Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-043"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.2.2-043"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank Mr Kuhne and Mrs Rühle for their reports, especially the well-balanced one from Mr Kuhne. We have taken the discharge procedure most seriously and I should also like to thank the administration and the Secretary-General for their collaboration in this exercise. I think it was a good approach to clarify matters, look into them more carefully and solve some outstanding problems with a properly argued report enabling Parliament to have all the facts in order to grant discharge to the administration and the President of the European Parliament.
This is whom discharge is addressed to, even though it concerns the administration. I am pleased to see that discharge has been granted to Parliament. I think we have done an excellent job. Group finances are also going to be more transparent and more appropriate to the exercise we are making ready for if we wish to continue along the road of financing political parties. It was a useful exercise, properly carried out, and Mr Kuhne should be congratulated. I think we should be able to vote broadly in favour of his report the day after tomorrow.
I cannot say the same for Mrs Stauner’s report. I feel it is misguided to attempt to use the rapporteur’s role to one’s own ends: it is deceiving Parliament and deceiving oneself. This practice has been appalling. Right up to the very end, we shall have been witness to abuse of the procedure. More than 60% of the report voted upon consisted of amendments. Mr President, it is extremely rare for a report to be quite so turned around after the vote in committee. This clearly demonstrates that the rapporteur must interpret the committee’s opinion logically. If the rapporteur does not interpret the opinions expressed by the committee accurately then the report will be beset by amendments. The rapporteur is supposed to be the spokesperson for the parliamentary committee. I feel that a situation where 60% of the amendments are adopted is verging on the nonsensical, and indicates some deep-seated malaise. The practice of playing games with the explanatory statement must stop. It is not acceptable to attempt, as Mrs Stauner did, to include points in the explanatory statement which had not been accepted by the majority in committee.
It is a matter of some importance. This Parliament has no clear majority or minority. We have to rely to a certain extent on parliamentary fair play. If a clear majority emerges, then this majority feeling should be expressed in all the aspects of a report, without resorting to playing on words or abusing procedures.
Furthermore, some of the pictures shown on television from Germany, involving extremely prominent people, suggest to me that one must look to one’s own backyard before preaching to Parliament and to Europe. We must ensure that private and public matters are not muddled. We shall therefore grant the discharge. We shall support this report which the rapporteur is clearly against. Rest assured, Mr President, that the TDI group will vote in favour of discharge, at least the radical wing of the group which I represent here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples