Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.4.2-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on a very good report. The very fact that my Italian colleague is opposed to it means that it really is a report of very high quality. Even though there was a slight decline in fraud and irregularities between 1997 and 1998, there is nonetheless still a need for more effective supervisory mechanisms. Reform of the Commission is now under way. Mr Kinnock has submitted a timetable, and it is now up to us to applaud it. I am very impressed with the reform plan. In general, it is both visionary and realistic. There are nonetheless a number of sticking points, and these are what we ought to draw attention to and criticise.
Parliament has already proposed, in the Van Hulten report, that an external court should be established under the aegis of the Court of Auditors. This would deal with disciplinary matters and help recover money which has been paid out unlawfully. This idea is one we should stick to, I think. If such a body were to be established, this would mean that disciplinary matters would be taken away from the Commission. We have had a lot of bad experience with internal disciplinary councils. At present, officials who have had actions brought against them by the disciplinary council have colleagues of theirs sitting in judgement over them. That is indefensible. Both the ECHO and MED cases are all too well-known examples of this state of affairs. I also agree with the rapporteur when he criticises setting up an advisory panel to deal with irregularities. We have, of course, established OLAF to deal with suspicions of fraud and irregularities. Another panel would serve only to undermine OLAF’s powers. I cannot, however, vote in favour of setting up a European Public Prosecutor’s office. I can well understand people’s being tired of all the fraud and therefore demanding that we have a common public prosecutor’s office. It would, however, be a colossal enterprise to set up when the problems are, in reality, elsewhere. In actual fact, there is a need for a fundamental staffing reform. It is, for all that, only the most serious cases which will have penal consequences. Ninety per cent of cases will be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence. Instead, there is a need for public, internal supervision and for more leeway when it comes to sacking people. We need changes to staff regulations and to the disciplinary procedure, as also proposed in the report. I would also point out that I had three minutes in which to speak. I spoke for only two, but I am very disciplined. I am happy to let someone else use my time. You should also, of course, be allowed to make mistakes from time to time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples