Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-143"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.4.2-143"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, going back into the early part of the preparation of these budgets, first, in several instances the other institutions wanted enormous increases in their budgets. I accept that we are expanding from 15 countries to 25, that we are expanding from 11 languages to 20, but I was delighted that the Council of Ministers chopped the huge increases being asked for by the Court of Justice, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
With regard to Parliament's budget, at the start we faced the fact that there could have been a statute for Members of the European Parliament. We all agreed, across all parties, that this would have meant an increase of probably tens of millions of euros in the budget for Parliament. It is not my job to say here and now whether it is a good or a bad thing to have a statute, but I must point out that it many mean a further increase if one is ever implemented.
We have funding for political parties starting in the middle of next year, after the European elections in June. Again, we have reserved enough money within the budget and it is quite right and proper that we do so. We will have proper working arrangements that are above board, with proper checks and balances, but it is an item on which we have to finalise some of the details.
Looking ahead in relation to languages, I should like to think that overall there would be a use of fewer languages. I know that it is right and proper, with enlargement, to give all the new countries the possibility of using their native languages, but we ought to rationalise the use of languages in future years. I hope that minds will be concentrated in that regard.
There is one unfinished item of business: whether Parliament should have a health insurance scheme for former Members. I am delighted that a few weeks ago a report was commissioned. I understand that the results will be published next month. This will enable us to look at whether this is a good and sensible thing for former Members who fall ill. They would have to have served two full terms 10 years. I consider this to be something that Parliament needs to look at in order to redress the imbalance between ourselves, who as Members of the European Parliament do an awful lot of travelling and are put at health risks because of that, and other people in the various institutions.
We have heard mention today of the overall cost of the European Union to the taxpayers in Europe. I am convinced that the
has got it absolutely right, as Mr Elles pointed out. Admittedly we can spend upwards of 1.24% of the gross domestic product of all the countries on the European Union budget. I am so delighted that we have managed to drive that percentage down over the four years that I have been in this Parliament, so that even with enlargement, we are just below 1% of the gross domestic product. That is a huge compliment to everyone involved: the Commissioner herself, the staff of the Commission, the Chairman of the Committee on Budgets, the Council of Ministers. Everyone deserves credit. Therefore I would like to see us carry on giving better value for money to the European Union taxpayers over the years. They want to see the real cost of Europe reduced. That way they will see that we are responsive to their wishes."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples