Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-03-28-Speech-3-238-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-03-28"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Estimates of revenue and expenditure for 2013 - Section I - Parliament (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120328.22.3-238-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-03-28-Speech-3-239-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Salvador Garriga Polledo2
lpv:spokenAs	member; BUDG (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2009-09-16--2013-04-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council (2012-03-02--2013-03-26)3 substitute; ECON (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-24--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Partido Popular (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2012-03-02--2012-06-03)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in a time of crisis it is clear that institutional expenditure and in particular the administrative expenditure of Parliament may be subject to public scrutiny. That is why I feel that the figures presented by our rapporteur Mr Vaughan, approved by the Bureau of Parliament, are very modest estimates of the expenditure for 2013. I am one of those who believe that taxpayers’ money should always be safeguarded and monitored. However, we are all taxpayers, and that money should be safeguarded in the same way in a European parliament as it is in a British parliament, a Spanish regional parliament or a parliament in any other European country. I believe that we have made an effort to cut our budget as much as possible. It is true that there are budgetary items that we have reduced. It is true that there are items we could reduce. I am going to give the few of you here an example. Right now there are more people in the interpretation booths than there are Members in this Chamber. Does this mean we should do without interpretation? No, it simply means that we must continue working to better allocate our resources to match our needs. Right now we do not need so many people. In any case, I know that Mr Vaughan and Ms Hohlmeier have looked into this recently, and so I think the proposal we are presenting is very timely. Lastly, with regard to the debate on a single seat, I believe we need to have real debates, not virtual ones. It is all very well to tell the public that we want to limit ourselves to one seat and a single place of work, but we have to know exactly what options are available to us under the Treaty. Our responsibility right now is to reject the amendment."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph