Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.2.2-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing a report on the European Parliament, and I am astonished first of all not to see one of Mrs Stauner’s letters appended to this document because, as you know, she likes to get involved in our business even though her own activities are concerned with something completely different. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the rapporteur is a member of her own group and, for once, she is therefore confining herself to making observations rather than sending a letter. I find this rather strange, but perhaps she has not yet said her last word. We shall see, in time.
What I want to say is quite simply this: the situation is nonetheless rather surprising. On the one hand, we have engaged in a policy of rigour resulting in all our budgets and discharges being obstructed by a Parliament that is rigorous to the extent of obstructing discharge to the Commission, and even obstructing discharge to the European Parliament itself, out of fear of problems, lack of endorsement or money wasting attributable to the duties of officials who are required to shuttle back and forth between Luxembourg and Brussels, costing the taxpayer a fortune.
Yet on the other hand, in the Ferber report, Members of Parliament are awarding themselves fortunes. We are awarding ourselves a second computer, claiming that one is not enough. We are awarding ourselves a 20% pay rise from a zero-growth budget. We are awarding ourselves a 20% increase to the budget heading for funding for our assistants because we are more than anything afraid that the rules will stipulate that this contract will have to be accompanied by a statute which would specifically require welfare contributions to be paid, and so, as insurance against the worst case scenario, we are increasing this line by 20%.
After checking up, I have not found a single budget item in the Community, whether in the field of humanitarian aid, research, or agricultural expenditure where there are plans for an increase. Moreover, generally speaking, the objective is to reduce the budget. But not in this case! Within the European Parliament a second computer is being awarded, 20% additional expenses and, as the Court of Auditors was particularly tough on the political groups, a paragraph is included, which, I quote, “Underlines emphatically the increased workload and the particular responsibilities of the political groups.”
This paragraph does Parliament no credit. If we adopt an attitude, we cannot express any indignation at waste while at the same time putting forward a budget of this type. On behalf of the radicals in this House, I must inform you that I shall be voting against Mr Ferber’s report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples