Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-29-Speech-4-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070329.23.4-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I voted against this report on the guidelines for the budget procedure on the grounds that, like its predecessors on the European budget, it contains remarks with which I am not in agreement on the subject of our places of work, which, I would remind the House, are laid down in the Treaty. I am not among those who, as this report exaggeratedly puts it, ‘deplore the geographical dispersion’ of our administration among our three places of work. I do not see that the geographical arrangements of this House have had any adverse effects – quite the contrary, in fact.
I object to paragraph 33, and in particular to the proposition concerning the number of missions undertaken by our staff within the three places of work. I know that the administration is very careful about the money it spends on this. I am not in favour of inviting the Secretary-General to present, between now and 1 July of this year, a report on the missions undertaken by staff within the three places of work; he has, as we do, other things to do, and I am not falling for this.
The underlying intention has to do with what is described as an attempt at rationalisation, with the object of emptying Luxembourg and Strasbourg of their importance as places of work. I can do no other than underline my disapproval of the absurd scheme mentioned in paragraph 40 for the suspension of the further growth of our real estate and for Parliament to refrain from any extension of its buildings. Our property policy, which involves us in buying the buildings we need in order to function properly instead of renting them, has saved the taxpayer a great deal of money – thousands of euros, in fact – and I can only say that I am astonished that most of the members of the Committee on Budgets do not seem to understand, or do not want to understand, that we will, in 2008, have to avail ourselves of the room for manoeuvre around the 20% ceiling in order to anticipate property expenditure. You, Mr President, are aware, and it is important that it should be said, that this practice with real property expenditure makes considerable savings possible, and it is the taxpayer who benefits from them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples