Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.6.1-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what this boils down to is that this Statute for Members of the European Parliament, with which we are dealing, is a never-ending story, and the way in which it has gone backwards and forwards, backwards and forwards, in this House for years on end, actually passes all understanding. I cannot do other than agree with the rapporteur when he says that, politically speaking, the core issue is whether we are a parliamentary assembly or a Parliament. If we consider how it is that the European Convention is discussing the Constitution, while we have for decades been unable to sort out the issue of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, then the public will have every right to ask just what is actually going on here.
It has often been my experience that the public are quite amazed by the differing salaries paid to MEPs for their work, and, above all, by how large the differences are. I am certainly in favour of this one House, by way of a Members’ Statute, adhering to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It goes without saying that I also expect the Council to take up this issue and very speedily take the decisions that will enable the Members’ Statute to enter into force with the minimum of delay.
I wish to associate myself with those speakers who have made reference to the issue of reimbursement. The fact that, in future, it will be our actual travel costs that are reimbursed is something that I see as being a core issue in terms of the credibility of the work done by this House and by us ourselves. I want briefly to discuss Article 20 of the Statute, which deals with old-age pensions. Our group has very lively discussions around this issue, as we, of course, cannot do other than note that discussions are going on in many Member States about raising the retirement age, and by a substantial margin. This goes hand in hand with an attack on social security systems. The proposal for the Statute, however, provides for us to have a retirement age of 60, which is low indeed. I believe this to be a contradiction, and one that we will be unable to explain to the public, and I see the application of differing standards to the pensionable ages of Members of this House and members of the public as amounting to privileged treatment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples