Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.10.2-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the rapporteur has already explained the SAB is asking to approve two separate sums of money. I hope that these sums have been arrived at after taking good account of the principles of budgetary prudence and value for money.
The political decision to approve the building for Mr Solana and the 45 military personnel had already been taken by the fifteen Member States at Helsinki.
I would like to raise three issues about this. Firstly, it is not clear why the military personnel in the building should be counted as administrative expenditure. They would more appropriately come under the heading of operational expenditure.
Secondly, I understand there is a gentlemen's agreement according to which the European Parliament and the Council agreed not to interfere with each other's budget. I believe this has been pushed to its limit. The Council's interpretation of the gentlemen's agreement is certainly imaginative. The agreement applies to buildings and Council staff but not necessarily to seconded military personnel, whose salary comes from their own Member State. However their overheads would be paid for by the EU in the future with no real monitoring or accountability role by any institution.
Thirdly, I am not satisfied with the use of the SAB as an instrument for this because these extra needs were foreseen prior to the conclusion of the budgetary process last year and should have been incorporated in this year's budget.
In accordance with the spirit of the gentlemen's agreement, I will not comment on the need for 45 military personnel in the building. That will surely be as safe as Fort Knox. The point I wish to raise here is that Council must apply the same sort of budgetary rigour to its administrative expenditure as it expects of other institutions. And I would like some reassurance in the future that this expenditure will be spent in the most efficient and economic way possible.
On Parliament's request for the extra 15 million for the additional advance payment for the new building in Brussels, although it can be identified as a prudent step which will allow considerable savings in the future, I am concerned about the messages that this may convey. I believe it is crucial for Parliament to introduce activity-based budgeting as a matter of utmost urgency."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples