Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.9.3-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to begin by thanking Mrs Guy-Quint in particular for seeking consensus throughout the process of drawing up her report.
As the Committee on Budgets we consider that the establishment of the budget by activities causes us problems because of the lack of visibility of expenditure and our desire to strengthen the powers of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority. We have just come from a budgetary negotiation with the Council, as Mrs Guy-Quint is well aware, where the hardest thing has been to determine in a clearer and more precise way what the limits of budgetary power are for one party or another.
The Committee on Budgets considers that Parliament must not lose its control over the allocation of administrative appropriations. Our fears are not greatly allayed by the fact that, when the establishment of the budget by activities is over, category 5 of the financial perspectives will disappear. We are not speaking against these consequences, but in favour of safeguarding the budgetary powers of this Parliament. Therefore, any tendency of the Commission reform to covertly remove from Parliament this ability to control administrative expenditure would create interinstitutional problems in the short term. However, an approach that safeguards Parliament’s powers of control and decision-making with regard to expenditure in the current category 5 will guarantee that the Commission reform will be negotiated with no further problems.
With regard to the TAOs and the transitional period for their dismantling, my Group insists that the Commission should make the greatest possible effort to limit that transitional period. We therefore ask the Commissioner: can the Commission guarantee a truly limited transitional period?
Finally, we must deal with the thorny issue of the proposal on early retirement. We are awaiting a three-way dialogue to define this question, amongst others, before the final approval of the 2001 budget. My group does not reject the idea of this proposal on early retirement being obligatory. We believe that the lack of definition of the current proposal could create more problems than advantages and we have already received some indications of concern from various officials. Nevertheless, we will give the Commission our vote of confidence so that it can give as much detail as possible about the scope of its proposal.
During the coming three-way dialogue, we hope to receive good news on many issues, including this one, as well as the lifting of the reserve in the category of new posts. This would clearly indicate this Parliament’s goodwill in relation to moving ahead with this reform with the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples