Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.4.3-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Colleagues, on Wednesday 31 March I made a statement to the House about a number of newspaper articles and television reports concerning allegations made about Members of this House, purportedly on the basis of interviews and comments given by one of our Members, Mr Hans-Peter Martin. I informed the House at that time that when allegations are made, they are thoroughly and promptly investigated by the relevant services and appropriate action is taken. I went on to invite Mr Martin, if he had information concerning possible wrongdoing, misuse of funds or irregularities, to draw these to my attention so that they could be appropriately investigated. It was his duty as a Member of the House.
In the times in which we live, it is very easy to blacken the reputation of public figures. It is extremely difficult to counteract slurs and partial information once these have been launched in certain sections of the media.
The Rules of this House are a work in progress. Historically, we are still a relatively new Parliament and are constantly evolving. From May onwards, we have to find systems that are fair for elected representatives from 25 Member States.
One area that has not been regulated concerns the behaviour of Members. It is my personal view, however, that the secret filming of Members and the secret recording of their conversations is unacceptable in every circumstance, most of all when it is done by a fellow Member.
These are methods that are reminiscent of another time and another place.
When we talk about standards of behaviour in this House, the way in which we behave towards each other is an important consideration in those standards. This House has always stood up for the rights of whistle-blowers, but we also expect whistle-blowers to exhaust the available and proper procedures. Here, it appears to me that no attempt has been made to use the normal procedures of this House, which have been bypassed in a grotesque attempt to maximise personal publicity.
Belatedly, late on Monday night, he sent me a letter that makes detailed criticisms of the allowance system that we have for Members. He further makes specific allegations – two concerning meetings of a political group outside the working places – and he also lists 7 000 cases where Members have claimed allowances in circumstances which he claims to be inappropriate, for example, when Members have signed the central attendance register and not attendance lists for parliamentary meetings.
I shall reply to Mr Martin in detail. The specific cases that he raises will be looked into with the cooperation of the Members and the Groups concerned. But let me repeat that on the basis of what he has sent to me, there is zero evidence to support his claims of wrongdoing or breaches of the Rules. Let me place on the record my deep personal disapproval of the methods employed by our esteemed colleague.
As regards the specific points, I have asked the political group concerned to give me further information about the two meetings indicated. On the more general point of the central attendance register, it is clear to me that Mr Martin is criticising the system and a specific Rule. However, there is no indication whatsoever that Members have broken the Rules of this House.
On the wider point, he fails to acknowledge the important progress that has been made by Parliament in reforming our rules and regulations to ensure greater transparency and accountability and to respond promptly to any points that have been brought to our attention by the Court of Auditors in its annual or specific reports and which have highlighted possible shortcomings in our rules.
Specific reforms on travel allowances, on the secretarial allowance and other allowances have been decided by the Bureau and by the Quaestors under the presidencies of Mr Hänsch, Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado, Mrs Fontaine and also during my mandate.
At the outset of my mandate I sought a global reform based on two main elements: firstly, fair treatment of Members of this House on the basis of equality, and secondly, transparency on allowances to be based on costs incurred. Until the beginning of this year we, in Parliament, were hopeful because we had made the compromises necessary, that the Council could agree to this package. At the very last moment a minority of Member States blocked this reform. That has not prevented the Bureau and other bodies of this House from examining further reforms on an incremental basis. It would have been more helpful and, in my view, more fruitful had Mr Martin associated himself with this drive for reform in committee and in plenary ...
... rather than by conducting a campaign, the main purpose of which appears to have been to seek to discredit the institution, to call into question the honour of Members of this House and to wreak maximum damage – on zero evidence – to individuals, their careers and their families."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples