Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.2.2-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I had to devote all my speaking time for the discharge procedure to the Casaca report concerning the European Commission’s annual accounts for 2001. That was unavoidable in view of the attacks by Mr Kuhne and Mrs Avilés Perea on critical officials, newspapers and Members of the European Parliament, who see the financial administration as being still susceptible to fraud. Consequently, I did not have the chance to express my approval for the Staes report concerning discharge for section I, Parliament itself. He rightly points out the EUR 169 million annual expense of having building complexes in three cities, EUR 40 million of which is for additional staff. He also draws attention to the additional costs of EUR 3.9 million for travelling to and fro between Brussels and Strasbourg and the loss of 25 855 working days per year. It is necessary, therefore, to concentrate Parliament's activities in a single city, and let Parliament itself decide which city that shall be. This is better than laying down a division of the job between Strasbourg and Brussels, as stated in the 1997 Treaty or in a future constitution of a superstate which it will be scarcely possible to amend. Even the rapporteur’s criticism of the constant necessity of dealing with land speculators when extending buildings in Brussels is spot on. I shall be voting in favour of this discharge."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples