Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.5.2-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can, fundamentally, do no other than agree with Mrs Breyer. For years already, we have been wrestling with a solution to the issue of MEPs’ salaries, and opinions can differ very widely, particularly when it comes to whether the current national system is preferable to one applicable right across the EU. The one thing, though, that the creation of a new Statute must not do under any circumstances is to create privileges and new rules that cannot be got across to the public. In view of the ongoing debate about how best to secure Europe’s pension schemes, people will see the idea, contained in the Statute and in an amendment, of pensioning MEPs off as early as 60 or 63, as a provocation.
It is not only in my own country that people are, at present, being told that they will have to work for longer; in the European Parliament, on the other hand, the intention is obviously to guarantee politicians early retirement, which is not what social policy demands. Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Statute for the Members of the European Parliament in this form.
The same goes for the rule on lump sums for expenses. In future, the reimbursement of expenses – of whatever kind – must relate only to those actually incurred, and it must no longer be possible to draw additional expenses under any circumstances. It is imperative that rules for travel costs should be transparent and comprehensible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples