Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.6.1-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this report is not about drafting the most ideal version of the Statute for Members. It is now about taking the negotiations with the Council a step further, and I am starting to despair of this. The Commissioner, Mrs de Palacio, said that spectacular progress had been made in other fields, but that that was not the case here. In my opinion, that is very true. Why was the Belgian Government’s compromise involving a supplementary national tax rejected? Why do the major groups persist in wanting to regulate the new immunity and rules in this Statute? Why must the language regime, too, come up for discussion in this Statute? This contamination makes the negotiations too difficult. Objections of principle are all very well, Mr Rothley, but an acceptable agreement is even better; not only for the sake of principle, that is to say, a European rule for Members of the European Parliament, but also in order to put an end to the current questionable expenses practice.
Last week, the Bureau adopted a new rule which will enter into force when the Statute does. My group grades the present rule an emphatic ‘unsatisfactory’, but gives the new one a good seven out of ten. It is true that we find the tiredness surcharges absurd and regrettable, but we welcome the fact that travel costs would be reimbursed only on the basis of the costs actually incurred. That is a considerable step forward. If an agreement on the Statute is rendered impossible, we are back to square one as regards the travel costs, too. That cannot be the intention ... can it?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples