Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.3.2-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the report on the implementation of Parliament's budget is highly controversial. Although I cannot deal with all its contradictions, I cannot but denounce the truly futile calculations it contains with reference to personnel and other costs at our various places of work. All of these are intended to run Luxembourg and Strasbourg down as places of work, to glorify an unhealthy emphasis on the centrality of Brussels and to undermine the decisions under the Treaty which laid down Strasbourg and Luxembourg as places of work. These were enshrined in the Treaty and cannot therefore be altered by Parliament, thank God! Nor should they, of course, be eroded without further ado, be it by the administration, by the bureau, or by a small majority in Parliament using devious means and our calendar of part-sessions.
It strikes me as positively perverse for this report to welcome a reduction in the number of journeys on official business that our officials take from Luxembourg to Brussels and back, and for it to be boasted that, in 2000, EUR 2.8 million was saved in this way, ignoring the fact that these figures conceal enforced transfers of lower and middle-stream officials from Luxembourg to Brussels, which their families find traumatic and socially and financially intolerable. Someone has also forgotten to state what additional costs are incurred through sending hundreds of officials to Strasbourg from Brussels every month, instead of from Luxembourg, thus, of course, resulting in greater expense. The intention which comes to light is a disconcerting one.
In the report, Strasbourg gets more of the same treatment when it is mentioned that the variable costs of the five-day part-sessions in Strasbourg are 33% higher than for those in Brussels. I would like to propose that creative accountant for the Guinness Book of Records! What is certain is that Parliament's nonsensical decision to cut the Strasbourg part-sessions down to four days led to the costs per day of the part-sessions now being substantially higher, quite apart from this plenary not having the time to deal properly with business, especially with legislative texts! What is praised for being good value turns out, in the final analysis, to be substantially more expensive. The ratio of price to quality is quite simply wrong, and that is what I wanted to take this opportunity to say loudly and clearly!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples