Letter from Buzek - Too little Too late

Buzek should get a new pair of spectacles to really see whats happening!

Below is a letter from EU Parliament President Buzek all MEP´s received yesterday following the Sunday Times `Cash for Amendments`revelations that led to the resignation of two MEPs and the possible impeachment of another.  Whilst I welcome this 'closing the gate'  letter by President Buzek, it is far too Little too late - MEPs have been a law unto themselves for far too long with a blind eye being turned. The parliament that knows no cuts has pushed through increases in MEPs pay, medical benefits, staff allowances and even an 82% increase in its entertainment budget.
Yet two weeks ago, President Buzeks office vetoed my Written Declaration calling for a Report from the Court of Auditors on MEP's abuse of subsistence allowance.

Dear Colleague,

At tomorrow morning's meeting of the European Parliament's Conference of Presidents, we will be discussing the consequences of disappointing behaviour on the part of some of our colleagues.

I believe that we need to look very closely at the question of what we expect from Members of the European Parliament, both in terms of their own behaviour and their interface with outside interests of various kinds.

I would propose that we discuss a number of possible initiatives that we might take to raise standards and improve transparency, and then decide quickly how to proceed in terms of practical follow-up.

First, many of us have long been in favour of a mandatory register of lobbyists and others seeking access to influence decision-making within the EU institutions. Despite the huge efforts of our colleague, Diana Wallis, Vice President, and her working party on the subject, what we have so far achieved is a voluntary register applying to only two institutions. As a Parliament, I believe that we should now propose to the European Commission that it comes forward with legislation which would establish a mandatory register for all institutions.

Second, in the interim, we need to tighten up our own internal rules concerning access for outside interests here in the Parliament. We should establish a de facto mandatory register of our own, as a stepping stone towards a formally mandatory register across the institutions. At my request, the Secretary General is now requiring that lobbyists register on a daily basis, even if they hold a one-year pass, in order to record with whom they are meeting or which meeting they are attending on our premises.

Third, the Parliament's own requirements on what constitutes acceptable behaviour by colleagues need to be strengthened. Any actual or potential conflict of interest must be declared. Members who advocate any cause or interest in which they have a direct financial interest (or an anticipated interest) must make this fact known clearly and unequivocally in writing. The question of second jobs of Members also needs to be addressed. Members should be required to update their existing declaration of interests much more regularly than once a year - ideally within a maximum of one month of any change in their circumstances.

Fourth, we should look very seriously at requiring Members who are rapporteurs to publish a 'legislative footprint', in which they would list clearly all outside organisations or individuals with whom they consulted or from whom they received advice in the preparation of their reports. In parallel, the Parliament's own services could offer a more comprehensive service in advising Members on the drafting of potential legislative amendments.

Fifth, there needs to be a more general obligation, set down in our Rules of Procedure, that Members should not engage in dishonourable behaviour in pursuit of their parliamentary duties or engage in actions likely to bring the House into disrepute.

Sixth, there is a certain irony in the fact that, in our business today, we will be commenting on the new Code of Conduct for European Commissioners, without having an effective one of our own. I propose that we look closely at the Commissioners' code, as well as the obligations in the 27 national parliaments, to see whether there are certain general principles on which we can readily agree.

Seventh, we need to decide on how any breaches of such rules are dealt with in order to ensure a swift and effective response to situations which might arise in the future. Tougher sanctions will need to be introduced, as appropriate. In this context, we should look at the option of creating an ethics committee, whether based on an existing body or composed especially for the purpose.  

There will certainly be other proposals and ideas on the table as we approach this important question, in addition to those I have outlined above. I look forward to discussing them all with you tomorrow.

The European Parliament has recently acquired new powers and is now in effect the joint legislature with the Council in most policy areas within the European Union. With power comes responsibility. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that we rise to the challenge we are facing.

Yours faithfully,

Jerzy Buzek

30 March 2011

MEP´s Medical expnses story repeated in Daily Mail & Express

I am so please that Marie Woolfs excellent Sunday Times article on grotesque level of medical allowances that MEP´s can benefit from has been repeated in both the Mail & Express. I was delighted to assist with this story which has more to come..........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363557/Eurocrats-allowed-boob-jobs-health-spas-Viagra--3m-scheme-paid-TAXPAYER.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/233035/Scandal-of-EU-medical-perks/

EU enlargement at taxpayers expense

I was happy to assist the Sunday Times with this exposure of yet another area of EU abuse of taxpayers money. I suppose this is a different type of EU enlargement!

MEPs can put Viagra pills on expenses

Medical cover for Euro MPs and their families lets them claim for ‘cosmetic’ treatments – and costs the taxpayer £3m a year

Marie Woolf

Published: 6 March 2011

•   MEPs can claim for Viagra, alternative therapies and anti-ageing treatments (PA)

MEPs and their families can have “cosmetic” treatments — including breast reductions, slimming products and facial hair removal — paid for by the taxpayer in a medical expenses regime described by critics as “ripe for abuse”.
This year’s £2.9m budget for Euro MPs’ medical expenses covers anti-ageing treatments and alternative therapies including lymphatic drainage, a delicate massage that helps the body eliminate toxins.
The scheme also allows breaks at health spas. The taxpayer funds at least two thirds of the cost of all treatments, and many are 100% covered.
The details are revealed in a leaked copy of the Practical Guide to the Reimbursement of Medical Expenses. It shows MEPs are reimbursed not only for conventional medical treatments for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and emergencies such as fractures, but also elective treatments.
The generosity of the system for “cosmetic” treatments has led to claims that it is a perk rather than essential for protecting MEPs’ health.
By contrast there is no private health insurance scheme for MPs, although some have successfully claimed for treatment on expenses. They can call on a parliamentary nurse and are referred to an NHS surgery in Westminster.
Other aspects of the health package on offer to MEPs are conspicuously generous. In Britain, few hospitals give more than three rounds of IVF funded by the NHS, with many allowing only one cycle. In Brussels, however, MEPs and their families are entitled to have up to five cycles paid for.

Other treatments include drug rehabilitation and the prescription of narcotics as part of treating withdrawal symptoms.

The husbands and sons of female MEPs can also claim for private treatment to resolve problems with impotence. Viagra is available if the condition can be shown to stem from serious illness.
The budget this year for MEPs’ sickness and accident insurance represents a 36% increase on the £2.2m that was spent on medical bills in 2009.
Nikki Sinclaire, independent MEP for the West Midlands, said: “This is a huge amount of money and every penny comes from the taxpayer.

“Most families are tightening their belts, and many people are concerned for their financial futures. But the allowances in Brussels keep going up and up. It’s yet more taxpayers’ money you don’t hear about.

“The system in Europe remains ripe for abuse and that needs to go.”
The leaked guide also reveals that MEPs and their families can have stays of up to 21 days at thermal health spas.
“Thermal cures equal a stay of between 10 and 21 days at a specialist establishment providing treatment under medical supervision,” the guide says. Use is limited to one cure a year, up to a maximum of eight in a lifetime.
MEPs are eligible to visit spas if they suffer from rheumatism, digestive problems, skin disorders and gynaecological disorders.
Unlike officials in the European commission, who have to make contributions to their medical scheme, MEPs are entitled to the benefits without having to put any money in. The scheme has been agreed by European governments, including Britain’s.
The European parliament said the expenses were justified because MEPs spent most of the working week outside their country so could not benefit from health services at home. The rules say treatments cannot be funded if they are purely for cosmetic purposes and must have a medical justification.

Taxpayer subsidised bureaucracy - Hidden Away!

These six full body security scanners were  purchased by the EU in 2005 at a cost in excess of £100,000 each. They have never been used and were ordered without consultation. These machines have been left to rot on pallets in a disused garage in the depths of the parliament building. It was quite a task to locate them with security trying to twart me and pass the buck!

I have made it a task this year especially to identify waste, corruption and irresponsible use of taxpayers money in these times of extreme austerity. This is another example of the waste and mismanagement in the European Union, indeed, taxpayer subsidised bureaucracy. This is only a small portion of the £50 million a day the UK gives the EU but it is endemic of how the EU is fundamentally flawed. It beggars belief that these unelected bureaucrats purchased the most expensive machines available at the time, they seem impervious to economic realities.

MEP's put their their own self importance ahead of the security in the parliament with many refusing to undergo the simplest of security checks led the campaign to stop the use of these machines in the parliament which are in use in 70 airports across Europe including Manchester and London Heathrow.

Security in the parliament is a great cause for concern following three robbery's in a many years and a journalist managing to smuggle in a toy gun and stand yards away from Prince Charles on his recent visit, bureaucrats are running around like headless chickens looking for someone to blame often picking on the lowest in the chain.

It looks like a national Sunday newspaper will be taking the story up which is why I have have delayed publishing this story that I have been working on this week.

Airports may get body scanners MEPs won’t use

Scanners bought by the European parliament at a cost of more than £500,000 to improve security at its headquarters have never been used

Daniel Foggo

Published: 6 March 2011

•  
• Many MEPs have reservations about scanners because of human rights issues (Joern Pollex)

Six body scanners bought by the European parliament at a cost of more than £500,000 to improve security at its headquarters in Brussels and Strasbourg have never been used because MEPs objected to the invasion of privacy.
The scanners, which emit low-level x-rays to show images of people naked, have been mothballed in a basement for six years.
Yet MEPs have now asked the European commission to consider the use of body scanners at all airports across Europe. This could lead to passengers being compelled to undergo body imaging before being allowed to fly.
The revelation comes after a series of security breaches at the parliament in Brussels. Last month a French journalist smuggled in an imitation firearm during a visit by Prince Charles to highlight the lax security. There have also been three armed robberies within the confines of the parliament building, leading some MEPs to condemn the security system as a "farce".
Nikki Sinclaire, MEP for the West Midlands, said: "MEPs put their own self-importance ahead of security in the parliament, with many refusing to undergo the simplest of security checks. Security is a great cause for concern." The scanners — Rapiscan Secure 1000s — were bought in 2005 at a cost of 725,730 euros (£621,000).
The same model is being used at Manchester and Heathrow airports as well as about 70 others in the US. It works by peppering a passenger with very weak radiation in order to project an x-ray image of them on to a viewing screen. This depicts any concealed objects as well as showing intimate areas of the body.
At the time of their purchase, the European parliament was opposed to the use of body scanners in airports. In 2009 MEPs voted to sell the scanners it had bought. Despite slashing the asking price, no buyers have come forward.
The commission has been tasked with considering the use of body scanners. One option is to make them mandatory at all airports. Airports in the EU are now allowed to use the scanners only in an authorised trial of the equipment or in response to a higher threat risk.
Many MEPs still have reservations over the use of the scanners because of human rights issues and possible health risks. EU policy is expected to be decided by July this year.
A spokesman for the European parliament said: "The scanners were bought following September 11, 2001, when the parliament was looking at security measures. They were never intended to be used routinely."

Nikki in Sunday Times: No need yet for 73rd UK MEP

Cameron to appoint new £1m-a-year MEP

With cuts beginning to bite, the government's move to install a new MEP is labelled undemocratic and a waste of taxpayers' money

Marie Woolf

Published: 13 February 2011

 

The government is to install an extra Tory MEP at a cost of more than £1m a year, in a move that has been condemned as undemocratic and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Foreign Office ministers are pushing through a law that will create a new seat for an MEP in the West Midlands constituency. The move follows a reconfiguring of seats in the European parliament that has given Britain the right to an additional MEP.
The government has decided the seat will go to a Conservative, based on the results of the last European election in the region, without holding a fresh election.
Opposition MEPs say the seat should only be created at the next European election in 2014. They argue this would be more democratic and would save money. An MEP costs about £1.2m a year in salary, office and staff costs, travel expenses, pensions and other allowances. The money will come out of the European parliament budget, which is partly funded by British taxpayers.
Nikki Sinclaire, an independent MEP for the West Midlands, called for the plan to appoint the MEP before 2014 to be scrapped. She said the money should be used to save services facing cuts.
“It is unbelievable when essential public services such as libraries and school maintenance are being cut to the bone that the government is legislating to appoint another politician,” she said.
Critics say that if a by-election had been held, the Tories would have risked losing in a region that also has significant Labour and UK Independence party support.
The new Tory MEP will take up his or her seat when all EU states have ratified the protocol. Britain is ratifying the change via the European Union Bill, now passing through parliament. The MEP is expected to take up the seat by early next year.
Yesterday, the Foreign Office said: “Like all member states, we agreed in June to ratify this protocol as soon as possible, to enable the additional MEPs to be returned to the European parliament.
“It is in no way a question of the government ‘appointing’ an additional MEP.
“The European Council outlined a number of ways that the 12 EU member states concerned could elect their additional MEPs. Like most other states who gain an additional MEP, the UK will do this by referring to the results of the last European parliamentary elections in 2009.”
The Electoral Commission said it had calculated where an extra MEP could be located, but the government had decided how the seat would be filled.
It said: “We recommended that the extra seat be allocated to the West Midlands region. That is where our remit ends.”
The commission chose the West Midlands because it has the highest number of voters per MEP of anywhere in Britain.