Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-10-Speech-4-083-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120510.9.4-083-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Ehrenhauser, that fits in very nicely inasmuch as I can answer your question straight away.
It is quite clear to me that, at this juncture, it is not a question of refusing discharge. However, if the rapporteur for the discharge in respect of the agencies raises accusations against the agencies, some of which lie outside the responsibility of these institutions, because the staffing of certain bodies, which you rightly described as excessive, is the responsibility of the Member States, then in October, the only option will be to refuse discharge, because this situation will not have changed, because the Member States will not have altered their behaviour with regard to the agencies. Therefore, the political instrument is not the appropriate one.
The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament really is now the last not to take the conflicts of interest seriously. The case just mentioned by Commissioner Šemeta is one that once again throws some pertinent light on the situation. However, the problem will not be resolved by postponing discharge. In committee, I have repeatedly argued that, to resolve the issue, we must wait for the report from the European Court of Auditors, which President Caldeira has, thankfully, informed us about, in order to reach conclusions based on a more thorough knowledge of the facts, which we can then also discuss in a serious debate.
I am on the point of making accusations about certain situations, such as the issue that you also mentioned concerning the choice of seats of the agencies. In a press statement, I myself have criticised the fact that the UK Government is forcing one agency to establish its offices in Canary Wharf. That is the most expensive property market that the European Union has to offer. This is the same government that is proposing that the EU make savings. It really must start with its own decisions.
Thus, with regard to the question of whether the criticism is justified, there is far less disagreement than there perhaps appears to be. The arguments relate to the question of what the political response to this should be."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples