Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.28.2-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are three reports up for debate, and I should like to focus largely on two of them, because I fully agree with the content of my colleague Mr Garriga Polledo’s report, and indeed it probably requires the least discussion.
I should like to thank my colleague Mr Dombrovskis, in particular, for taking the trouble to tackle the budgets of the other institutions for 2006, because I think that 2006 will be a very important year as the financial negotiations with the Council unfold. I should like to say very clearly – and here the rapporteur has my support – that if we are to be credible in our ongoing arguments with the Commission about how to make the best use of Europe’s scant resources, we must also look at how we and, in turn, the other institutions, can achieve the greatest possible effect with the minimum of resources.
At the same time, I am a little concerned that Parliament is being rather careless with the hard-earned dividends resulting from the speed with which we managed to fund the buildings here in Strasbourg and Brussels and, later, Luxembourg. That is not right, in my view. On the contrary, Parliament, too, should prove to itself that it is able to cope on the resources at its disposal.
I support our rapporteur’s approach of putting the spotlight clearly on the issue of working conditions in this regard. There are now 25 Member States, with – if I remember rightly – 21 languages. It has become more difficult to work together at Group level and in working parties – even in small circles – without resources commensurate with the translation capacity necessitated. This is a very important point if Parliament’s efficiency and ability to work are to be guaranteed.
I do not believe that it would be helpful in this regard to consider equipping the Chamber with computers to enable us to read the amendments, however. This is incompatible with our voting system. Nor do I believe that it makes sense to wire the whole Parliament and install a wireless LAN in all the buildings; these are not our core tasks in this connection. I would ask the Presidency of Parliament to proceed very carefully on these issues.
This brings me directly to Mrs Jensen’s report on supplementary budget No 1/2005. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has proposed a motion to make appropriate cuts in the buildings reserve already, within the framework of the budgetary procedure. I find it most regrettable that, yesterday evening, the Presidency was not already able to release, within the framework of the supplementary budget, the resources that are likely to be surplus to requirements; in other words, to reduce the budget correspondingly. It is unfortunate that that was not done. This will no doubt come back to haunt us before too long. This much must be stated very clearly here: if a ‘mopping-up’ transfer of EUR 142 million was made in 2004 – which amounts to almost 10% of Parliament’s budget – I start asking myself whether there is any point in continuing to draw up a budget for this House if this budget ends up taking a completely different course, and thus what was put forward by the budgetary authority – which is what we are in the case of Parliament’s budget, by virtue of the gentlemen’s agreement – ends up being disregarded. This point needs serious attention. I want no further part in such a performance."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples