Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-254"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Discharge procedure: amendment of the Rules of Procedure2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021022.9.2-254"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-10-22-Speech-2-2552
lpv:speaker	lp:Kyösti Virrankoski2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Suomen Keskusta (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the discharge procedure is one of the most important rights and duties of the European Parliament. Parliament must acquaint itself with how finances are being managed and establish whether the Commission has been doing its job properly. Parliament cannot therefore grant discharge without justification. Granting discharge means that the information received and obtained by Parliament indicates that the Commission has functioned properly. If there are points that need clarification that emerge later on, we can always return to them, even if discharge has been granted. The report proposes that a deadline be given for discharge. This is a good thing. A situation where discharge is still pending from one year to the next, as has been the case here in recent years, does not show a businesslike or responsible approach to administration. One problem is refusal to grant discharge. If discharge is not granted and a decision is taken on this, the reason is either malpractice or political distrust. Malpractice necessitates bringing charges against the authority or authorities concerned. If malpractice is not indicated, the accounts must be closed. If the reason for refusal of discharge is political, I think the Commission in that case should be forced to resign. The system that has now been outlined, according to which refusal of discharge would be followed by a vote on a motion for censure, is good but unclear. If there is a motion for censure against the Commission or a Commissioner but discharge is not granted, there is a contradiction in the system. The contradiction may be due to the fact that discharge can be refused by a simple majority but a motion for censure only by a qualified majority. For that reason this conflict should not in any sense be made possible."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph