Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-06-Speech-1-099"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protecting the Community's financial interests and fight against fraud2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050606.14.1-099"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-06-Speech-1-1002
lpv:speaker	lp:Jan Mulder2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with South Africa (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 unknown; Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2004-09-03--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on policy challenges and budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (2004-10-14--2005-06-08)3 substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I too should like to add my thanks to Mr Bösch for his consistently interesting report on this subject. As a Dutchman, I do, of course, still have the outcome of the referendum on my mind. What general conclusion can be drawn from it? Here in Brussels or in Strasbourg, a Moloch of rules is coming into being – rules that are completely unintelligible, utterly incomprehensible, and with which we do not want to be associated in any way. When we talk about the fight against fraud, all we can do is to tighten the rules. That is the problem with this subject. How can we avoid lapsing into excessive regulation while fighting fraud effectively? That is, I think, the challenge for this Commission. One of this report’s conclusions is that the number of isolated cases of fraud and irregularities in structural funds is going up. I come across more and more organisations that prefer not to use those structural funds because they are far too complex to use. You need all kinds of agencies to complete the forms. This is again an example of an inconsistency. How can the Commission solve this? Although cigarette smuggling has been an issue for a very long time, we are making progress on all kinds of fronts. When I read the report, I was reminded of the first, temporary, committee on the prevention of fraud in transit, on which I sat, and which made a whole host of recommendations, including equipping all customs offices with computers to enable information to be passed on swiftly. That report has never, as far as I am aware, been followed up. Has the Commission done anything with it? Does the Commission intend to revisit it, to inform Parliament what subsequent action has been taken, because it contained many interesting recommendations? Finally, there will not be a European public prosecutor for the time being. This is an old idea. I belong to the group of people who regret this. Another recommendation in the report of the temporary enquiry committee was to organise as much as possible the exchange of customs officers from the different Member States with a view to them learning from each other. What is the Commission’s current position on this?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph