Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.7.2-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Blak has indicated that the granting of discharge is a political decision of the first order. This almost creates the impression that the facts are irrelevant. That is, of course, not the case. The Members of this Parliament do, however, reach different conclusions based on facts. And this is all tied in with the interpretation of the facts and the trust in the Commission.
When it took up office in 1999, this Commission was facing a huge challenge, namely to carry out the necessary reforms in its official apparatus, clean up its image and handle old fraud cases. With regard to the discharge for 1998 and 1999, I wonder to what extent we can hold the new Commission responsible for the mismanagement of the old one. The facts are there for everyone to see: fraud involving subsidies for flax in Spain, artificial butter in Italy, and ESF funding in the Netherlands. Interpreting these facts is a great deal harder. The cited instances of fraud all took place before the eyes of the Member States, and they should be penalised for this aspect, in particular.
The fact that the Court of Auditors is refusing to issue a Statement of Assurance with regard to the Commission’s accounts weighs heavily upon the Commission. Any other business would be threatened in its very existence.
In this respect, if the Commission were to give off the air of confidence that it was aware of its political accountability and would act accordingly, I would be in favour of discharge. However, the Commission’s conduct left a great deal to be desired during the hearings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Unfortunately, my confidence has taken a proportionate dive. That is why I would be in favour of postponing the discharge.
With the exception of Commissioner Patten, who has shown his political accountability by bringing the subsidies to IRELA to an end, Commissioner Schreyer and Lamy, in particular, have demonstrated that they excel at talking without saying anything. Whilst Commissioner Fischler recognises that the Commission’s conduct in the Fléchard affair is far from exemplary, Commissioner Schreyer refused to make a declaration that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated in future. I appreciate what she said at the beginning of this afternoon’s session, but to make such a declaration under pressure of postponement of the discharge is hardly credible.
When it took up office, the Commission had the trust of this Parliament. It is now high time that they proved to us – in word and deed – that they are worthy of this trust.
This may well mean that Commissioner de Palacio may need to stand down if it appears that she was actually aware of the flax fraud in Spain. The entire Commission can start by addressing the ten points in the resolution with regard to the discharge."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples