Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-26-Speech-4-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020926.1.4-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, we are debating the last annual report which will be presented to the Parliament by Jacob Söderman. Today is not the time when we say farewell, but it is a moment to appreciate the work that Jacob Söderman has carried out and his efforts on our behalf and very much in the interests of Europe.
The European Union institutions are inevitably a large and complex bureaucracy and, of course, there are going to be mistakes and administrative errors. The institutions seek to minimise those errors, and they must be prepared to listen to advice on how to do that. The Ombudsman is there, as we all know, to act as the arbiter in a fair and objective way. I would say to the Commission that they must think long and hard before they reject any of the Ombudsman's findings.
I been appalled to come across examples where the Commission has blatantly rejected the Ombudsman's findings. Without going into details, I have a letter here from Mr Prodi to one of my colleagues. The Ombudsman found there had been maladministration and the Commission flatly refused to reverse the situation. Mr Prodi writes: 'I am convinced that the solution we offer is the most suitable in the light of the specificity of the case and I am disappointed that your constituent does not see it this way'. It is hardly surprising that the MEP concerned has written to me in the Committee on Petitions to say that the reply from the President of the Commission is preposterous. It is impossible to defend that before the citizens.
I am sorry in some sense that it is Commissioner Liikanen who is here this morning. I always appreciate his words and certainly acknowledge the good relations between his department and the Committee on Petitions. I was very heartened to hear his words this morning about the Commission's preparedness to look at the review of the inter-institutional agreement. The time for that is certainly getting very close.
I want to make stronger points about the Code of Administrative Behaviour. Last December, Commissioner Kinnock promised to this House that we would receive a review on the workings of the voluntary Code. We are yet to see it, although we have heard it will come in the near future. To my mind, it is already a year late.
A code has to be binding, it must not be a voluntary code; and it also needs to be consistent. The citizens of Europe do not distinguish between the institutions of the European Union. To them, Brussels is one place, Strasbourg is somewhere else. They want a consistent code across each of the institutions. I have analysed the voluntary code of the Commission and compared it with that proposed by the Ombudsman. In over 70% of the articles, there are differences. Some differences may be small, but some are very big indeed. The Commission code does not explicitly recognise the need for courtesy. There is no provision for an apology or correction of mistakes. The Commission code is very weak on access to documents and on discrimination: it does not recognise that discrimination can be based on language, membership of a national minority or even appearance. The Commission's code says staff shall not be guided by personal interest. The Ombudsman's code says the official shall not take part in a decision in which he or she or any close member of his or her family has a financial interest. I would urge the Commission to be more relaxed about it, to listen to the code that is proposed by the Ombudsman and endorsed by this House, and to accept it. It should be in the forefront, it should not say: 'Well, none of the other institutions has done so'. I know that is the case. Nevertheless, the Commission is in the driving seat here and should be much readier to accept the advice, coming from friends, which will enable it to face the citizens of Europe much more confidently.
I am delighted to say that the Committee on Petitions had a recent meeting with the Danish presidency at which the presidency expressed its willingness to look at the new interinstitutional agreement. We have the communication from the Commission on complaints and petitions, and we now have Mr Liikanen's proposals. The time has come for us to have that new interinstitutional agreement."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples