Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-24-Speech-2-388"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090324.31.2-388"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Virrankoski very warmly for his own-initiative report which deals with an old concern of the Committee on Budgets, in other words the questions: how do we go about our planning? Which planning tools do we make available? How do we ensure that our priorities are implemented? Thank you very much, Mr Virrankoski, for your hard work.
We believe it is important that our budget priorities are also reflected in the issue of human resources. This is why we would like to make an offer to the Commission. We should make better use of the Commission’s reporting obligations to bring together the Annual Policy Strategy and the draft budget. We believe that the annual reports from the Directorates-General do not cover in sufficient detail or fail to consider altogether the hit rate from the budget. What we would like to know is what happened to Parliament’s priorities? How high is the hit rate of the Annual Policy Strategy in this respect?
In my opinion, we all have a lot still to learn and we also need a lot more experience, if the entire reporting process is not to remain a purely theoretical objective. It is not a theoretical exercise. It is necessary in order to be able to manage money correctly. This is why we are asking for the management tools to be developed further, to help us to find out more about the way in which the budget is implemented and to include more of the implementation process in the planning procedure.
We are also asking ourselves how the annual management plan can be integrated more effectively into the Annual Policy Strategy. We would like to know more about the costs of the ABM cycle, which also needs to be simplified. It has been suggested that these questions should be included in the screening report. We already have the current screening report – thank you. We will study it and become familiar with it. However, this means that these things must be included in the next report at the latest.
Two amendments have been tabled which our group cannot accept. We do not believe that an extension to two years is correct, because it devalues the management tool even further, instead of improving it. We want to make the ABM/ABB management tool better, not extend it over two years. We will also vote against the study amendment. It is a good amendment, but it has no place in this report.
We would like to thank the Commissioner for her work and we wish everyone success in the elections."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples