Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.4.3-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We approved the Virrankoski report on the implementation of the European Parliament’s budget for the 2000 financial year, as it makes a concerted effort to clarify the spending of the political groups.
As regards the assistants, we voted in favour of the amendment tabled by the rapporteur himself, which takes up our traditional position, calling on the European Parliament to assume direct responsibility for their administration. This means that MEPs will only be responsible for hiring and firing, and the right to determine their salary (within the limit of the allowance available, obviously). This approach will enable us to avoid many problems.
As far as Members’ salaries are concerned, we once again request that the main parliamentary allowance continues to be paid by the country in which the Member was elected, a request that runs counter to current plans to see this salary paid out of the Community budget. It is a question of principle: Members must be paid by the people that they represent.
On the issue of allowances that are representative of expenses, we believed that it would be clearer to split them up into two groups, the first would be an exact representation of spending and the second would be a variable revenue according to the number of days that the Member attended Parliament. The Member’s salary would then be made up of a fixed amount, from the national government, which would be subject to national tax, and a variable amount, drawn from the European Parliament’s budget and subject to Community tax."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples