Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-26-Speech-4-125"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061026.22.4-125"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-10-26-Speech-4-1262
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; European Parliament (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; Quaestors (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America (2004-09-16--2007-03-13)3 substitute; AGRI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 quaestor; Parliament's Bureau (2004-07-21--2007-01-15)3
lpv:translated text	". I voted in favour of the report on appropriations to the European Parliament. I regret, however, that paragraphs 18 and 44 were not subject to split votes, as I would have voted against them. A number of members of the Committee on Budgets continually mount rearguard actions against the decisions of the Heads of State or Government regarding our Parliament’s three places of work, namely Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels. It is true that this arrangement gives rise to costs, but to call such expenditure superfluous is rash, to say the least. For MEPs, as well as for Parliament, decentralisation - which a majority of the Committee on Budgets unfairly refers to as geographical dispersion - has some very positive repercussions. To bring into question the need for our officials to be present in Strasbourg for the plenary part-sessions is a veritable affront to the Bureau and, especially, the administration which, I know, is very careful in choosing the officials it sends to Strasbourg. I would also have voted against paragraph 44 which asks the administration, after what it pejoratively calls the ‘Strasbourg experience’, ‘to apply more stringent, water-tight and transparent procedures when purchasing buildings’…"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph