MEPs nod through £1,300 rise
Posted by MEP Blogs on 02 6th, 2010 | no responses
Budget committee agrees to increase the parliamentary assistance allowance in €1,500 ( £1,300). A long debate took place at Parliament's Budget Committee last week about how to cover the €1,500 increase on parliamentary assistance for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The discussion was not about deciding whether or not it it should be paid but just how it would be financed. The decision to pay it out had already been made by the Bureau of the Parliament (made up of the President and Vice presidents of the European Parliament plus the Quaestors).
The meeting started with what they call a "coordinators’ meeting", a reduced team where each political group can be represented by one member only. As usual Mr Lamassoure who chairs the committee was looking for consensus. Most of the members came up with "creative" ways on how to finance the extra cost and they all seemed to be looking to put the burden on the European Parliament’s bureau.
There was really no discussion on the need or intelligence of making such increase. I, of course, opposed radically indicating that once again we are asking more money from the European taxpayer when people are struggling to make it through the crisis. I stressed that I had never received an explanation of the activities that such extra allowance would cover so I had no proof that it was really needed.
Others came with the brilliant idea of using reserves embedded in the Budget and which are aimed at covering extraordinary expenditure that cannot be foreseen at the time when the annual Budget is being prepared and debated. But nobody can say they were unaware that the implementation of the Lisbon treaty would bring additional expense and in fact I had opposed, back in October, the fact that such expenditure would not be included in the annual budget and would instead be left for later "amending budget".
I raised my voice to tell Lamassoure that we needed to bear in mind that the unions had already taken the Council to Court over an extra 1.8% salary increase that they were expecting to have for this year and that if the Court would rule in favour of such increase whatever the date, it would have to be paid retroactively. So his and others’ idea that we could use some reserves to cover this extra cost was not prudent as these reserves may have to be used for the financing of the salary increase (I was trying to be polite but strong). Lamassoure acknowledged that this was certainly something to take into consideration. But that was all the recognition I got from him.
The "coordinators’ meeting was followed by the main Budget committee meeting where all the full members and also some substitutes of the said committee attended. The chairman opened the discussion trying to give the impression that there was consensus about the use of the reserves. However myself and the representative of the ECR ( European Conservatives and Reformists) and the GUE ( European Left) expressed our concerns. I voiced my opposition and repeated the arguments I raised at the coordinators meeting.
Lamassoure then came up with an "oral amendment" whereby the committee would "approve the extra means requested by the Bureau of 13.4 million Euro with the intention of financing these resources with equivalent savings taken the European Budget". He intends to get the Bureau to find the savings and is proposing a negotiation. He asked us to vote on this proposal stating that it was only a "political" vote and not a legal vote, so that he could negotiate with the Bureau this proposal.
Guess who was the only one who voted against?
YES! It was me! Even if ECR and GUE voiced criticism they voted in favour. After being here for six months I really should not be surprised. This is not the first time I am witness of such "ambiguity". This happens all the time....
SO... a negotiation meeting should be happening next week in Strasbourg and supposedly I should be part of it but don't hold your breath because they might "forget" to inform me about date, time or place.
What will undoubtedly happen is that the increase will take place and the taxpayers will have to bear the burden! And... when the European Court rules in favour of the unions then again the taxpayer will bear the burden! This is the EU! The MEPs voting in favour of further increases to their salaries and allowances are your representatives, dear Europeans!
The meeting started with what they call a "coordinators’ meeting", a reduced team where each political group can be represented by one member only. As usual Mr Lamassoure who chairs the committee was looking for consensus. Most of the members came up with "creative" ways on how to finance the extra cost and they all seemed to be looking to put the burden on the European Parliament’s bureau.
There was really no discussion on the need or intelligence of making such increase. I, of course, opposed radically indicating that once again we are asking more money from the European taxpayer when people are struggling to make it through the crisis. I stressed that I had never received an explanation of the activities that such extra allowance would cover so I had no proof that it was really needed.
Others came with the brilliant idea of using reserves embedded in the Budget and which are aimed at covering extraordinary expenditure that cannot be foreseen at the time when the annual Budget is being prepared and debated. But nobody can say they were unaware that the implementation of the Lisbon treaty would bring additional expense and in fact I had opposed, back in October, the fact that such expenditure would not be included in the annual budget and would instead be left for later "amending budget".
I raised my voice to tell Lamassoure that we needed to bear in mind that the unions had already taken the Council to Court over an extra 1.8% salary increase that they were expecting to have for this year and that if the Court would rule in favour of such increase whatever the date, it would have to be paid retroactively. So his and others’ idea that we could use some reserves to cover this extra cost was not prudent as these reserves may have to be used for the financing of the salary increase (I was trying to be polite but strong). Lamassoure acknowledged that this was certainly something to take into consideration. But that was all the recognition I got from him.
The "coordinators’ meeting was followed by the main Budget committee meeting where all the full members and also some substitutes of the said committee attended. The chairman opened the discussion trying to give the impression that there was consensus about the use of the reserves. However myself and the representative of the ECR ( European Conservatives and Reformists) and the GUE ( European Left) expressed our concerns. I voiced my opposition and repeated the arguments I raised at the coordinators meeting.
Lamassoure then came up with an "oral amendment" whereby the committee would "approve the extra means requested by the Bureau of 13.4 million Euro with the intention of financing these resources with equivalent savings taken the European Budget". He intends to get the Bureau to find the savings and is proposing a negotiation. He asked us to vote on this proposal stating that it was only a "political" vote and not a legal vote, so that he could negotiate with the Bureau this proposal.
Guess who was the only one who voted against?
YES! It was me! Even if ECR and GUE voiced criticism they voted in favour. After being here for six months I really should not be surprised. This is not the first time I am witness of such "ambiguity". This happens all the time....
SO... a negotiation meeting should be happening next week in Strasbourg and supposedly I should be part of it but don't hold your breath because they might "forget" to inform me about date, time or place.
What will undoubtedly happen is that the increase will take place and the taxpayers will have to bear the burden! And... when the European Court rules in favour of the unions then again the taxpayer will bear the burden! This is the EU! The MEPs voting in favour of further increases to their salaries and allowances are your representatives, dear Europeans!
Leave a Reply
