The European Parliament took an important step today towards establishing a common Statute for MEPs when it adopted a draft decision contained in a report by Willi Rothley (PES, D) by 294 votes to 171 with 59 abstentions. The proposed common Statute will govern MEPs' legal position and their general terms of employment.
The decision contains the text of a draft Statute for MEPs and thus covers a number of highly contested issues: MEPs salaries and taxation, refunding of expenses, protection of MEPs' freedom of vote and of opinion, official languages. MEPs endorsed a recommendation that their salary should be equivalent to 50% of the basic salary of a judge at the European Court of Justice. At present, the figure would be around € 8,500 per month (or about £ 73,000 per year).
In procedural terms, although Parliament makes the initial proposal for the Statute and takes the final decision, the Council has to give its approval. MEPs will vote once again tomorrow, Wednesday 4 June, having heard the European Commission's opinion, thereby formally concluding the current stage of the procedure.
It will then be up to the Council to approve or reject it acting by a qualified majority. There are no binding deadlines for the Council to meet its decision.
In a statement after the vote, EP President Pat Cox made a strong appeal to MEPs when they vote tomorrow to give to the draft Statute the 'largest possible consensus available'. Tomorrow, therefore, there should be either 'yes or no' -- not a 'yes, but'.
Debate (excerpts)
During the debate, Diana Wallis MEP (LibDem, Yorkshire & the Humber) said: "When I looked at the UK press over the weekend I could not recognise myself or indeed any of my colleagues in the lurid descriptions of our supposed lifestyles and endless perks. Our conditions of employment and our expenses should not be the story, they should be transparent, a matter of public record: proper recompense for a job well done and reimbursement for monies paid out in doing that. I believe this is our last chance to reach the stage where we are no longer the story, but our work is. We have a package before us that in most ways represents a compromise for all of us".
Prof Sir Neil MacCormick MEP (Greens, Scotland) also spoke: "We all know that people in this House doing exactly the same job are paid a huge range of different salaries for it. There is only one thing which has made this tolerable. That has been an expenses regime which would otherwise be totally indefensible because it is absolutely untransparent. We must take the step that will make it possible for this Parliament to stand tall and stand legitimate with a proper scheme on a common salary and a common, defensible and transparent expenses regime.
Finally, with great respect to everybody here, I do not regard myself here as an employee of the European Union: I am a representative of my constituents. I do not ever wish to pay tax on my income at a different level or on a different basis from my constituents".
MEP Bill Miller (Lab, Scotland) said: "The big issue for me is the whole question of the expenses. I congratulate the working group on coming up with a formula. Transparency in expenses is essential. We must stick to the principle of travel at cost. That is an issue which is in our hands and we can approve it without going to the Council. Let us not squander it and let us not waste it."
Lord Inglewood MEP (Cons, North West) said: "Not only should MEPs receive a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, we should be taxed on the same basis as those who send us here. As a number of speakers have already said, we are not civil servants - we represent the citizens of the four corners of the European Union, here at its centre. The arrangements put in place should be appropriately drawn up and transparent, and the expenses regime which is back-to-back with them should not be disguised remuneration.
As a Member, I am sick and tired of cheap jokes about the 'gravy train': let us recall that the basic salary we, the UK Members, receive is, so I am told, about the same as that of a decent-sized supermarket manager in a provincial town. Such jibes degrade Parliament as an institution and the European Union as a political process. Quite simply, I say, let us stop the talk and sort it out, because if we do not, we demean ourselves and degrade the process of which we are part."