Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-353"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.28.2-353"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as Mr Ferber has just said, Mr Garriga Polledo’s report does not really pose a problem as we knew that, given the changes that have taken place in the Commission, we would probably need a supplementary and amending budget.
I am going to start with a few comments on Mrs Jensen’s report on the SAB for the European Parliament. It is irrefutable with regard to the estimates for Parliament’s operating costs. We can only be concerned that these estimates were distorted for items as important as estimates for appropriations for salaries for officials and estimates for property appropriations.
Our rapporteur’s recommendations calling on our administration to be more vigilant bear the mark of common sense. Through this report, we are also respecting our commitment to budgetary dialogue, as it still leaves the expenditure envisaged in the 2005 budget available to be spent, and even allows for financing Bulgaria and Romania’s accession to the Union with the non-allocated appropriations. There is, therefore, no reason to oppose this administrative action.
With regard to the report on the guidelines for the appropriations for the other institutions presented to us today by Mr Dombrovskis, first of all I must thank him for his excellent work, and for the speed with which he has enabled us to debate and vote on these guidelines in this March sitting.
Following in the tradition of our budgetary guidelines in this area, it is essential that all of the institutions continue the effort to complete enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania, which the 2006 budget must allow for. We share our rapporteur’s concerns. Only a last-minute controversy on the measures to be put in place in the Court of Justice will lead my group to better verify some solutions proposed in Mr Deprez’s report.
Mr Dombrovskis’ report, backed up by the previous report by Mrs Jensen, points out that Parliament’s budget must enable it to equip itself with the additional resources to enable us to better respond to the scale of our task and the expectations of the citizens. In our view, a reduction in Parliament’s budget below the agreed 20% cannot be envisaged until such time as the policy of purchasing various premises for Parliament to have a presence and to carry out its work has come to an end. Above all, this budget is essential in order for Parliament to increase the interpreting and translation resources available to the various committees.
I would also like to draw your attention to professional assistance for MEPs, which must be increased. The amounts allocated to each MEP for staff are absolutely inadequate given the complexity of Parliament’s new powers. Moreover, the lack of a statute for our assistants is a situation that is entirely unworthy of a political institution that places an innovative society that respects human rights at the heart of its work. Having a professional statute is a right for our assistants, but giving our assistants a statute is a duty for us as legislators. Likewise, I think that we should think about the problem of the statute for MEPs. When I hear some MEPs saying that it is difficult for them to join a pension scheme because of the cost of some of these schemes, I think that is entirely unworthy of the democratic institution that we are.
Also, like Mrs Jensen, I wish to draw your attention to the problems with Parliament’s communication policy. This policy needs to be improved and while new resources are essential, new techniques and a new approach to communication are now a priority in our view. At a time when the draft constitutional treaty is being voted on by referendum or parliamentary vote, we know how essential this information for citizens is. But we need to establish simple, daily and effective information to pass on and decentralise the interest among citizens in the work that we do here. We see this as a priority that should not only be reflected in figures in the budget, but in good professional work by the ad hoc Parliament services.
It is therefore clear to us that the idea of lowering the Parliament budget below 20% is not acceptable given our commitments and, above all, the expansion of our powers. As long as we lack the effective resources to fully carry out our task, we will not be able to get back to the principle that is essential to our role and therefore to European democracy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples