Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-24-Speech-2-036"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2007-04-24"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Descărcarea de gestiune aferent exerciţiului financiar 2005 (dezbatere)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070424.4.2-036"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-04-24-Speech-2-037⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Bill Newton Dunn⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; CONT (2007-01-31--2007-07-11)²³ member; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²³ unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²³ member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³ substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)²³
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@cs¹ "Fru formand! Det er en fornøjelse at se Dem føre forsædet og lede mødet effektivt. Allerførst en bemærkning til hr. Mote, der desværre ikke har gjort sig den ulejlighed at blive her og lytte til resten af debatten. Hans løsning på problemerne med korruption og spild i Europa er at tilføje endnu et bureaukratisk lag ved at hyre et hold revisorer fra den private sektor. Det er efter min opfattelse en helt absurd løsning, der indebærer endnu flere udgifter. Vores gruppe vil støtte ændringsforslag 1 og 3, hvor der opfordres til en præcisering af udgifterne ved, at vi arbejder tre forskellige steder, hvilket er en tåbelighed, som offentligheden og vi ikke kan forstå. Det vil vi gerne have præciseret. Vi er imidlertid meget forvirrede over, at PPE-DE-Gruppen har stillet fire ændringsforslag - 79, 80, 81 og 83 - som ville fjerne andre nyttige dele af denne betænkning. Fru De Lange, som netop talte på vegne af PPE-DE-Gruppen, forvirrer mig. Hun sagde, at vi vil undgå at give offentligheden indtryk af, at pengene bruges forkert til pensionsfonden. Jeg er enig. Men i ændringsforslag 83 foreslår PPE-DE-Gruppen at ophøre med revisionen af godtgørelser til medlemmerne, og hvordan de bruges, og det giver overhovedet ingen mening. Jeg opfordrer hende til at overtale sine kolleger til at tage de ændringsforslag tilbage, der har til formål at fjerne nyttige ting fra denne betænkning, og til at støtte den."@da² "Frau Präsidentin! Es ist eine Freude, Sie auf diesem Stuhl zu sehen, von dem aus Sie effizient den Vorsitz führen. Zunächst eine Bemerkung an Herrn Motes Adresse, der, wie ich mit Bedauern feststellen muss, sich nicht die Mühe macht, zu bleiben und sich den Rest der Aussprache anzuhören. Seine Lösung der Korruptions- und Verschwendungsprobleme in Europa besteht darin, durch Verpflichtung eines Teams von Rechnungsprüfern aus dem privaten Sektor eine weitere bürokratische Schicht einzuführen. Das ist meiner Ansicht nach vollkommen absurd und extrem teuer. Unsere Fraktion wird die Änderungsanträge 1 und 3 befürworten, in denen eine Klarstellung der Kosten in Verbindung mit unseren drei Arbeitsorten gefordert wird, die eine Absurdität darstellen, welche weder die Öffentlichkeit noch wir selbst verstehen können. Wir fordern eine Klarstellung in dieser Sache. Merkwürdig finden wir allerdings, dass die PPE-DE-Fraktion vier Änderungsanträge – 79, 80, 81 und 83 – vorgelegt hat, die andere nützliche Teile dieses Berichts zunichte machen würden. Ich kann Frau De Lange, die gerade im Namen der PPE-DE-Fraktion gesprochen hat, nicht folgen. Sie sagte, wir wollten vermeiden, dass bei der Öffentlichkeit der Eindruck entsteht, dass für den Pensionsfonds Gelder nicht ordnungsgemäß ausgegeben werden. Da stimme ich ihr zu. Doch die PPE-DE-Fraktion schlägt in Änderungsantrag 83 vor, die Prüfung der Zuwendungen für die Abgeordneten und der Art und Weise ihrer Verwendung zu streichen, was keinen Sinn ergibt. Ich würde sie dringend bitten, ihren Kollegen nahe zu legen, diese Änderungsanträge, mit denen nützliche Elemente in diesem Bericht zunichte gemacht werden, zurückzuziehen und ihn zu befürworten."@de⁹ "Κυρία Πρόεδρε, χαίρομαι που σας βλέπω να προεδρεύετε αποτελεσματικά των εργασιών του Σώματος από αυτή την έδρα. Καταρχάς, επιτρέψτε μου ένα σχόλιο προς τον κ. Mote, ο οποίος με λύπη μου διαπιστώνω ότι δεν έκανε τον κόπο να παραμείνει για να παρακολουθήσει τη συνέχεια της συζήτησης. Η λύση που προτείνει για τα προβλήματα διαφθοράς και σπατάλης στην Ευρώπη είναι να προστεθεί ένα ακόμη στρώμα γραφειοκρατίας, με την πρόσληψη ομάδας λογιστών από τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Η λύση αυτή μου φαίνεται εντελώς παράλογη, καθώς θα μας επιβαρύνει απλώς με πρόσθετο κόστος. Η πολιτική μας ομάδα θα στηρίξει τις τροπολογίες 1 και 3 στις οποίες ζητείται η αποσαφήνιση του κόστους λειτουργίας μας σε τρεις διαφορετικές έδρες, πρακτική η οποία είναι παράλογη και δεν μπορούμε να την κατανοήσουμε ούτε εμείς ούτε οι πολίτες. Επιθυμούμε την αποσαφήνιση αυτού του θέματος. Εντούτοις, μας προκαλεί κατάπληξη το γεγονός ότι η Ομάδα ΕΛΚ-ΕΔ κατέθεσε τέσσερις τροπολογίες –τις 79, 80, 81 και 83– οι οποίες αποβλέπουν στη διαγραφή άλλων χρήσιμων σημείων αυτής της έκθεσης. Η κ. De Lange, η οποία παρενέβη προ ολίγου εξ ονόματος της Ομάδας ΕΛΚ-ΕΔ, με έκανε να σαστίσω. Δήλωσε ότι επιθυμούμε να αποφύγουμε να δοθεί στο κοινό η εντύπωση ότι γίνεται κακοδιαχείριση χρημάτων για το συνταξιοδοτικό ταμείο. Συμφωνώ μαζί της. Εντούτοις, η Ομάδα ΕΛΚ-ΕΔ προτείνει, με την τροπολογία 83, να διαγραφεί ο έλεγχος των επιδομάτων που λαμβάνουν οι βουλευτές και του τρόπου με τον οποίο δαπανώνται αυτά τα ποσά, πράγμα εντελώς παράλογο. Την παρακαλώ να πείσει τους υπολοίπους συναδέλφους της να αποσύρουν αυτές τις τροπολογίες με τις οποίες επιδιώκεται η διαγραφή χρήσιμων στοιχείων του κειμένου και να στηρίξουν την έκθεση."@el¹⁰ "Señora Presidenta, es un placer verla en la Presidencia, presidiendo el debate de manera eficiente. En primer lugar quiero hacer un comentario para el señor Mote, que, siento decirlo, no se ha molestado en quedarse para escuchar el resto del debate. Su solución de los problemas de la corrupción y el derroche en Europa es añadir otra capa de burocracia, contratando a un equipo de contables del sector privado. Me parece una solución completamente absurda, que amontona coste sobre coste. Nuestro Grupo apoyará las enmiendas 1 y 3, que reclaman la aclaración de los costes de nuestro funcionamiento en tres diferentes lugares, que es un disparate que nadie, ni el público ni nosotros, puede entender. Queremos una aclaración sobre esto. Sin embargo, estamos muy perplejos de que el Grupo del PPE-DE haya presentado cuatro enmiendas –79, 80, 81 y 83– que suprimirían otras partes útiles de este informe. La señora De Lange, que acaba de hablar en nombre del Grupo del PPE-DE, me desconcierta. Ha dicho que queremos evitar dar la impresión pública de que el dinero se gasta incorrectamente en el fondo de pensiones. Estoy de acuerdo con ella. Sin embargo, el Grupo del PPE-DE propone, de acuerdo con la enmienda 83, suprimir una auditoría de las prestaciones a los miembros y cómo se gastan, lo que no tiene ningún sentido. Le instaría a que convenciera al resto de sus colegas a retirar esas enmiendas que pretenden suprimir cosas útiles en este informe y a que lo apoyen."@es²¹ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, on mukava nähdä teidät puhemiehen istuimella johtamassa tehokkaasti puhetta parlamentissa. Haluan aluksi esittää kommentin jäsen Motelle, vaikka huomaankin, ettei hän ole valitettavasti vaivautunut jäämään kuuntelemaan keskustelun loppuosaa. Hänen ratkaisunsa EU:ssa esiintyvän lahjonnan ja tuhlauksen ongelmiin on lisätä taas yksi taso byrokratiaan palkkaamalla ryhmä kirjanpitäjiä yksityiseltä sektorilta. Se on mielestäni täysin järjetön ratkaisu, joka vain lisää kustannuksia entisestään. Ryhmämme antaa tukensa tarkistuksille 1 ja 3, joissa vaaditaan selvitystä siitä, mitä kustannuksia aiheutuu työskentelystämme kolmella eri paikkakunnalla. Tämä onkin sekä meidän mielestämme että kansalaisten mielestä täysin käsittämätöntä. Haluamme asiasta selvityksen. Olemme kuitenkin hyvin hämmästyneitä siitä, että PPE-DE-ryhmä on tehnyt neljä tarkistusta – 79, 80, 81 ja 83 – joilla poistettaisiin muita hyödyllisiä osia mietinnöstä. Jäsen De Lange, joka käytti juuri puheenvuoron PPE-DE-ryhmän puolesta, saa minut hämmennyksiin. Hän kertoi, että haluamme välttää antamasta kansalaisille vaikutelmaa siitä, että eläkerahaston varoja käytettäisiin väärin. Olen hänen kanssaan samaa mieltä. PPE-DE-ryhmä ehdottaa kuitenkin tarkistuksessa 83, että jäsenille maksettavia korvauksia ja niiden käyttöä koskeva tarkastus poistetaan, missä ei ole mitään järkeä. Kehotan häntä suostuttelemaan muut kollegansa peruuttamaan ne tarkistukset, joissa pyritään poistamaan mietinnöstä hyödyllisiä osia, ja kannattamaan mietintöä."@fi⁷ "Madame la Présidente, c’est un réel plaisir de vous voir assurer une présidence aussi efficace de votre poste. Tout d’abord, je tiens à dire un mot sur l’intervention de M. Mote, qui, malheureusement, n’a pas pris la peine de rester pour écouter la fin du débat. La solution qu’il propose pour faire pièce aux problèmes de corruption et de gaspillage, qui est de faire appel à une équipe d’audit du secteur privé, contribuera à rajouter une couche de bureaucratie au problème. Selon moi, cette solution est absurde et ne fait qu’ajouter des dépenses à celles qui ont déjà été consenties. Notre groupe soutient les amendements 1 et 3 demandant une clarification des coûts du travail que nous devons prester à trois endroits différents, ce qui constitue un non-sens que ni la population ni d’ailleurs nous-mêmes ne pouvons comprendre. Nous voulons des éclaircissements à ce propos. Par contre, nous n’arrivons pas à comprendre pourquoi le groupe PPE-DE a déposé quatre amendements - les amendements 79, 80, 81 et 83 - visant à supprimer d’autres parties utiles de ce rapport. Mme De Lange, qui vient de s’exprimer à l’instant au nom du PPE-DE, me surprend. Selon elle, nous devons éviter de donner l’impression aux citoyens que l’argent est improprement dépensé pour le fonds de pension. Je suis d’accord avec elle. Pourtant, le groupe PPE-DE propose, avec l’amendement 83, de supprimer l’audit concernant les indemnités des députés et la manière dont elles sont dépensées, ce qui n’a aucun sens. Je l’invite donc de façon pressante à convaincre l’ensemble de ses collègues de retirer ces amendements, qui cherchent à éliminer des aspects utiles du rapport, et de soutenir celui-ci."@fr⁸ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@hu¹¹ "Signora Presidente, mi compiaccio di vederla presiedere la seduta e condurre con tanta efficacia i nostri lavori. Innanzi tutto, un commento all’attenzione dell’onorevole Mote, che, purtroppo, ne prendo atto, non si è dato la pena di rimanere ad ascoltare la continuazione del dibattito. Per risolvere i problemi della corruzione e degli sprechi in Europa propone di aggiungere un ulteriore strato di burocrazia, assoldando un’équipe di contabili del settore privato. Mi pare una soluzione assolutamente assurda, che aggiunge costi ai costi. Il nostro gruppo appoggerà gli emendamenti nn. 1 e 3, che chiedono un chiarimento sui costi dei tre diversi luoghi di lavoro del Parlamento, un’astrusità che il pubblico, tanto quanto noi, non può comprendere. Su questo chiediamo delucidazioni. Tuttavia siamo piuttosto perplessi che il gruppo PPE-DE abbia presentato quattro emendamenti – nn. 79, 80, 81 e 83 – che depennerebbero altri elementi utili dalla relazione. L’onorevole De Lange, che è appena intervenuta a nome del gruppo PPE-DE, mi ha lasciato perplesso: ha dichiarato che dovremmo evitare di creare nel pubblico l’impressione che i soldi per il Fondo pensionistico siano mal spesi. Concordo con lei. Tuttavia, il gruppo PPE-DE propone all’emendamento n. 83 di annullare un sulle indennità dei deputati e su come sono spese, il che non ha alcun senso. La esorto a convincere gli altri suoi colleghi a ritirare tali emendamenti volti a espungere elementi utili dal testo della relazione, e a votare a favore."@it¹² "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@lt¹⁴ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@lv¹³ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@mt¹⁵ "Mevrouw de Voorzitter, het doet mij genoegen dat u in de Voorzitterstoel zit en dat u deze vergadering zo efficiënt leidt. Allereerst wil ik op de heer Mote reageren die helaas niet de moeite heeft genomen om de rest van het debat bij te wonen. Hij wil het corruptie- en verspillingsprobleem in Europa oplossen door nóg een laag bureaucratie toe te voegen in de vorm van een team accountants uit de particuliere sector. Dat lijkt mij een volslagen absurde oplossing die alleen maar tot nog meer kosten zal leiden. Onze fractie zal de amendementen 1 en 3 steunen waarin om een opheldering gevraagd wordt over de kosten die het gevolg zijn van het feit dat wij onze werkzaamheden op drie verschillende locaties uitvoeren. Deze absurde situatie is zowel voor de burgers als voor ons onbegrijpelijk. Wij willen graag opheldering hierover. Wij zijn echter zeer verbaasd dat de PPE-DE-Fractie vier amendementen heeft ingediend – de nummers 79, 80, 81 en 83 – waardoor andere nuttige delen van dit verslag geschrapt worden. Mevrouw De Lange, die zojuist het woord heeft gevoerd namens de PPE-DE-Fractie, heeft mij in verwarring gebracht. Zij zei dat wij moeten voorkomen dat bij de burgers de indruk ontstaat dat geld op een verkeerde manier wordt besteed, namelijk aan het vrijwillige pensioenfonds. Dat ben ik met haar eens. In amendement 83 stelt de PPE-DE-Fractie echter voor om een audit van de toelagen van de afgevaardigden en de wijze waarop deze besteed worden, te schrappen. Dat snijdt absoluut geen hout. Ik dring er dan ook bij haar op aan om haar collega’s ervan te overtuigen om de amendementen waardoor nuttige delen van dit verslag worden geschrapt, in te trekken en het verslag te ondersteunen."@nl³ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@pl¹⁶ "Senhora Presidente, é um prazer vê-la nas funções de presidente, presidindo à assembleia com tanta eficiência. Em primeiro lugar, um comentário ao senhor deputado Mote, que, lamento ver, não se incomodou a ouvir o resto do debate. A sua solução para os problemas de corrupção e esbanjamento na Europa é criar mais burocracia ao contratar uma equipa de contabilistas do sector privado. Pessoalmente, parece-me uma solução absurda, somando custos atrás de custos. O nosso Grupo apoiará as alterações 1 e 3 exigindo maior clarificação relativamente aos custos do nosso funcionamento nos três lugares, que é uma situação absurda que o público não consegue compreender e nós não conseguimos compreender. Queremos clarificação nessa matéria. Contudo, confunde-nos bastante o facto de o Grupo PPE-DE ter apresentado 4 alterações – 79, 80, 81 e 83 – que eliminariam outras partes úteis do presente relatório. A senhora deputada De Lange, que acabou de falar em nome do Grupo PPE-DE, deixou-me perplexo. Ela disse que nós devemos evitar criar a impressão de que os recursos públicos estão a ser indevidamente utilizados para o fundo de pensão. Concordo com ela. Contudo, o Grupo PPE-DE propõe, segundo a alteração 83, eliminar uma auditoria aos subsídios dos deputados e à forma como são despendidas, o que não faz sentido algum. Insto-a a convencer o resto dos seus colegas a retirarem estas alterações que procuram eliminar aspectos úteis deste relatório e a apoia-lo"@pt¹⁷ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@ro¹⁸ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@sk¹⁹ "Madam President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, presiding efficiently over us. First of all a comment to Mr Mote, who, I am sorry to see, has not bothered to stay to listen to the rest of the debate. His solution to the problems of corruption and waste in Europe is to add another layer of bureaucracy by hiring a team of accountants from the private sector. It seems to me a completely absurd solution, piling cost on cost. Our group will support Amendments 1 and 3 calling for clarification of the costs of our working in three different places, which is an absurdity that the public cannot understand and we cannot understand. We want clarification on that. However, we are very puzzled that the PPE-DE Group has tabled four amendments – 79, 80, 81 and 83 – that would delete other useful parts of this report. Mrs De Lange, who just spoke for the PPE-DE Group, baffles me. She said that we want to avoid giving the public impression that money is being wrongly spent for the pension fund. I agree with her. However, the PPE-DE Group is proposing under Amendment 83 to delete an audit of Members’ allowances and how they are spent, which does not make sense at all. I would urge her to persuade the rest of her colleagues to withdraw those amendments seeking to delete useful things in this report and to support it."@sl²⁰ "Fru talman! Det är mycket trevligt att ni har intagit ordförandeplatsen och med fast hand leder oss i debatten. Jag vill inledningsvis kommentera inlägget från Ashley Mote som efter vad jag kan se tyvärr inte ansett det mödan värt att stanna och lyssna på den återstående debatten. Hans sätt att lösa problemen med korruption och slöseri inom EU är att införa ytterligare ett byråkratiskt skikt och hyra in en grupp revisorer från den privata sektorn. Detta förefaller mig fullkomligt befängt och innebär att ytterligare kostnader tillkommer. Vår grupp kommer att stödja ändringsförslagen 1 och 3, där ett klarläggande begärs av kostnaderna för att vi arbetar på tre olika platser, vilket är helt orimligt och något som varken allmänheten eller vi själva kan begripa. Vi vill ha klarhet på denna punkt. Vi är emellertid mycket förvånade över att Gruppen för Europeiska folkpartiet (kristdemokrater) och Europademokrater (PPE-DE) har lagt fram fyra ändringsförslag – 79, 80, 81 och 83 – som innebär att andra viktiga inslag i betänkandet utgår. Esther de Lange, som just uttalade sig för PPE-DE-gruppen, förvånar mig. Hon påstod att vi vill undvika att ge allmänheten intrycket att medel felaktigt satsas på pensionsfonden. Jag håller med henne. PPE-DE-gruppen föreslår emellertid enligt ändringsförslag 83 att en granskning av ledamöternas ersättningar och hur de har använts ska utgå, vilket är helt obegripligt. Jag uppmanar henne att övertala sina övriga kolleger att dra tillbaka de ändringsförslag som innebär att viktiga inslag i betänkandet tas bort, och att stödja betänkandet."@sv²²
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE )."⁴ "Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE ). –"^{18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13} "audit"^12,12