Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.19.3-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, allow me first of all to express my thanks to the rapporteur for his report. Broadly speaking, we are in agreement with the main thrust of his arguments. Naturally, we agree with his view that more needs to be done to improve the rationalisation, accountability and disciplinary rigour of the budget.
Lastly, I congratulate Mr Dombrovskis again, not just for his report but because he as a new Member, coming from a new country, has provided us with an example that shows that this integration process can be productive and efficient.
An area which seems to be problematic is that of staff recruitment. I suppose it would be correct to assume that staff requests were based on justified and realistic needs. Consequently, it is very difficult to understand or justify the delays in the selection and recruitment process relating to enlargement. Action has to be taken to rectify the situation and to address this pressing issue. Having said that, however, I do not agree that an interim, makeshift solution of employing temporary staff should be considered a viable option or alternative. Whilst I can appreciate the reasoning behind this argument, I fear that this type of compromise, if accepted, could lead to a malpractice which may feature occasionally in our future budgets.
The rapporteur has, moreover, put forward for our consideration a reduction in the margin of the contingency reserve. In principle, we agree that appropriations should relate to specific activities and we should avoid cancellation of appropriations at the end of the financial year.
Nevertheless, we have to take into consideration the challenges we face in the near future and the uncertainties which are still evident, relating among others to multilingual services, property investment, the Statute for Members, as well as the adoption of the Statute for Members’ Assistants, which has our full backing and support.
In view of this, it would be prudent to agree with the amendment proposing that the final decision on this item should be taken at a later stage. In fact, I think that the rapporteur did well to postpone the final decision on the gentleman’s agreement relating to the 20% level of heading 5. I agree that this benchmark is not tied to an irrefutable and absolute fixed law and we should not be hesitant to challenge and review this agreement if we are convinced that it is necessary. However, I do not think that this is the case and it would be inadvisable to do away with these guidelines now.
Ironically enough, if used effectively, the stability of the 20% guideline could provide some sound budgetary rigour and efficiency. Naturally, we support the arguments that to achieve budgetary efficiency we have to take a critical look at all forms of expenditure, make more efficient use of resources and avoid waste and duplication of functions.
We should continue to focus on our core services and activities, which leads me to another important point. We have not as yet, albeit it with some justification, experienced the full impact of the ‘raising the game’ exercise. It seems to me that to date only a few objectives have been achieved. Given that the necessary structures are in place, we would realistically expect that in the coming budgetary year most of the targets would be met and a reform implemented to eliminate overt and covert bottlenecks.
On another level, we very much welcome the proposed improvement in the visitors’ service. From my very short and limited experience in the European Parliament, I think that the programmes are a practical and direct tool for improving the perception of the EU. In addition, they have a multiplier effect, which should not be underestimated.
I also warmly welcome the proposal to improve the strategy on communication and information. Over the years, we have not dealt with this issue adequately. Whether real or perceived, we know that there is a barrier between the EU and its citizens. More could and should be done on this important aspect. If we really want our citizens to feel that the European Parliament is their parliament, and that it represents their aspirations, then an effective information and communication strategy has to be implemented swiftly. That should be one of our main priorities. If we fail in this, we will have failed in a very real and fundamental key objective."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples