Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.12.2-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what would a regulation such as the EU's Financial Regulation be without rules for its implementation? Obviously, it would be worthless or impracticable and incapable of being implemented, for, in the aftermath of our sustained work, in committee and in plenary, on a recasting of the Financial Regulation, here, hot on its heels, comes the regulation on the rules for implementation. Why do I lay such emphasis on this? I do so because I think we are giving another example of how legislation is evidently insufficient, but needs further elaboration. That does not help European law to be clear, simple or comprehensible.
Perhaps, though, this wide-ranging creativity in legal matters does indeed contribute towards legal veracity, by which I mean the application of laws currently in force. It is with reference to this that I ask the Commissioner responsible for these matters to act in accordance with the law and not follow the example of the President of the present Commission, who simply describes current laws – such as the Stability Pact – as stupid and fails to apply them.
The fact that the degree to which public has confidence in this Europe of ours is largely dependent on the Financial Regulation and on the rules for its implementation means that these are not in any way suited to being played about with in this way. Such confidence is damaged by the Commission's thoughtless and arrogant way of acting or failing to act; among other things, it has obviously neglected to ensure that its accounting system is reliable and proof against manipulation. This is a dereliction of duty dating back to the day it took office, despite repeated admonitions from, inter alia, the European Court of Auditors, and one for which it must be held accountable.
That is also precisely why it is so important that the so-called accounting officer should be in a clearly defined and independent position. The Commission having, unfortunately, been so irresponsible as to abolish the independent financial controller, the accounting officer will acquire even greater importance. He must be able to get his hands on additional information with absolute independence, suspend payments, and criticise people in prominent positions, without being removed from office and subjected to disciplinary proceedings or something of that sort.
I therefore ask you to support my group's Amendment No 33, and also the other two amendments tabled by Mr Blak, which are also intended to enhance the clarity and transparency of the law. We must not allow large margins of appreciation in budgetary law. Mr van Hulten, I am not surprised at your lack of support for Amendment No 33. The arguments you adduce here are the same as in committee, but their constant repetition does not render them any more effective.
We must, in these matters, avoid the least suspicion of decisions being arbitrary or partisan, for only in this way can the Commission disabuse people of their impression that a more lenient standard is applied to the handling of European funds than applies to the handling of national funds. Incidentally, I greatly regret the fact that Parliament has needlessly allowed itself to be put under pressure of time in dealing with these rules. I do not know why we have not waited for the European Court of Auditors to give its opinion, but perhaps the rapporteur, in his great wisdom, will be able to give me an answer on that."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples