Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.6.2-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am pleased to be the first to congratulate our rapporteur on putting together a package for the budget for 2003 for our Parliament. Many of the items included in his report are ones which we, as a group, can fully support. In particular the provisions concerning enlargement, especially the inclusion of observers and other provisions.
There are, however, three points that still remain of concern to us. The first relates to an early-retirement scheme, which we would like to see applied in this institution as it is applied in others. We would like the Council to come forward with the right kind of conclusions so it can be included in the 2003 procedure. This, along with other reforms, will help to prepare our institution for enlargement.
There are two other items of greater concern which relate to the way in which the administration responds to the demands and consultation of parliamentarians. The first refers to the Interinstitutional Recruitment Office which we as a Parliament, and indeed as a Committee on Budgets, have been calling for for many months. We now find ourselves faced with a text but without the means either to amend or discuss it. We understand that Mr Gargani, as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, has sent a letter this morning to the President stating that committee has concerns about legal administrative questions. My group also shares those concerns and therefore we support what Mr Stenmarck has put in his report, namely that we would like the relevant committee to have a report on this proposed recruitment office before a final decision is taken.
In addition, we understand the Council wishes to amend this document and, therefore, we do not see why we, as parliamentarians, should not also have that right.
Lastly, buildings: my group has discussed the needs of enlargement so far as offices and so on are concerned, and we have put in a request. No decision has yet been taken in my group as to what buildings we need. Yet we understand that negotiations are in full swing for the construction of new buildings in Brussels, for which authorisation has been given neither politically nor in relation to the Committee on Budgets, since we have no documents available to us. This is why I have tabled an amendment, on behalf of my group, which calls for this question to be clarified. The Podestà report concerns translation and interpretation and there should be a report on buildings to indicate what commitments are needed, unlike in the past when Parliament has been faced with a fait accompli, and then had to sign up for the bill.
In conclusion, on these two items, we would like to see greater sensitivity on the part of the administration and the Bureau towards parliamentarians, because ultimately it is the Assembly that is sovereign."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples