Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-07-Speech-3-327"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050907.22.3-327"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, listening to this debate, one is tempted to ask a couple of basic questions. EUR 127 million of taxpayers’ money – for whom? Why? Is it not the case that Europe is now so evolved that many officials stay in one place for a very long time, not to say their entire career? Is this form of assistance not tantamount to a further subsidy for this handful of privileged individuals in Luxembourg, Brussels and elsewhere? Is it not also true that, in reality, as a cost-accounting matter, these additional costs should be factored in from the outset when locating and relocating agencies? Yet this is not being done; the procedure is still marked by a lack of transparency. There is a reason why these reports have been appearing at two-year intervals, and it is that these schools are not doing particularly well. At the end of the day, the fundamental question arises as to whether this system, which actually did have some justification 20, 30, or 40 years ago, is sustainable as such.
Every enterprise sending staff abroad knows that there is a variety of other schools on offer – German schools, English schools, UN schools – so why are we allowing ourselves this luxury? Is it really necessary?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples