Brussels, 09/01/2002 (Agence Europe) - MEPs are bound to know the draft opinion on the "statute of MEPs" negotiated with Council like the back of their hand, was the bitter/ironical remark made on the issue by Willy Rothley, German Social Democrat, who had organised a debate on Tuesday open to all MEPs, but attended by a scattering of only fifteen or so. During this debate, intended to inform and hear MEPs before the Parliament's legal committee gives its position on the draft report, Willy Rothley recalled that the aim is to adopt the statute for MEPs before the end of the term of legislature. It has been under discussion since 1998. Most of the debates covered the reimbursement of travelling expenses, the safeguarding of existing pension rights, and an exchange of views between MEPs regarding their immunity should they treat their opposite numbers as "idiots" within the context of their work.
Opening the sitting, Willy Rothley recalled that the Council had reached a political agreement last October on the controversial issue of taxation, coming to a solution whereby MEPs' indemnities will be subject either to a Community tax or to a national tax, while ensuring that there is no double taxation (see EUROPE of 29 and 30 October, p.5). Such a system will allow Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom, which requested derogation to the Community taxation system, as well as Austria, to apply the national tax law. "The agreement is not yet concrete. It has not been fully settled yet", remarked the rapporteur, while assuring MEPs who feared there would be unequal treatment under this system that this agreement will not be brought into question again. In answer to the Forza Italia member, Stefano Zappala, who hoped for a single taxation system, or the Finnish Green member, Heidi Hautala, who urged, on the contrary, for exceptions, Mr Rothley remarked that "one could hope for perfect equality, but this would be unacceptable for some Member States". "So we must manage with re-al-i-ty", he pounded out. "As long as the States applying national law remain a minority, there is no call for concern", said Mr Rothley.
The Quaestor (and MEP since 1979), Richard Balfe, British Labour member, launched into a long argument in favour of safeguarding rights during transition between the current statute of MEPs and the new statute. He was also in favour of the right to early retirement for MEPs who are not re-elected and who "find themselves without a job after the age of 50". On the first point, taken on board by many of those putting their views forward, Willy Rothley gave his assurance that the rights already acquired would be maintained. He stressed that the current voluntary retirement fund, created to allow MEPs whose Member State does not provide for a retirement system for MEPs (such as France and Italy) to benefit from the right to retire, will no longer serve any purpose once the European single system has been set in place, which MEPs may opt for. We recall that the draft statute provides in annex for "periods of exercise of a mandate at the European Parliament or in a national parliament which, because of the national schemes, does not open up pension rights or length of service taken into account in calculating the length of service pension under the present statute". On the other hand, the rapporteur rejected the second argument, considering that only those rights for which contributions have been made should give rise to payments, and that the career of MEP is a "lifetime choice".
Neil MacCormick, from Scotland (Greens/EFA), followed among others by FPÖ Austrian member Gerhard Hager, floated the debate on the freedom of expression of MEPs, under Article 9 of the statute which stipulates that parliamentary immunity does not apply to "false accusations made knowingly to the detriment of another MEP's honour" (slander). While considering that it is not a crime to call one's colleague an idiot, Willy Rothley felt that, on one hand, the European Parliament cannot give its stance on lifting immunity until proceedings are underway, and that, on the other hand, speaking "personally", he believes it is up to the Parliament to decide whether such a declaration is made by an MEP in the context of his function or as a personal insult.
In response to the concerns expressed by several MEPs on this question of immunity and the confidential nature of the EP's documents, Willy Rothley stressed that immunity is the "cornerstone" of the statute. "Those who want to give it up are undermining the system", he launched, recalling that he awaits the ruling of the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg on the action initiated with 87 MEPs against the possibility of OLAF interference in the offices of MEPs, before specifying the parts of the statute devoted to searches carried out in the offices of MEPs or the confiscation of documents. Contrary to the wishes of Richard Bafle, Geoffrey van Orden (British Conservative) or Carlos Westendorp (Spanish Socialist), which underlined the difference in the cost depending on the geographical situation of MEPs, the rapporteur insists that the arrangements for reimbursement of MEPs' travelling expenses should not be fixed by the statute. Obviously keen to avoid being bogged down by this issue, Mr Rothley noted that the "press is far less interested in the statute of MEPs since the question of travelling allowances has not been included". Considering that the statute should only fix the legal basis for travelling allowances "without going into the details", he insisted that the matter should be settled in practice by the Parliament's Bureau.
From a procedural point of view, Willy Rothley recalled that, once adopted by the legal committee, the opinion should be approved by the EP's Conference of Presidents, then put to the Council. Then and only then, on the basis of discussions with ministers, will a report be submitted for approval of the plenary Parliament. The rapporteur hoped that the promise made by the Spanish Council Presidency to tackle the issue "at the political level" and not just by officials will allow discussions to be speeded up.