Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.21.2-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the most important principles to be observed when Parliament and other institutions were drafting next year’s budget were thrift and budgetary discipline. We have to set an example to the taxpayer, the ordinary European citizen, and show that we can also take responsibility for economic matters. This is the only way we can win the trust of the people.
Parliament’s new Secretary-General has put forward a new proposal for Parliament’s 2008 budget, and I would like to congratulate him, since it is extremely good and well-balanced. It will help us find a compromise when taking the final decision. I should mention two things concerning the proposal. Firstly, the Secretary-General’s proposal is still below 20% of heading 5, i.e. the increase does not use up the whole 20%. The other important matter is that he has been able to place a lot of existing employees in new posts, whereas all the posts should have been made vacant.
We nevertheless have to remember what this process in Parliament is like generally. We have already adopted certain principles here a few times this year. One is that Parliament’s budget is a taxpayer’s budget, and that we would try to keep to the 2007 expenditure levels where new projects are concerned. We are not so very far off this target, and I believe that all the projects proposed can be carried out when we determine the precise sums in accordance with budgetary discipline.
I wish to raise another matter concerning Parliament’s budget, and that has to do with information policy. Various projects have been set up with a view to the forthcoming elections, such as the Web TV, and the most important thing of all is for MEPs and the political groups to be closely involved in all aspects of Parliament’s information policy. So the groups and Members must keep themselves in the picture and not leave the administration in charge of information policy: people want to know why an individual member or group votes a certain way or puts forward given proposals. People want to know the political background, and we should therefore be involved. I hope that the idea about inviting the small, local media along, as now agreed, goes through to the final version. One way to get close to the people is for us to invite along the small, local media, which do not have the funds themselves to come here to Parliament. This obviously has to happen through our Members.
I would like to come back again to the other institutions. The Council has proposed a 2% cut across the board for all institutions. As rapporteur, I have to say this is difficult to accept, as the institutions differ greatly from one another. Some are small, some large, and they vary in the sort of work they do.
Let me take as an example the Court of Auditors, which I visited yesterday. They have been very economical and have complied with budgetary discipline for many years now. They have posted a surplus for everything, they have not wasted money, and their expenditure consists of salaries and fixed costs, and nothing else. This 2% cut would be completely out of the question for the Court of Auditors. The whole scheme would fall apart if we were to go with it.
I hope we will reach agreement on the idea of going over possible areas where savings can be made for each individual institution. In principle I agree with the Council that everyone needs to exercise thrift and areas where savings can be made have to be found, but I am not in favour of a universal 2% policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples