Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-255"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.9.2-255"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Martin has invested a great deal of time and effort in this report, for which I wish to express my utmost appreciation. The rapporteur and I also had some good discussions. The granting of discharge is Parliament's most important prerogative as a monitoring body when it comes to the assessment of how the budget has been managed by the executive – that is, primarily, by the Commission. This is a political act and not only the closure of the accounts, important as that is.
Using the reports of the Court of Auditors and other information, some, incidentally, from the Commission itself, we look to see if the objectives set have been met with proper and economic use of the funds allocated. We highlight weak points in order that they may be rectified and also avoided in the forthcoming budget. Where the three discharge options, which the rapporteur has elucidated – grant, deferment, and refusal – are concerned, I think it right to specify time periods, so that there will not be two discharge procedures running in parallel, as often happened in the past, but so that one procedure is concluded before the beginning of the next, and so that the two stages can function. Mrs Schreyer, I believe that the timeframe is indeed sufficient – if the time taken up by the summer recess is included – for constructive solutions to be arrived at in due time.
I have to tell the rapporteur that I cannot, however, accept that discharge should be deemed to have been granted if, in April, the plenary rejects a proposal from the Committee on Budgetary Control that it be deferred. Such a refusal may have contradictory motives behind it and does not express Parliament's unambiguous will. I might add that the Legal Service's opinion says the same thing. Granting discharge would be the wrong answer to the question put, and, for those to be given discharge, it would be a second-class discharge, being granted
. I would therefore have liked the proposal, in its three parts, to be sent back to the Committee on Budgetary Control. Should the discrepancies between the resolution and the result of the vote, as described in paragraph 3 of the new Article 5a, occur, the Committee on Budgetary Control should be given the task of removing them and submitting the resolution to the plenary for a second time.
However, as has already been mentioned, my group's amendments have been withdrawn. I must therefore rely on my own experience when I say, as I have done before, that, although there is in the report much that I can accept, I do not feel able to vote in favour of it if no other way is found of dealing with the issue of suspension and hence of the grant of discharge."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples