Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-215"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010315.12.4-215"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(
) Mr President, since the first direct elections in 1979 I have taken part in all part-sessions of our European Parliament here in Strasbourg from Mondays to Fridays, fifteen of those years as assistant to our unforgotten colleague Otto von Habsburg and now for seven years as a Member of Parliament. Before this, I dealt with this subject as a journalist for a daily newspaper, so I think I know the subject from all three sides that are particularly involved here. I would therefore like to say that I welcome the fact that with our provisional arrangement we have found something that both preserves flexibility and affords security and that the Court of Auditors has also accepted as a sensible and workable system, although I do have a problem with changing the contract basis in mid-period. I think that should really always be settled at the start of the period.
Now we are looking at the final assistants’ statute, and we naturally welcome such an assistants’ statute. But I would like to sound a warning against excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility. There are rumoured to be plans for all assistants to be subject to Belgian law. That would not only be a problem for the many staff we maintain in our constituencies, because the very purpose of that is to strengthen feedback to the constituency, but it would also fail to take account of the structure of our Parliament’s work, because following the Council’s decision this House has its seat in Strasbourg and holds its plenary sessions here. As a result, it is often more sensible for Members from southern Germany and from France, for example, to employ an assistant for Strasbourg and for their constituency than to bring the Brussels assistant to Strasbourg.
Strasbourg is the seat of Parliament. There is therefore no point in making assistants who work here, for example, subject to Belgian law. Brussels is an important place of work, but it is just a place of work, like Luxembourg. I therefore believe the system must be flexible, that there must be a freedom of choice here that does justice both to Parliament’s three places of work, to the seat in Strasbourg and to the need for constituency work. I therefore believe that the Council, Commission and Parliament must find an arrangement that gives our assistants security but which, as I said, takes account of this Parliament’s specific working conditions, which it did not set for itself, and which enables Members to make arrangements under the laws of the Member State where they were elected or to use an arrangement that does equal justice to their manner, structure and style of work and to the legitimate social interests of our assistants."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"DE"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples