Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-11-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020311.8.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We find ourselves in a bit of an awkward situation. Officially, we are assessing the statute of the European data protection Supervisor here, and there are some observations to be made in this respect, which I will do in a moment. However, many of us actually want to discuss the brief and working method of the Supervisor but, as already stated, this decision has already been made, and I fear that we simply suffered from a collective lapse of concentration when that happened. We are now lumbered with a body which employs fifteen people and which is assisted by another twenty people who work internally in the different institutions. This is quite a significant number, considering that this body only supervises the EU’s data which the European Union has at its disposal for the first pillar. For precisely those sensitive areas which one would expect to generate a great deal of work, such as Europol and Schengen, do not fall within the remit of this Supervisor. I therefore seriously wonder what all these people, 35 in total, will be doing all day, whether creating this bureaucratic employment will promote employment, transparency and openness towards the citizens, and also how cooperation with the Ombudsman will work. In my view, there is a real risk that a kind of rivalry will exist between the Ombudsman and this Supervisor, because their tasks overlap. Furthermore, what is the purpose of using tax money to set up a new separate institution which caters for such a restricted set of tasks? However, as already stated, we can only talk about the statute of the Supervisor and his assistant today, a role which I also question. In my view, the fact that a Supervisor is accorded the same status as the Ombudsman is neither here nor there, but to give his assistant the same special status is both costly and difficult to justify. The assistant simply belongs in the organisational chart. The Commission has underlined the analogy with the Ombudsman at every opportunity, but the Ombudsman has no assistant and has no other official who will be paid as handsomely as the assistant to this Supervisor. Since, of course, the Ombudsman and Supervisor will subsequently need to be independent, the official positions will simply need to fall within the remit of the budgetary authorities and not be laid down in a statute. I hope that we can at least get this right."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples