Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-16-Speech-3-360"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010516.14.3-360"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I also wish to congratulate the rapporteur on her work; I support most of what she has said, especially on reform.
You may be aware of the findings of a recent Euro poll, which showed that the European Parliament is one of the most recognised of all EU institutions. Therefore, the onus is really on us to ensure that we increase the confidence of European citizens in the EU as a whole. This is why we need to set an example and lead the way in improving effectiveness, transparency and accountability, as outlined by the rapporteur.
However, the reform process embarked upon so far sometimes feels a bit slow. We need to speed things up in the coming year and try to embrace reform and modernise our working methods and decision-making processes. As everyone agrees, this is essential because of the challenges presented by enlargement. There is a clear danger that the EU could be deflected from its course if the public does not see concrete and swift reform being carried out on a significant scale.
All of us know that enlargement will have far-reaching effects on all aspects of Parliament's services. The additional budgetary cost of enlargement could be in the region of EUR 145m per year, according to one report. We could need about 459 new offices in Brussels alone. This will need considerable planning, with all the implications well thought through. Therefore, Parliament's three-year plan is essential to make enlargement successful. It is critical that this plan should be considered and not rushed. I strongly oppose the amendments tabled by the PPE-DE Group imposing a deadline before the summer for this report, because if we do not have a considered and well thought-out enlargement plan, it could backfire on us. The PPE-DE Group has tabled other amendments, which are equally nonsensical and will not enhance the standing of the European Parliament if adopted.
What I find particularly astonishing is that, on the one hand, we are constantly nit-picking about minor new establishment posts for the executive and yet, in practice, we are happy to increase posts for the political parties, when it suits particular needs, without any real justification.
Where are the principles of budgetary rigour and efficiency which the PPE-DE Group often talks about? It is important that we review these issues, but not at this stage. I wish to stress that the three-year plan should be considered because we face many challenges, but we should – and must – be more dynamic in all areas, in particular languages and buildings, because that is where the substantial costs lie. I hope the plan will in some ways think the unthinkable and radically review the language services, given that in two to three years' time we may have six new official languages to deal with.
Just to give you some food for thought: the Commission is a very different institution from us, but it manages to work in two languages. Let me make it clear that I strongly believe in linguistic diversity, but we cannot just add on all these additional languages and still try to be an efficient and effective organisation.
In relation to buildings policy, we must carefully examine all available options. I know there is a proposal to purchase this building, and although it makes financial sense here and now in terms of the savings we will make in the immediate future, I am concerned about the long-term suitability of the building: it hardly meets our requirements now, so what is it going to be like six years down the line?"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples