MEPs’ statute faces delay of up to ten years

Date: 13/05/1999

By Gareth Harding

THE introduction of uniform rules to govern MEPs' pay and expenses could be delayed for up to a decade as a result of last week's decision by the European Parliament to reject the changes made to its proposed common statute by EU governments.

The assembly's largest political group, the 214-strong Socialists, claimed that the vote would pave the way for talks on an accord which would put an end to 'gravy train' allegations of fiddled expenses.

But it is highly unlikely that the two sides will be able to strike a deal before next month's Euro-elections, leaving the MEPs bidding to hold on to their seats open to charges of sleaze and hypocrisy during the campaign.

Under the draft statute narrowly approved by the Parliament in December, the proposed new rules would come into effect in the parliamentary term after they had been adopted.

This means that if the Council of Ministers and Parliament fail to reach an accord by next month, the changes will only enter into force after the 2004 poll for new MEPs and 2009 for re-elected members.

Representatives of the two sides will meet to try to thrash out their differences in the coming weeks. But given the hardline stance adopted by the assembly and the difficulties EU governments had in agreeing a compromise text, Council sources are deeply pessimistic about the chances of an early agreement.

" The momentum for change has gone," said one official. "By not moving one millimetre, MEPs have shown that they are not interested in a common statute at all."

Another said that if the Parliament had produced an amended statute, "it would have put the ball firmly in the Council's court", but by throwing out the text unanimously agreed by member states, the assembly had left "little scope for movement".

In the wake of last week's vote, both sides blamed each other for the impasse. Parliament President José Maria Gil-Robles told European Voice that by completely rewriting the draft text, EU governments had left MEPs with a "feeling of unease" and that adopting a 'take it or leave it' approach had boxed members into a corner.

Meanwhile, Council officials accused parliamentarians of exaggerating the effects of the proposed changes on members' pay packets. "There were so many rumours which made MEPs scared that we had to run around fire-fighting to counter the lies," said one.

The Parliament's most senior administrative body last week added fuel to the flames by deciding to interpret the new travel expense regulations agreed last autumn in a way which will leave MEPs open to further criticism.

The new rules were heralded at the time as meaning MEPs would only be able to claim for actual travel costs incurred. But the assembly's college of quaestors has decided that the new procedure means that "reimbursement essentially remains a lump sum".