Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-25-Speech-1-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060925.15.1-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the 2004 discharge was certainly marked by a strange turn of events. If it had not been for a newspaper article that appeared just before the discharge date, drawing attention to the compensation element involved in the purchase of two new buildings in Strasbourg, we probably would have simply granted discharge in April. Once the report was out in the open, the administration reacted entirely appropriately by cancelling the purchase of those two buildings. I also have to say that the Committee on Budgets reacted very adequately by immediately setting up an internal committee of inquiry to examine all aspects of the case. I can only say that in this process and in that committee of inquiry, Mr Ferber has played a star role, and all credit to him for that. The committee of inquiry has also done a good job within a short space of time.
The conclusion that I have drawn, like others – so at the risk of going over old ground – is that there was a relationship of trust between two public institutions, between the City of Strasbourg and the European Parliament which, as a result of this issue, has been dealt a huge blow. The fact that two public institutions make profits on each other’s backs is inexcusable, since it is still taxpayers’ money that is involved.
Legally, however, everything is watertight, and so there is little we can recoup from it. In my view, the Ferber report is right to conclude that the purchase of buildings, subject to a number of conditions – provided that the price is right and we purchase land and buildings at the same time – is still the best option for the taxpayer. I subscribe to that view and I think that that is set to happen shortly. I should also like to point out that this purchase of the building is completely unrelated to the issue of seats. As Mr Ferber has already said, a decision by Heads of Government could change this. Parliament may have its own view, but is not in a position to change anything. What matters are the taxpayers’ interests. I believe that if the price is right, in the long run, and even in the relatively short term, it would be cheaper than carrying on paying rent.
A discharge is always about the past. Apart from the buildings, the report also contains a whole list of interesting things with recommendations for the future. It contains useful recommendations about the contracts that have to be given to parliamentary assistants, as well as about the new opportunities which communications technologies offer us, with which I, myself, endeavour to get to grips on a daily basis.
As for the general conclusions, I can confirm that my group broadly endorses Mr Ferber’s views."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples