Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-10-Speech-4-043-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-05-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Discharge 2010 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120510.9.4-043-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-05-10-Speech-4-044-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens Geier2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; REGI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 member; BUDG (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; CONT (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Ms Andreasen has just asked the European taxpayer to stop paying money to Brussels because, supposedly, no one is interested in spending practices. Exactly the opposite is true. This House is extremely interested in the spending practices of the EU institutions and what happens with the European taxpayers’ money. The problem is that our conclusions are different from those of Ms Andreasen. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats certainly comes to very different conclusions in relation to the situation of the European agencies. Let me give you a brief run-down based on the example of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Thanks to the work of our rapporteur of last year, Mr Stavrakakis, the EMA now has the strictest system in Europe. The rapporteur for the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has come to the conclusion that this is not enough and suggests that the discharge should be deferred, arguing that this system must first prove itself. This is precisely the opposite of the burden of proof outlined by Ms Herczog in her contribution. Ms Macovei, if the effectiveness of this system is to be put to the test, then this is the job of the next rapporteur, Mr Gerbrandy from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. If we find that the system does not work, then we can fine-tune it. However, to insist that an agency should not be discharged until the system has proven itself is to turn the burden of proof on its head. At this point, I fail to understand your claim that you are not seeking to damage the agency. The damage has already been done. We simply need to take a look at how the media has reported on your report, questioning the independence of stakeholders or experts in the agencies. You have already inflicted the damage that you say you wanted to avoid. We do indeed have a problem. The problem is that we cannot find independent rapporteurs or experts because you will find it difficult to identify university lecturers who have not worked for industry in the past. It is also the function of the agencies to cooperate with the private sector. Perhaps we really do need absolute clarity in declarations, separation of responsibilities and regulations. This cannot be achieved by deferring the discharge, however, Ms Macovei. For this reason, we will not be supporting your report."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"‘Conflict of interest’"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph