Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031217.1.3-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, our parliamentary group is totally in favour of a Members’ Statute. We have always been convinced that we need to establish a Statute that guarantees equal political and financial dignity for the representatives of Europe’s citizens. To this end, we have consistently followed and actively supported all the steps that have led to the current proposal now under discussion in the Council.
I would also like to say, quite clearly, that we are opposed to any delaying tactics. The Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left calls for this Statute to be approved as soon as possible. We feel that the principle of equality between MEPs is a necessary element of justice and transparency for our citizens. Obviously, as is the case for all compromise proposals, we are not entirely satisfied with the one under examination, but we will not fail to make a constructive contribution, which will be open to dialogue between all the Parliamentary groups.
The issue that is still a matter of disagreement is the age of retirement. The current proposal is to give MEPs a pension at the age of 63, while the Confederal Group of the European United Left believes that the age should be lowered to 60. This proposal does not aim to protect the privileges of MEPs; we are putting forward the proposal because we are convinced that all European citizens should retire at the age of 60, at the very latest. My colleagues and I have always opposed reform of pension schemes based on an increase in the contributions period, which I consider to be unfair. We are convinced that there are sufficient financial resources to enable all European citizens, including MEPs, who are citizens like everyone else, to retire at the age of 60.
As regards the principle of the single salary, we are convinced that it represents a principle of democracy and equal treatment. Why should an MEP from Estonia be paid far less than a German? At the same time, however, we realise that, in certain Member States of the European Union, this could give rise to untenable situations, where an MEP receives a salary several times greater than that of their President. This is why we have to be politically flexible. Perhaps we could close the gap between differing remuneration of MEPs by basing it on the monthly salaries of senior State offices in that particular country; but, for us, the principle of the single across-the-board salary is an irrevocable one.
Finally, as regards the payment of the travelling expenses of MEPs, we would like to remind you that the Bureau
of the European Parliament has drawn up a proposal that a majority in my group has asked to see put into practice when the Statute comes into force"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples