Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-149"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.7.2-149"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I too would like to thank Mrs Gill very much for all the work that she has put into this report. She has made it the essence of her work to give the taxpayer value for money and I would very much like to support her in this.
One of the most controversial points, as is evident from this debate, is health care costs. I am really hoping to be able to persuade Mr Dover not to extend the health insurance scheme to former Members. What is so wrong with it? The costs may and Mrs Gill has already gone into detail on this point be limited now, but over the years these costs will of course increase enormously. But then that is the financial side of the matter.
There is however also a matter of principle to consider, one that Mr Virrankoski has already touched upon. Until we have a Statute for Members, Members of the European Parliament will continue receiving the same salary as the Members of Parliament in their country of origin. The Court of Justice has decided that pensions and health insurance all fall under the heading of salary. I am not even in agreement with the present Members of Parliament receiving this health insurance because I think that it is a bonus on top of salary. But now to extend this bonus is really unacceptable, it is simply old-fashioned grubbing about in the European cashbox and that we must not do. Once we have a European Statute, it will be a different matter and then we can talk about it again. Until that time there is simply no question of us being able to assent to it.
Mr President, since we are talking of waste, the city of Strasbourg suddenly comes to mind. Which brings me to the fact that last time, during the voting on the calendar of meetings, we took the democratic decision in this place that next year there will be only 10 sessions in Strasbourg. Now I know perfectly well that a whole box of tricks is going to be opened up to ensure that it will again be 11 or 12, but this democratic decision that only 10 sessions have been scheduled continues to exist until that time. I therefore propose that tomorrow the President or the rapporteur actually corrects recital G. It must be stated under G that next year there are not 11 sessions scheduled here in Strasbourg but 10, as decided by this plenary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples