Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-16-Speech-2-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010116.2.2-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, there have been further developments regarding the report on the 1997 discharge. That is a new departure, but then again it comes as no surprise, for this was a special case after all. It was the first discharge after the fall of the Santer Commission and thus the first opportunity for this Parliament to have a say in the European Commission’s reform policy. Since then, Parliament has made its views heard on a regular basis, notably in the excellent reports by Mr van Hulten and Mr Pomés Ruiz. Needless to say, the reforms should help restore confidence in Europe. The question today is whether those initial steps, which were promised at the time in order to obtain the discharge, have actually been made.
All in all, it is fair to say that the Commission has made every effort to meet the requirements of this Parliament. A serious start has been made on reforms. It is, of course, too soon to determine whether all the required results have been achieved; too many words still need to be translated into action for that to happen. Although things can still go pear-shaped, even at Commissioner level – and naturally the abominable Commission proposal on access to documents is one of the things that springs to mind – it is quite clear that this Commission is highly committed to making a break with the past.
I will give you a few examples. In its discharge resolution, this Parliament demanded an end to an unacceptably high percentage of error in bills. The Commission subsequently submitted proposals to streamline the Financial Regulation, and produced a plan to eliminate all abnormal arrears by the end of 2003. Parliament is issued with six-monthly reports on this. In addition, Parliament asked for a reform of the rules on whistle-blowers and for disciplinary procedures; the Commission ensured that this reform was made. Parliament asked for improvements in the field of bureaux for external aid; tick. Parliament requested a list of current fraud and corruption inquiries; again tick. Parliament asked the Commission to clarify its foreign aid strategy; tick yet again. Mr President, these are but a few examples, but they do demonstrate that the European Parliament can yield substantial results if it makes a concerted effort.
One section of the discharge which this Parliament has every reason to be proud, is that concerning the hospital in Gaza. In 1996, this project, which is subsidised by the European Union, was 97% complete. Due to mismanagement and a lack of follow-up, this hospital still stood empty up until the end of last year, at the very time – we are familiar with the images from the Middle East – when there was a desperate shortage of medical help in an area which very much needs it.
In April 1999, this Parliament found out about this scandalous state of affairs. From that moment, we gave the Commission hell, with no let-up, until we finally had results. Since the hospital opened three months ago, more than 2 700 patients have already been treated and more than 370 healthy babies have been born there, which is good news in an area where death is an every-day occurrence. If this Parliament had not made it so clear that enough was enough, I am convinced that the hospital would still be empty now. Unfortunately, the hospital is now having to face other problems, namely it is impossible to make any deliveries to this hospital due to the closure of Gaza, and even ambulance services cannot get through the Israeli blockades, but that is another story.
I would like to take the opportunity to go into Mr van Dam’s amendment very briefly. I believe that, although it is an extremely kind and considerate amendment, the content of which must be given due follow-up, I cannot recommend approval of it as rapporteur, because we have very consistently rejected new elements in the discharge, so I hope that there will be some understanding for this.
Needless to say, there are also areas of concern with regard to the 1997 discharge. For example, a higher level of transparency must be achieved within the personnel policy with regard to recruitment of staff and the proposed redundancy scheme. I also expect the Commissioner to shed some light on how the Commission will guarantee that each individual Commissioner will ensure that recommendations from the Court of Auditors do not end up in some drawer somewhere, but will be implemented with due care. This Parliament will monitor the follow-up of all reports brought by the Commission. The extensive pledges for the coming years must be translated into action, and I hope that we can do this together, and in doing so, close off this sad chapter and be able to work together on the future with confidence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples