Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.7.2-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Framework Agreement on the provision of information to this House has been mentioned by several speakers. I should like to make it clear that the Social Democrats in the Committee on Budgetary Control have a good result to show for the recorded vote on Parliament's freedom of information. This may not apply to all the Groups here in this Chamber. But I think it is appropriate to point this out.
A word to the Commission. You should be aware that we are taking this seriously: we expect the Commission to do its utmost to ensure that a positive Statement of Assurance can be issued in 2003. In anticipation of what I have heard about the content of some of tomorrow's proposed amendments – which had not been submitted in writing by the start of this afternoon's sitting – I say this: we will not support any attempt to introduce an automatic process which effectively requires us, as Parliament, to cede our own right as the decision-making body on the issue of discharge and makes us a kind of secretariat for the Court of Auditors.
In my view, the PPE-DE must clarify its own position on this issue too. You cannot table motions which aim to introduce this kind of automatic process and at the same time, in the committee meetings, emphasise the scope for political discretion in the granting of discharge, as Ms Theato tends to do. There is a clear contradiction here, and the group really must clarify its position. In any event, we will certainly not hand in Parliament's right to make its own decision on discharge along with our hats and coats.
I have a number of responses to the points raised by Mr Heaton-Harris. If the Court of Auditors does not provide any official error rates – as is the case – this is regrettable and is an issue which we can discuss with the Court of Auditors. But the point of relevance to Parliament as an institution is that it has not done so. As a Parliament, we are not the arbitrators for internal wrangling within the Court of Auditors, and it is not our task to judge what some members of the Court of Auditors may have told others in the corridor about the error rates. If there are any error rates, we expect a clear statement from the Court of Auditors.
But Mr Heaton-Harris, you made one point on which I agree with you completely, and the Commission should take note. The political nature of the discharge procedure, which I have just mentioned, does not mean that the Commission can simply collect broken promises and let them mount up endlessly. Sooner or later, a stray spark will set the pile ablaze like a bonfire. You are absolutely right on this point. But I cannot agree with your little attempt to seduce Parliament: you say that we can simply refuse to grant discharge, as there are no legal consequences – there is nothing in the Treaties that says that must happen. Here, too, I must remind you that there are different views on this issue within your group. I was given a great deal of support from within your group when I said that since the events of 1998/1999, this annual discharge procedure has acquired a political character. It is, after all, an annual political vote of confidence in the Commission, so there is rather more at stake if we refuse to grant discharge than simply saying, go ahead, there are no legal consequences.
I think everyone in this Chamber is aware of the political consequences which would ensue if discharge were denied under the present circumstances. And this is precisely the reason why, even after the explanations provided by the Commission, we will grant discharge tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples