Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.10.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, work on the Bösch report was obviously overshadowed by the Eurostat affair. In its efforts to shed light on the Eurostat affair – its secret bank accounts, mis-management and nepotism – the Committee on Budgetary Control also uncovered significant shortcomings within OLAF. In this case, OLAF’s main failing was to work too slowly. In so doing it missed the opportunity to recover a considerable proportion of the at least EUR 8 million that had been embezzled. I believe, however, that the report adequately reflects the various criticisms of OLAF’s work. One thing must surely be clear to all of us, and it is clear: the real guilty party in this more than dramatic case of fraud is not OLAF but the Commission. They hushed it up and issued denials for so long that they had no choice but to continue doing so. And the Commissioners responsible, including the President of the Commission, are still refusing to accept the political, as well as the actual, responsibility for this embezzlement. On top of this, the Commission tabled its report – this Article 15 report – more than one year late. That is not very respectful of the law either, Commissioner.
In our view, Eurostat showed above all how necessary it is to have an anti-fraud office, if the Prodian zero tolerance of fraud is not to mutate into full tolerance of fraud. We want an independent OLAF and we continue to need a strong OLAF Supervisory Committee, made up of external experts. An independent OLAF is still far from being a reality, because unfortunately the Commission repeatedly manages to exert influence because of its links to OLAF in terms of organisation and staffing. The Commission’s attempt to take internal investigations away from OLAF, which only recently came to light, is a perfect example.
Commissioner, that was not a rumour, as you have just claimed; a meeting really did take place. If your top officials did not inform you of it then I can give you sight of the minutes of that meeting. The Commission has an inexhaustible wealth of ideas in this respect, with which it now even appears to want to honour the OLAF Supervisory Committee. So far it has tended to be seen as a nuisance, but now, so we hear from the Commission, representatives of the Commission, Parliament and the Council are to be involved to make it more democratic. This would, however, only serve to undermine OLAF’s independence further and we will certainly not be accompanying you down this precarious route, Commissioner. OLAF’s work will also continue to be difficult. We are aware of this. That is why, alongside strong, unswayable managers, we also need clear framework conditions. There is still a long way to go before we have a European financial prosecution service, but I hope that there will be no turning back. I am not able to support most of the amendments tabled by the Liberals and Greens, with two exceptions, but we can go along with most of the PSE’s amendments and I would ask for your support for our ten amendments."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples