Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-494"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061213.43.3-494"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@cs1
"Hr. formand! Jeg forventer ikke at bruge seks et halvt minut på dette spørgsmål, men jeg vil gerne takke hr. Corbett for ædelt at træde til for at fremme en sag, som jeg formoder, at han personligt savner en vis grad af entusiasme for, og takke hr. Friedrich, som med sædvanlig høflighed afviser at genere nuværende indehavere af disse poster ved at fjerne dem fra de positioner, de nyder her i Parlamentet. Men rent faktisk opretter vi yderligere 23 poster til 53 nye medlemmer af Parlamentet. Nogle af disse poster beskrives som arbejdspladser, som om der var tale om beskæftigelse. Det er ikke tilfældet for størstedelen af udvalgenes næstformænd.
For kvæstorerne er der måske gode argumenter for en forøgelse til seks. Måske er der virkelig arbejde til seks kvæstorer, men med hensyn til udvalgenes næstformænd er jeg bange for, at der er tale om inflation af poster for inflationens egen skyld. Det kan ikke være en særligt attraktiv side af vores parlamentariske liv, og jeg er bekymret for befolkningens reaktion. Jeg tror heller ikke, at det er fremmende for øget effektivitet eller økonomisk effektivitet. Der er ikke noget funktionelt behov for disse poster, snarere tværtimod. Der er risiko for, at formandskaberne bliver toptunge overbygninger.
Jeg er heller ikke enig i, at vi står over for ekstraordinære omstændigheder. Da Parlamentet blev udvidet for at modtage medlemmerne fra de 10 nye tiltrædelsesstater i 2004, øgede vi ikke størrelsen af udvalgenes formandskaber. Vi er alle enige i og taknemmelige for forslaget om en tidsbegrænset aftale. Jeg er bange for, at når vi når frem til 2009, vil Parlamentet blive ramt af en form for bureaukratisk lammelse, og vi vil så alle beslutte, at det er mere sikkert og roligt, at vi holder os til det oppustede antal næstformænd for udvalgene.
Jeg håber, at solen vil gå ned over denne manøvre hurtigst mulig, og min egen gruppe vil modsætte sig ændringen af forretningsordenen i morgen."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich glaube nicht, dass ich mich sechseinhalb Minuten mit diesem Thema befassen werde, aber ich danke Herrn Corbett für sein lobenswertes Einspringen, um eine Sache zu verfolgen, für die es ihm persönlich – wie ich finde – ein wenig an Enthusiasmus mangelt, und ich danke Herrn Friedrich, der mit seiner gewohnten Höflichkeit auf keinen Fall derzeitige Amtsinhaber vergrämen möchte, indem er sie von den Posten, die sie im Parlament innehaben, vertreibt. Fakt ist jedoch, dass wir für 53 neue Parlamentsmitglieder 23 neue Posten schaffen. Einige dieser Posten werden wie Arbeitsplätze beschrieben, so als ob damit eine Beschäftigung verbunden wäre. Das trifft für die meisten stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der Ausschüsse nicht zu.
Bei den Quästoren gibt es vielleicht ein gutes Argument für ihre Aufstockung auf sechs. Vielleicht gibt es wirklich Arbeit für sechs Quästoren, aber bei den stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der Ausschüsse fürchte ich, dass es sich um nichts weiter als eine Inflation von Posten handelt. Das wirft nicht gerade ein gutes Licht auf unsere parlamentarische Tätigkeit, und mich sorgt ein wenig die Reaktion der Öffentlichkeit. Zudem glaube ich, dass dies nicht zur Steigerung der Effizienz oder Leistungsfähigkeit beiträgt. Es gibt keine funktionelle Notwendigkeit für diese Posten, eher im Gegenteil. Es besteht die Gefahr, dass die Vorstände zu kopflastigen Überbauten werden.
Genauso wenig bin ich der Auffassung, dass wir es hier mit außergewöhnlichen Umständen zu tun haben. Als das Parlament im Jahr 2004 um die Abgeordneten der zehn neuen Beitrittsländer erweitert wurde, haben wir die Vorstände der Ausschüsse nicht vergrößert. Wir alle sind mit dem Vorschlag zur Aufnahme einer Befristungsklausel einverstanden und dankbar dafür. Wenn wir dann aber im Jahr 2009 sind, fürchte ich, dass eine Art bürokratische Lähmung dieses Parlament befallen wird und wir alle beschließen werden, dass es sicherer und friedlicher ist, diesen aufgeblähten Stellvertreterapparat in den Ausschussvorständen beizubehalten.
Bleibt zu hoffen, dass dieses Manöver selbst auch nur befristet ist. Meine Fraktion wird die Änderung der Geschäftsordnung morgen ablehnen."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν νομίζω ότι θα χρειαστώ εξίμισι λεπτά για το θέμα αυτό, αλλά θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τον κ. Corbett διότι είχε την ευγένεια να υποστηρίξει μια θέση για την οποία νομίζω ότι δεν είναι ιδιαιτέρως ενθουσιασμένος, καθώς και τον κ. Friedrich, ο οποίος, με τη συνήθη αβρότητά του, δεν επιθυμεί να ενοχλήσει τους σημερινούς κατόχους των αξιωμάτων απομακρύνοντάς τους από τις θέσεις τους στο Κοινοβούλιο. Γεγονός, όμως, είναι ότι ενόψει της εισόδου 53 ακόμη βουλευτών δημιουργούμε 23 νέες θέσεις. Ορισμένες από αυτές τις θέσεις περιγράφονται ως θέσεις εργασίας, σαν να επρόκειτο για σχέση απασχόλησης. Κάτι τέτοιο δεν ισχύει για την πλειονότητα των θέσεων αντιπροέδρων στις επιτροπές.
Όσον αφορά τους Κοσμήτορες, είναι ίσως εύλογη η αύξηση του αριθμού τους σε έξι. Δεν αποκλείεται να υπάρχουν ουσιαστικά καθήκοντα για έξι Κοσμήτορες, όμως οι αντιπρόεδροι των επιτροπών φοβούμαι ότι συνιστούν διόγκωση των θέσεων χωρίς πραγματικό λόγο. Κάτι τέτοιο δεν μπορεί να αποτελέσει ιδιαιτέρως ελκυστική πτυχή της κοινοβουλευτικής μας λειτουργίας και με ανησυχεί η αντίδραση της κοινής γνώμης. Θεωρώ επίσης ότι δεν συνάδει με τη βελτίωση της αποτελεσματικότητας ή της αποδοτικότητάς μας. Δεν υπάρχει λειτουργική ανάγκη ύπαρξης αυτών των θέσεων – το αντίθετο μάλιστα. Υπάρχει κίνδυνος τα προεδρεία να καταστούν εξαιρετικά δυσλειτουργικά.
Διαφωνώ επίσης με τον ισχυρισμό ότι οι συνθήκες αυτήν την περίοδο είναι εξαιρετικές. Όταν το Κοινοβούλιο διευρύνθηκε με την ενσωμάτωση των βουλευτών από τα 10 νέα κράτη μέλη το 2004, δεν αυξήσαμε τον αριθμό των μελών που μετείχαν στα προεδρεία των επιτροπών. Όλοι συμφωνούμε και είμαστε ευγνώμονες για την πρόταση να συμπεριληφθεί μια ρήτρα λήξης ισχύος. Φοβούμαι ότι, όταν έλθει το 2009, θα κάνει την εμφάνισή του ένα είδος παράλυσης στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και θα αποφασίσουμε όλοι ότι είναι πιο ασφαλές και εύκολο να διατηρήσουμε αυτήν τη διόγκωση του αριθμού των αντιπροέδρων των επιτροπών.
Ας ελπίσουμε ότι αυτός ο ελιγμός θα τερματιστεί το ταχύτερο δυνατόν, ενώ η Ομάδα μου θα ταχθεί κατά αυτής της αλλαγής του Κανονισμού στην αυριανή ψηφοφορία."@el10
"Señor Presidente, yo no creo que vaya a agotar mis seis minutos y medio en este asunto, pero quisiera agradecer al señor Corbett que, noblemente, haga de suplente para defender una causa que, según me parece, no le entusiasma demasiado, y quiero dar las gracias también al señor Friedrich, el cual, con su habitual cortesía, rehúsa enfadar a los actuales cargos desplazándoles de los puestos que ocupan en el Parlamento. Pero el hecho es que vamos a crear 23 puestos nuevos para 53 diputados más. Algunos de esos puestos se califican de puestos de trabajo, como si llevaran aparejado algún empleo. No es el caso de la mayoría de los vicepresidentes de las comisiones.
En cuanto a los Cuestores, probablemente sí haya un argumento sólido para ampliar el número a seis: quizá hayan tareas para seis Cuestores, pero la inflación de puestos en las vicepresidencias de las comisiones se me antoja gratuita. Esto no puede presentar una cara especialmente atractiva de nuestra vida parlamentaria, y tengo ganas de ver la reacción de la opinión pública. Tampoco creo que contribuya a aumentar la eficacia ni la eficiencia. No hay necesidad funcional de esos puestos, sino más bien al contrario. Existe el riesgo de que las mesas se conviertan en superestructuras hipertrofiadas.
Tampoco creo que se den unas circunstancias extraordinarias: cuando el Parlamento se amplió para aceptar la adhesión de diez nuevos Estados miembros en 2004, no incrementó el tamaño de las mesas de las comisiones. Todos estamos de acuerdo y agradecidos de que la propuesta incluya una cláusula de suspensión, aunque me temo que, cuando llegue 2009, una especie de parálisis burocrática invada el Parlamento y todos decidamos que es más seguro y más fácil mantener esta hipertrofia de vicepresidentes de comisión.
Espero que esta medida finalice lo antes posible, y mi propio Grupo se opondrá mañana al cambio de las reglas."@es20
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, en usko kuluttavani kuutta ja puolta minuuttia tähän asiaan, mutta haluaisin kiittää jäsen Corbettia siitä, että hän ryhtyi sijaisena jalomielisesti ajamaan asiaa, joka ei ymmärtääkseni ole hänelle varsinainen mielenkiinnon kohde. Kiitän myös jäsen Friedrichiä, joka aina yhtä kohteliaana kieltäytyy järkyttämästä nykyisiä viranhaltijoita savustamalla heidät heidän tehtävistään parlamentissa. Tosiasia on kuitenkin se, että luomme 23 lisävirkaa 53:lle uudelle parlamentin jäsenelle. Joitakin näistä viroista kuvaillaan aivan kuin ne olisivat työpaikkoja. Asia ei ole niin valiokuntien varapuheenjohtajien enemmistön osalta.
Kvestorien kohdalla voidaan esittää voimakkaita argumentteja sen puolesta, että heidän lukumääränsä nostettaisiin kuuteen. Töitä saattaa kenties tosiaan olla riittävästi kuudelle kvestorille, mutta valiokuntien varapuheenjohtajien kohdalla pelkään, että kyse on virkojen määrän paisuttamisesta pelkästä paisuttamisen ilosta. Tämä ei antane parlamentin toiminnasta erityisen miellyttävää kuvaa, ja olen huolestunut julkisen mielipiteen reaktiosta. Olen myös sitä mieltä, ettei näin paranneta suorituskykyä tai tehokkuutta. Näiden virkojen perustamiselle ei ole toiminnallista tarvetta, pikemminkin päinvastoin. Puheenjohtajistoista uhkaa tulla liian johtajavaltaisia ylärakenteita.
Olen myös eri mieltä siitä, että tilanne on tulevaisuudessa poikkeuksellinen. Kun parlamentti laajentui vastaanottaessaan parlamentin jäseniä 10:stä uudesta EU:hun liittyvästä valtiosta, emme kasvattaneet valiokuntien puheenjohtajistojen kokoa. Olemme kaikki yhtä mieltä ja kiitollisia päättymislausekkeen sisällyttämistä koskevasta ehdotuksesta. Pelkään, että vuonna 2009 parlamenttia kohtaa eräänlainen byrokraattinen halvaantuminen ja päätämme kaikki, että on turvallisempaa ja rauhallisempaa pitää kiinni tästä valiokuntien varapuheenjohtajien virkojen paisutellusta lukumäärästä.
Laskekoon aurinko tämän toimen ylle mahdollisimman pian; oma ryhmäni vastustaa huomenna työjärjestyksen muuttamista."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, mon intervention sur ce point ne devrait pas prendre six minutes et demie, mais je tiens à remercier M. Corbett, qui s’est noblement proposé de remplacer le rapporteur absent pour défendre une cause pour laquelle il manque, je trouve, une bonne dose d’enthousiasme, ainsi que M. Friedrich qui, avec sa courtoisie coutumière, refuse de mécontenter les titulaires des postes actuels en les évinçant des positions qu’ils occupent au Parlement. Mais, les faits sont là: nous créons 23 postes supplémentaires pour 53 nouveaux députés européens. La description de certaines de ces fonctions s’apparente à celle d’offres d’emploi, comme si un emploi y était attaché. Or, ce n’est pas le cas de la majorité des vice-présidents des commissions.
En ce qui concerne les questeurs, le passage à six se justifie peut-être davantage. En effet, il est peut-être possible de trouver du travail pour six questeurs. Par contre, pour ce qui est des vice-présidents des commissions, je crains que l’on ne soit confronté à une inflation des postes pour le plaisir et, dès lors, à une facette peu glorieuse de notre vie parlementaire, ce qui me fait craindre la réaction de l’opinion publique. Je ne pense pas non plus que ce type de mesure entraîne une efficacité accrue. Ces postes ne se justifient pas du point de vue du fonctionnement, loin s’en faut. Le risque encouru est que les bureaux deviennent des superstructures extrêmement lourdes.
De même, je réfute l’argument selon lequel nous nous trouvons dans une situation exceptionnelle. Lorsque le Parlement s’est agrandi en 2004, accueillant les députés européens des dix nouveaux États membres, nous n’avons pas revu à la hausse la taille des bureaux des commissions. Nous acceptons et accueillons tous très favorablement la proposition visant à inclure une clause de temporisation. Je crains que, lorsque 2009 pointera le bout du nez, le Parlement ne se retrouve dans une sorte de paralysie administrative et que nous ne décidions tous qu’il est préférable, dans un souci de sécurité et de tranquillité, de conserver cette pléthore de postes de vice-présidence des commissions.
Mon vœu est que cette manœuvre soit contrecarrée le plus rapidement possible. Mon groupe s’opposera à cette modification du règlement demain."@fr8
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, non intendo dedicare sei minuti e mezzo a questa materia, ma desidero ringraziare l’onorevole Corbett per aver svolto nobilmente il ruolo di sostituto nel promuovere una causa per la quale penso che personalmente non nutra molto entusiasmo, e ringrazio l’onorevole Friedrich che, con la sua abituale cortesia, si rifiuta di sconvolgere chi attualmente detiene una carica estromettendolo dalla posizione di cui godeva in Parlamento. Ma il fatto è che per 53 deputati in più stiamo creando altre 23 cariche. In alcuni casi, queste cariche sono descritte come posti di lavoro, come se si trattasse di un impiego. Non è così per la maggioranza dei vicepresidenti delle commissioni.
Nel caso dei questori, forse esiste un argomento valido per aumentarne il numero a sei. Forse c’è veramente lavoro per sei questori, ma nel caso dei vicepresidenti delle commissioni temo che si tratti di un’inflazione di incarichi immotivata. Non dà un’immagine particolarmente accattivante della vita parlamentare e mi preoccupano le reazioni dell’opinione pubblica. Inoltre, penso che non giovi a una maggiore efficienza o efficacia. Non esiste alcuna necessità funzionale per questi incarichi, piuttosto il contrario. C’è il rischio che gli uffici diventino sovrastrutture troppo pesanti.
Non sono neppure d’accordo sul fatto che ci troviamo in circostanze straordinarie. Quando il Parlamento si è allargato per accogliere i deputati provenienti da 10 nuovi paesi aderenti, nel 2004, non abbiamo aumentato il numero degli uffici delle commissioni. Siamo tutti d’accordo e siamo grati per la proposta di prevedere una clausola di decadenza automatica. Temo però che nel 2009 sul Parlamento cadrà una sorta di paralisi burocratica e decideremo tutti quanti che saremo più sicuri e più tranquilli a mantenere questo numero gonfiato di vicepresidenze delle commissioni.
Che il sole tramonti al più presto su questa manovra; il mio gruppo domani si opporrà a questa modifica del Regolamento."@it12
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@lt14
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@lv13
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@mt15
".
Voorzitter, ik verwacht niet dat ik zesenhalve minuut zal spreken over deze zaak, maar ik wil graag de heer Corbett bedanken dat hij zo edelmoedig is geweest om op te treden als plaatsvervanger in de verdediging van een zaak die dunkt me niet op zijn volle enthousiasme kan rekenen. Ik dank bovendien de heer Friedrich die, in zijn gebruikelijke beleefde formuleringen, weigert de leden die nu posten bekleden in het Parlement te verontrusten door hen uit hun functies te zetten. Het is echter een feit dat we voor 53 extra Parlementsleden 23 nieuwe posten creëren. Sommige van die posten worden omschreven als banen, alsof er werkgelegenheid in het geding zou zijn. Dat is niet het geval voor het merendeel van de ondervoorzitters van de commissies.
Een uitbreiding naar zes quaestoren is wellicht goed verdedigbaar. Misschien is er werkelijk wel werk voor zes quaestoren, maar als het om de ondervoorzitters van de commissies gaat, ben ik bang dat er sprake is van nodeloze inflatie. Dat zal geen aantrekkelijk beeld schetsen van ons Parlementaire leven en ik maak me zorgen over de reacties in de publieke opinie. Ik denk bovendien dat het niet bevorderlijk is voor een betere efficiëntie of effectiviteit. Er bestaat geen functionele noodzaak voor deze posten. Eerder is het tegendeel het geval: het risico bestaat dat de bureaus topzware organisatiestructuren worden.
Ik ben het evenmin eens met de stelling dat we worden geconfronteerd met buitengewone omstandigheden. Toen het Parlement werd uitgebreid met de Parlementsleden uit de tien nieuw toegetreden lidstaten in 2004, hebben we de bureaus van de commissies niet uitgebreid. We zijn allemaal blij met de toevoeging van een sunset-clausule. Ik ben bang dat er in 2009 een soort bureaucratische verlamming zal ontstaan in het Parlement en dat we met zijn allen zullen besluiten dat het veiliger is en minder ophef veroorzaakt, als we de opgeblazen omvang van het ondervoorzitterschap van de commissies maar handhaven.
Moge de zon maar zo snel mogelijk ondergaan over deze manoeuvre. Mijn fractie zal morgen tegen de wijziging van het Reglement stemmen."@nl3
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, não espero gastar seis minutos e meio com este assunto, mas gostaria de agradecer ao senhor deputado Corbett por ter aceitado com nobreza prosseguir uma causa para a qual, suspeito, lhe falta algum entusiasmo. Quero também agradecer ao senhor deputado Friedrich por, com a sua habitual cortesia, estar a declinar causar aborrecimento aos actuais titulares dos cargos, desapossando-os dos lugares de que usufruem no Parlamento. Mas é um facto que, para mais 53 deputados ao Parlamento, estamos a criar mais 23 lugares, alguns dos quais são descritos como postos de trabalho, como se lhes estivesse associado qualquer tipo de emprego. Não é o caso para a maioria dos vice-presidentes das comissões parlamentares.
Para os questores, há talvez um argumento sólido para um aumento para seis. Talvez haja realmente trabalho para seis questores, mas, em relação aos vice-presidentes das comissões, receio tratar-se de uma inflação de lugares só pelo lugar em si. Este facto não transmite uma visão particularmente atractiva da nossa vida parlamentar e preocupa-me a reacção que a opinião pública vai ter. Penso, de igual modo, que este tipo de situação não conduz a qualquer aumento de eficiência ou de eficácia, não havendo qualquer necessidade funcional para estes cargos, antes pelo contrário. Corremos o risco de as mesas se transformarem em super-estruturas pesadíssimas.
Também discordo de se alegar que nos defrontamos com circunstâncias extraordinárias. Quando, em 2004, o Parlamento se expandiu para acolher os eurodeputados dos 10 novos Estados-Membros, não houve aumento da dimensão das mesas das comissões. Todos concordamos com a proposta de uma cláusula de caducidade e agradecemos a sua inclusão. Receio que, quando chegarmos a 2009, uma espécie de paralisia burocrática se vá abater sobre o Parlamento e acabemos todos por decidir que é mais seguro e tranquilo manter o tamanho sobredimensionado das vice-presidências das comissões.
Que o Sol se ponha sobre esta manobra o mais cedo possível para que o meu grupo, amanhã, se possa opor a esta alteração do Regimento."@pt17
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@sk18
"Mr President, I do not expect that I will take up six and a half minutes on this matter, but I would like to thank Mr Corbett for nobly standing in to prosecute a cause for which I think he personally lacks a certain degree of enthusiasm, and to thank Mr Friedrich who, with his customary courtesy, is declining to upset current postholders by ousting them from the positions that they enjoy in Parliament. But the fact is that for 53 more Members of Parliament we are creating a further 23 posts. Some of these posts are described as jobs, as if there was employment attached. That is not the case for the majority of vice-chairmen of the committees.
For the Quaestors, there is perhaps a solid argument for an increase to six. Perhaps there really is work for six Quaestors, but for the vice-chairmen of the committees I fear it is inflation of posts for its own sake. That cannot present an especially attractive side of our parliamentary life and I am anxious about the reaction of public opinion. I also think it is not conducive to increased efficiency or effectiveness. There is no functional necessity for these posts, rather the reverse. There is a risk that the bureaux will become top-heavy superstructures.
I also disagree that we are facing extraordinary circumstances. When Parliament expanded to accept these MEPs from 10 new accession states in 2004, we did not increase the size of the bureaux of the committees. We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause. I fear that when we come to 2009, a sort of bureaucratic paralysis will fall upon Parliament and we will all decide it is safer and quieter to stick with this inflated size of committee vice-chairmanships.
May the sun set upon this manoeuvre as soon as possible, and my own group will oppose the change of rules tomorrow."@sl19
"Herr talman! Jag tror inte att jag kommer att ta sex och en halv minut i anspråk för denna fråga, men jag skulle vilja tacka Richard Corbett för att han ädelt nog ryckte in och slutförde en sak som jag tror att han personligen saknar viss entusiasm för. Jag vill också tacka Ingo Friedrich som med sin sedvanliga artighet avstår från att uppröra nuvarande befattningsinnehavare genom att köra bort dem från de befattningar som de innehar i parlamentet. Men faktum är att för 53 fler parlamentsledamöter skapar vi ytterligare 23 befattningar. Vissa av dessa befattningar beskrivs som arbeten, som om det ingick en anställning. Så är inte fallet för majoriteten av utskottens vice ordföranden.
När det gäller kvestorerna finns det kanske ett hållbart argument för att utöka dem till sex stycken. Kanske finns det faktiskt arbete för sex kvestorer, men när det gäller utskottens vice ordförande befarar jag att det är en inflation av befattningar för sakens skull. Detta kan inte ge en särskilt tilltalande bild av hur parlamentet fungerar och jag är orolig över den allmänna opinionen. Inte heller tycker jag att det bidrar till ökad effektivitet. Det finns ingen funktionell nödvändighet av att ha dessa befattningar, snarare tvärtom. Det finns en risk att organen blir toppstyrda superstrukturer.
Jag håller inte heller med om att vi står inför särskilda omständigheter. När parlamentet utökades för att ta in parlamentsledamöterna från 10 nya anslutningsländer år 2004 utökade vi inte storleken på utskottens organ. Vi håller alla med om och är tacksamma för förslaget om att en ”tidsfristklausul” ska ingå. Jag befarar att när vi kommer fram till år 2009 så kommer en slags byråkratisk handlingsförlamning att lamslå parlamentet och vi kommer alla att bestämma oss för att det är säkrare och lugnare att hålla sig till denna överdrivna storlek på utskottens vice ordförandeskap.
Måtte solen gå ner över denna manöver så snart som möjligt och måtte min egen grupp motsätta sig förändringen av arbetsordningen imorgon."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Andrew Duff,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"on behalf of the ALDE Group"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples