Strasbourg, 11/03/2003 (Agence Europe) - On Monday evening in Strasbourg, the EPP-ED group failed to get the Andreasen affair onto the agenda for the special debate with the European Commission on the accountant the Commission transferred from her job last year (more due to disagreements with hierarchy, it appears, than her ability to do her job, as indicated in a note from the Director General of the Commission's internal audit services, Jules Muis, in May 2002): see EUROPE yesterday p 9).
British Conservative, Jonathan Evans had been calling for such a debate and criticised the Commission for not having made available all the necessary documents to Parliament for understanding the case, particularly this note. He was angry at being misled by the Commission. German Christian Democrat, Dietmut Theato, President of the Budgetary Control Committee also supported this line. She also wanted to know why the Commission had not informed them of this note and pointed out that in a week's time, there would be a vote on the European Commission's discharge committee (for the execution of the 2001 budget). According to Ms Theato it is really very urgent that they obtain an explanation. The co-President of the Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, considered that it was opportune to discuss this subject in the context of the discharge (see following article). He exclaimed that the evidence provided by journalists was enough to go on for doing their work.
The President of the Socialist group, Enrique Baron, responded that they should not work on the basis of "leaks" from the press and that they had debates at the Budgetary Control Committee. He also exclaimed that he formerly believed that "the Loch Ness monster only appeared in summer but now it was all year round" and that it was the fifth or sixth time that they were discussing the case.
The President of the Liberal group, Graham Watson, was of the same opinion and called for them to stop acting rashly. The note of May 2002 and the reform process since then at the Commission had moved forward, he underlined and asked whether Mr Muis would have written the same thing today. He concluded that it was just a "storm in a tea cup".