Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-122"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.5.2-122"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like, first of all, to ask you to take note of the following correction. I actually wanted to vote in favour of Amendment No 8 to Article 16, rather than against it, as I am of course in favour of differential weighting of living expenses.
Now, by way of an actual explanation of how I voted, let me say that I have always been in favour of a Statute for Members of the European Parliament, but the reasons why I voted against the Rothley Report were as follows: I cannot understand why, today, we have not managed to make the actual costs of travel transparent and take them into account. Before now, the Statute always had to serve as a pretext for such a rule not existing. Now, we want a Statute, but we are rejecting transparency and the accounting for the real costs. I find that dishonest; we cannot explain it to the public, who, when they travel on business, can of course claim only the actual costs. Nor do I think it right that we have not substantially raised the pensionable age.
In Germany, we have just had a debate on increasing the retirement age for people at large, and I think the same should obviously apply to us. Apart from that, I am also in favour of us paying the same taxes as those who elected us, so as not to give the impression that we are establishing special rights for Members of this House. That is why I had to go against my original intention and vote against the Statute. I think that Parliament…"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples