Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.3.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, 2003 will be a key year in terms of preparation for enlargement. Therefore, it is disappointing that the report on the other institutions does not really grasp this challenge and, I believe, has missed an opportunity to build on the reform agenda that Parliament had embarked upon in the last few years.
I have three main issues I wish to touch briefly on. Firstly, I am concerned about the lack of perspective and the narrowness of the focus. There is far too much concentration on Parliament, and the other institutions do not appear to merit much comment. I understand that the rapporteur did not have an opportunity to visit Luxembourg before the vote in the Committee on Budgets; that might explain the lack of emphasis. I hope this is not seen as a negative message by them.
Secondly, it is imperative that we iron out some of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the report. With reference to staffing, the report calls for a politically balanced Administration. This is a ludicrous statement and I completely disagree with what Mr Elles said earlier. My understanding of the Executive of this and of many other Parliaments across the world is that the Administration is generally neutral. I have grave concerns about what has been suggested and the implication that the Administration is not neutral or that it should not be, and I shudder to think of the consequences of this. Are we really going to ask the staff to tick a political affiliation box before they are appointed to a new job? Even more fundamentally, this runs in direct contradiction to the emphasis that the Committee on Budgets has put in this report, on the staff appointment or promotion always being based on ability and merit. That is the principle I wholeheartedly support. Therefore, I would urge the rapporteur to distance himself from such negative statements. These sentiments, if carried, will be to the detriment of the standing of Parliament.
Thirdly, with respect to the freelancing of translation and interpreters, I have no problems with improving efficiency and exploring ways to achieve this, but the statement we have here is an ideological standpoint with no evidence to support the assertion that freelance translation will be more cost-effective and of the quality required to meet Members' needs. This also runs in direct contradiction to the emphasis in the report on developing the Podestà report further with regard to the linguistic regime for enlargement.
Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group, we are interested in working in cooperation with the rapporteur at the next stage when we get to estimates, to strengthen the report and to achieve consensus in this key budget area. However, cooperation is only achievable if it is a two-way process."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples