Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Adoption of a Statute for Members of the European Parliament2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030602.6.1-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-02-Speech-1-0642
lpv:speaker	lp:Göran Färm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-03-07--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Socialdemokratiska arbetarepartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I am deputising for the draftsman, Mr Wynn, who has unfortunately been delayed. If the Statute for Members is to be implemented, an agreement as to the rules applicable between Parliament and the Council is not enough. What is also required, of course, is for the budgetary authority to make the necessary financial resources available. Those of us in the Committee on Budgets have therefore gone through the proposal for a new Statute and tried to analyse the budgetary consequences. Unlike at present, the draft budget would mean future expenditure having to be taken out of the EU budget. In view of this, we have now also created a budgetary structure for this purpose, a new Chapter l02 (’Reserve for the Statute for Members’). Parliament has until now kept its expenditure within the self-imposed ceiling of 20% of heading 5 ('Administrative expenditure') of the financial perspective. We have also said, however, that, if more is required in order to cover expenditure related to the Statute, enlargement or other important objectives, we do not necessarily need to respect this 20% ceiling for ever. It now remains for us to see how high the costs of enlargement, buildings policy etc. will be. Until now, of course, the idea has been already to begin entering the appropriations for the Statute in the 2004 budget in order at least to cover expenditure for a second half-year. That still applies inasmuch as the rapporteur’s idea is not taken up of postponing adoption of the budget until we are able to accept the Constitution. If the idea were, in fact, taken up, appropriations in the 2004 budget would not of course be appropriate. All that has really caused us concern up until now is the point concerning everyone’s right to direct interpretation which, strictly construed, could have entailed unreasonable costs. I appreciate, however, that a compromise with the rapporteur is on the way, meaning that the proposal is now in accordance with the estimates for the European Parliament’s budget. The conclusion of the Committee on Budgets is therefore that the possible consequences of the aforementioned decision for the budget are compatible with the ceiling of heading 5 ('Administrative expenditure') of the financial perspective, without this needing to entail any restrictions on other contributions to the policy under heading 5."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph