Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-03-24-Speech-3-209"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100324.16.3-209"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
substitute; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2012-07-04)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in hard economic times such as these, budgetary issues are difficult and sensitive. The guidelines for the 2011 budget also include the European Parliament’s own budget. The expenditure in heading 5 has traditionally been apportioned in such a way as to give Parliament a share of less than 20%.
As a consequence of the Treaty of Lisbon, people are now saying that Parliament should devour a greater proportion of the money. A review of the increased need for resources that Parliament’s new powers may give rise to is certainly justified, and we have already received more money for 2010 precisely as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon.
At the same time, the Treaty of Lisbon cannot be used as some kind of new money-dispensing machine for Parliament. We also need to be able to make our own organisation more efficient and to try to make savings where possible in order, by doing so, to also be able to finance any additional needs.
Now people are also calling for increased appropriations for the staff that support Members of the European Parliament in our work. The intention is surely a good one, but it is interesting, for example, that the MEPs in my group more or less unanimously feel that there is no urgent need for this and that it is not necessary in these economically meagre times.
The guidelines that we are to approve today are good, and I think we should view them as a challenge to examine our own expenditure with a critical eye."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples