are now all aware – there have been irregularities within the Commission. Each report by the Court of Auditors also highlights the decisive role of the Member States in distributing Community funds. A number of errors for which the Member States are to blame occur during the distribution of funds, which makes us apprehensive, especially as a considerable percentage is the result of fraud. Consequently, it is not just within the Commission that we need to wield an instrument to fight fraud, which we call OLAF. OLAF is the outcome of the modus operandi of the Member States and the Commission and should take on an objective role precisely so as to get to the bottom of these errors and prevent them from arising.
The EU must use European measures such as the introduction of the euro to prove its European competence to the outside world, because the accompanying counterfeiting industry, to name but one example, is an external matter. Nevertheless, deeper causes for error rates clearly lie in the different handling systems in the Member States. Right from the outset, legislative texts are often worded differently and allow perfectly legal but differing definitions of fraud. This opens the door to fraud. Just think of the example of the collection of value added tax. Under no circumstances should OLAF become nothing more than a help desk. OLAF is not one of your broadcasts for DIY enthusiasts, along the lines of “How can we build a model railway?”
The issue should not be taken lightly. Protecting the financial interests of the Union and fighting fraud are a necessity, pure and simple, which call for a uniform instrument which can act independently, preventively, efficiently and as a deterrent, and which depend upon transparent regulations both internally and externally, so that everyone knows where they stand.
I would like this financial instrument to have an additional name such as prosecutor, a broad-shouldered European financial prosecutor. This prosecutor must be accepted by the Member States, take on an active role and, at the same time, be integrated into the national jurisdiction of the Member States. I would remind you at this point that Parliament called for an external chamber for budgetary discipline in its resolution of 19 January. In my view this is a good idea and is not only worth considering, it is indispensable if we are to create a comprehensive area of justice and law. A neutral, objective judgement will serve the cause and the individual concerned, condemnation of colleagues by colleagues will not. OLAF is no Big Brother à la Orson Welles, but is limited in its remit by the rule of law. The immunity of members, for example, will of course continue to be protected.
I call on the Intergovernmental Conference to take our concerns on board. We are fighting here for technical measures which, hopefully, will not turn into a long-running saga. We must concentrate once again on European values so that, for example, our money is not misappropriated for the drawing up of military measures. I know it is difficult to impart ideals and virtue to another person. But that is where our efforts should be concentrated. Because worthlessness soon turns into helplessness."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples