Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-14-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001214.1.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I voted against the resolution because of the adoption here of paragraph 23, which instructs the Secretary-General of Parliament to continue negotiations with the Government of Luxembourg with a view to allowing the transfer from Luxembourg to Brussels of all officials who are needed in Brussels for more efficient and cost-effective management of Parliament's Secretariat and for an improved service to Members. This paragraph is a perfect
for the effective closure of the Secretariat-General of the European Parliament in Luxembourg.
In Edinburgh in 1992, the Heads of State and Government decided that the European Parliament had three official seats: Strasbourg for 12 plenary part-sessions a year, Brussels for committee and group meetings and short plenary part-sessions and Luxembourg as the seat of the Secretariat-General.
At the Edinburgh Summit, the Heads of State and Government were undoubtedly aware that three official seats generate travelling and subsistence costs, so it is not up to the Members of the European Parliament to raise the issue of our official seat in order to press for cuts in administrative expenditure. We can certainly call for reduced spending in general, because each of us could list examples of savings that could be made, and these would far exceed the travel expenses of the officials who have to travel from Luxembourg to Brussels or Strasbourg. I should also emphasise that it costs far more to travel to Strasbourg from Brussels. Many people will be blissfully unaware of the fact that this is actually an indirect attack on Strasbourg too.
Back in July, Parliament decided by a narrow majority that, during the 12 plenary weeks when we would have to meet in Strasbourg in the course of 2001, the House would only sit from Monday afternoon until Thursday, the Friday sittings being discontinued, a decision which was, in itself, a first tilt at Strasbourg.
Perhaps the French have even resigned themselves to this, if we are to believe the report in a German newspaper on 13 December, according to which President Chirac, in a piece of out-and-out horse-trading, is supposed to have promised the recalcitrant Belgian Prime Minister (who is now being hailed as the hero of Nice) that in future all summit meetings, as well as an additional week of plenary sittings of the European Parliament, would be held in Brussels. This was allegedly the price for the 'hero of Nice' agreeing to accept fewer votes in the Council than the more populous Netherlands under the system of qualified majority voting.
The adoption of this paragraph will undoubtedly coincide with the re-emergence of the paper produced by a Vice-President of this Parliament who wants to shift all the services and the Directorate-General from Luxembourg to Brussels. According to his plan, Luxembourg will continue to house no more than a handful of technical services such as the print shop and the translation service. This would clearly violate the letter and spirit of the aforementioned decisions taken by the Heads of State and Government regarding the seat of Parliament.
The advocates of this relocation of the Secretariat-General from Luxembourg to Brussels are naturally unconcerned about the social and human implications of such a move for the officials and their families, many of whom have lived in Luxembourg for decades and have bought houses there; our officials have children at school there and spouses who work there.
Here in Parliament we take every suitable opportunity, as well as some unsuitable opportunities, to adopt resolutions about the reunification of families. Yet we want to tear the families of our own officials apart, especially those in the D, C and B grades, who cannot afford expensive removals and all the other financial burdens such moves entail, on the basis of the spurious argument that we have to cut costs in this particular way. We cannot and must not allow this to happen.
This also means, of course, that the Government of Luxembourg is once more being called upon not only to be vigilant but also to guarantee compliance with contractual agreements."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples