Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.7.2-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"My congratulations to all the rapporteurs and also to Mr Ferber, the rapporteur for the other institutions with which we are most concerned. There are three major issues which we should be concerned about in relation to the budget for other institutions. Firstly, how far does this budget improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the institutions? Secondly, how far does it increase transparency and accountability to the European citizen? Thirdly, how far does it plan and prepare for the future of the enlarged Union?
On the first point, I believe that this budget continues to apply the principles of budgetary rigour, budgetary prudence, improving efficiency, more effective budget control, better use of resources and a general tightening up, which are all vital to increase the confidence of the EU citizen in the institutions. There are obviously in this budget exceptions for the Court of Justice, which are clearly justified. Here the circumstances are exceptional, with an increased number of court cases and a huge backlog of translation, but in all the other institutions, rigour is applied.
Having said that, the principle of budgetary rigour can be developed further in every area. In the case of Parliament, how can we talk about budgetary rigour and still base ourselves in three different cities, in three different Member States? We need to be seen to be practising what we are preaching. Without wishing to give offence to our host city here in Strasbourg, our monthly part-sessions in this city are a manifest waste of time, money and Parliament’s ability to be effective and efficient. This equally applies to the separation of Parliament’s administration between Luxembourg and Brussels. If anyone needs convincing, just look at the evidence. This resolution clearly shows that discontinuing the Friday morning Strasbourg sittings will lead to savings of some EUR 1 million. Just imagine the savings that could be made if Strasbourg part-sessions were stopped altogether and Parliament was based solely in Brussels!
But it is not just the Treaties that need to be reformed. The parliamentarians need to put their own house in order, especially in relation to the daily allowance paid to MEPs during constituency weeks. I believe strict guidelines are necessary. My group believes that Parliament’s Bureau needs to review its decision and also to draw up a full list, with clear criteria, for those exceptional cases where Members can draw a daily allowance for their presence in Brussels during constituency weeks.
Furthermore, we parliamentarians also need to address the issue of the statute for assistants. This is long overdue and now urgently needed. Too many people in this House have been prevaricating on this question for far too long. If Parliament is ever to establish a reputation for transparency, a statute for our own assistants is indispensable.
All the institutions need to embrace reform whole-heartedly. What we need is action and not just empty words in this area. This is not just true of the issue of Parliament’s seat; reform of the European institutions needs to be brought about as quickly as possible. The Commission is starting to get its own house in order and it is crucial that the other institutions are seen to follow suit. In particular, the other institutions should follow the Commission as quickly as possible in implementing activity-based budgeting. We can only be transparent and accountable if all the decision-makers are clear about the budget and what lies behind the budget. One of my greatest frustrations over the last year is that it is so difficult to get behind the bureaucratic presentation of budget lines. The system is anything but transparent. It is designed to obscure rather than enlighten and I have been disappointed by the attitude adopted today with respect to activity-based budgeting.
But of course it is not enough to encourage reform in each institution separately. Real savings can only be made if the institutions work together. I fully support the emphasis in this resolution on improving interinstitutional cooperation, like the proposal for an interinstitutional recruitment office, which will provide real gains in efficiency and cost-effectiveness. There needs to be greater vigour and determination for the Parliament, Council and Commission to cooperate as closely as possible on issues such as translation, interpretation, libraries and buildings. Nowhere is it more important than for us to demonstrate value for money in the buildings policy. This is one area that has come under considerable spotlight both from the media and from the general public. We really need to develop a strategy to ensure there are no cost over-runs in the future and that they are suitable for the main users, including full accessibility for people with disabilities. This strategy has already been introduced by Joan Colom i Naval, the Vice-President for buildings. What we need to do now is turn this into a comprehensive blueprint design brief, so that we do not have any future problems.
Finally, what I find disappointing about this report is that it does not focus strongly on the need to plan and prepare for the future, especially in relation to the enlarged Union. I think we will regret that we have not made even greater preparation for enlargement in this budget.
To conclude, whilst we are making significant inroads with this report on the first issues I highlighted – efficiency and effectiveness – on the second and third – transparency and accountability and planning for the future – we could have been even more ambitious."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples