Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.2.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by expressly welcoming Mr Ferber’s report in its broadest outlines. We have enjoyed extremely positive collaboration over recent weeks and months, cooperation marked by the fact that we expressed our opinions in no uncertain terms on the points where we diverged widely, but when you can reach a common line, then that is the path you should take.
The challenge which faces us has been described. One can in fact do no more than repeat it. In the wake of Amsterdam – and I say this now in anticipation of what is yet to come in relation to this Parliament – we must reconcile the powers which Parliament now has with its potential, because at present they do not stand in a very balanced ratio. We must ensure that we can achieve equality in arms with the other legislative authority, namely the Council, both in respect of the scientific service and scientific research. We cannot allow the potential of this democratic and directly-elected Parliament to lag behind what the Council can do. If we take our work seriously, if we take ourselves seriously, we must operate under the same conditions so that we really can stand up for ourselves. There is no point in the President of our Parliament just putting her mark at the bottom of the page. That is not enough; it is the work beforehand which is crucial and it needs to be carried out seriously and it needs to be carried out well. In this respect it is both right and important – and I expressly disagree with Mr Dell'Alba here – that we prepare ourselves properly.
Nor can there be any question of exorbitant cost increases now. Mr Dell'Alba knows full well that, thanks to a clever buildings policy – let there be no mistake about that – we have been able to release considerable funds over recent years.
Having scrimped and saved this money ourselves, we then need to use it to good purpose. To good purpose means improving the potential and capabilities of this Parliament. We are still within the 20% margin which we set ourselves and we are keeping to it. At no point do we go over Parliament’s 20% share of administrative costs. I think that shows that our approach is very serious here and we do not want to promise any cloud cuckoo land.
Another challenge before us – admittedly we have been pushed into action here by official discussions in various quarters – is the need to bring some transparency into this Parliament. We shall accept this responsibility and take up this challenge. Not because we are afraid of being forced to do so. No, we want the public to know that we have nothing to hide here. We are endeavouring to create a serious basis for what we do here, i.e. financing for the groups, and we want a set of rules so that the European political parties and party organisations can raise funds. You cannot call for this sort of development at European level without financing the basis commensurately, that is quite right. The basis must be clearly visible so that our citizens know what money is going where. We shall do everything we can to make progress on this point and to bring more transparency into the process, so that everyone can see what money is going where and can judge if it is appropriate or unsuitable and criticism can then be levied where criticism is needed. And it is needed. However, we must head off criticism on procedural grounds or because we have accommodated certain sums under various budget headings. Transparency is needed here and, as we said last year during the budget debates, we have our work cut out here.
Allow me to comment now on the question of enlargement, because that is the only point on which we disagree with Mr Ferber and, above all, with our colleagues in the PPE group. What worries me here is that Mr Stoiber’s visit to your group last week had a greater impact than we all feared. My next comment is addressed to my honourable friend, Mr Pöttering: it was you who said at a European Union conference “onwards and upwards”, and that enlargement should be speeded up for political reasons, because we cannot afford to put it on the back burner. But, when we are specifically called upon to move forwards, we should do so decisively. I know that the issue of when and how enlargement should take place can be the stuff of first-rate political debate, a debate which could set the axe at the very roots and I call for extreme caution here.
As far as specific preparations are concerned, we need, for example, to make preparations for more buildings. And if you do not start looking for buildings, for example in the candidate countries, until things are so far down the road, you will be faced with prices which make your hair turn grey. So we need to get our act together and make preparations which allow for sound financial management. As far as preparing for new languages is concerned, if you read the Cot report, called for by the honourable Member of your group, Mr Elles, you will see that we shall have an additional 460 language combinations in the future. According to one estimate, this will mean another 500 translators and interpreters. Do you expect us to believe that you are suddenly going to jump up like a jack in the box with a list of people who are highly specialised in Estonian, Latvian, Czech, in all these new languages which we shall have? No, preparations need to be made now. And in order to avoid falling into the trap, as Mr Ferber rightly explained, of taking administrative decisions which anticipate political developments, we must, of course, ensure during the course of the year that we have a precise discussion on the distribution of these posts between the various languages. We shall support the release of the Cot report – that is one part of Mr Elles’ motion. We are in favour of discussing this during the course of the year, but we are expressly against saying as of now that we refuse to fill the 35 posts. That would be frivolous and would send completely the wrong signal to the Member States and to the people who hope to become an integral part of the Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples