Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-142"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.20.2-142"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"There is every reason to criticise some of the European Parliament’s activities. Nonetheless, it has not been possible to prove that any unlawful actions have taken place.
MEPs’ voluntary pension schemes are a form of supplementary pension insurance in addition to the basic MEPs’ pension. Under this system, European taxpayers have to pay for two thirds of all contributions (currently EUR 2 088 per month per MEP who has chosen to join this scheme). The remaining third has until now been paid from MEPs’ secretarial allowance, despite the fact that the Court of Auditors criticised this arrangement as long ago as 1999, stating that contributions should be made on an entirely private basis in order to prevent accusations of ‘public funds being used for private pension contributions’. This remark may in itself be considered peculiar, since the system is based on two thirds of all contributions being made from the EU budget. I believe that the whole system should be phased out as soon as possible.
Moreover, I have voted in favour of those amendments that will prevent Parliament from buying the parliament building in Strasbourg. In the short term, purchase of the building would lead to financial savings, but, in such a case, the aim would have to be to fund the purchase by selling the parliament building in Brussels. The most important thing is for the seat of the EU to be restricted to one site."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples