Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-076"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-26"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EC and ECSC budgets for 20002
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991026.2.2-076"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-26-Speech-2-0772
lpv:speaker	lp:Juan Manuel Fabra Vallés2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-08--2000-02-29)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-21--2000-02-29)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2000-02-29)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-10-06--2000-02-29)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2000-02-29)3 unknown; Partido Popular (1999-07-20--2000-02-29)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this year, once again, we rapporteurs and speakers are using the word rigour in relation to the budget. And if it is clear that rigour is required in the implementation of the budget, I would also claim that we require rigour in the drawing up of the budget. And it is difficult to be rigorous in the drawing up of the budget if one does not have rigorous information. And here today, how many of us have had to insist on the question of the fishing agreement, a clear case of a lack of rigorous information. The previous Commission should have foreseen that the said agreement was going to be discussed again, that it was going to be renewed and that therefore it would have to be reflected in the budget. With regard to the other institutions, when we speak, for example, of interinstitutional cooperation, how much rigour was there in the information on the day when our colleagues previously agreed that a Common Organisational Structure had to be set up and what is the reality today when we decide that we have to dissolve that common structure? I believe that we lack rigorous information. When we speak of building policy, who has the genuine information about the continuous changes between the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions who say “now I am going to that building”, “now I am not interested”, “now I am going to the other”? When we speak of the rigour necessary for interinstitutional cooperation with regard to the buildings in Luxembourg, has Parliament decided what the effective minimums and maximums are which Parliament requires in Luxembourg? When we talk about expecting enlargements as from 2002, are we taking account, in our building policy, of the enlargements to come, in 2002, 2003 and 2004? Rigour also has to be demanded of the members of other committees: the Committee on Budgets must not always be seen as the baddy, the one who always makes all the cuts. The other committees must take responsibility in the knowledge that new policies mean new expenditure, that for every increase there must be a cut. And with regard to MEPs allowances, I believe that the current regulation is less unjust than any situation which the absence of a regulation would cause. In any event, it can only be reformed by means of the Members’ Statute."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph