Jens-Peter Bonde brings you the secret audit report of the European Parliament
EUDemocrats reveal secret report
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Fraud in the European Parliament
by Jens-Peter Bonde
Breaking News!
Tuesday, late afternoon, the Committee on Budget Control voted on whether the question on publishing the internal document should be put at the agenda of the meeting or not. It was rejected by 21 votes to 14. Members from the two biggest groups voted for secrecy, representatives from the smaller groups voted in favour.
EPP picked seven-eight German CDU members in the final minute before the vote to change the balance. They won. We - and the taxpayers - lost. Members of the European Parliament can continue to cheat with secretariat allowances until the European elections in 2009. Then, there will come new rules for the next parliament to avoid this question to be discussed with the taxpayers and voters.
I was rumoured today that ther exist an even more secret report which cannot even be seen by the Budget Control Committee Members. This report includes names taken off the report we discussed today. It shows who are under suspicion. This report should be delivered to OLAF and the report without names should be published immediately to regain parliament authority."
A 92-page internal audit report has been placed in a secret reading room for members of the Budget control committee. The report is about members cheating with secretariat allowances. The auditors have been looking into 167 cases of around 40 members and found massive suspicion of fraud with taxpayers money from 2004-06.
Members are suspected to cheat with taxes, social security and VAT. There are also examples where salaries for assistants are directed to accounts from the members themselves. In one example, money had been sent to a day care centre, and in another example, to a service provider dealing with wood.
In more than half of 22 studied dossiers in regard to service contracts the employers public registration number is wrong. In one example a special Christmas bonus was given to an assistant 19.5 times his monthly salary.
There are no names mentioned in the report. I therefore asked the committee to make the report public. I have not read it myself because I would then have to sign a declaration that I would not quote from the report.
The suspicion of cheating is not new. A few years ago an internal bureau document showed mistakes in 84 % of the contracts. We have discussed possible reforms for many years. For the maybe tenth time I proposed a very simple reform: Pay the money directly to the employed and establish a public register of those employed.
Then it is up to the voters to judge whether family members should be employed or not and cheating would disappear automatically since no one cheats when it is known to every one.
The European Parliament has asked an Austrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin to repay money just for a formal mistake. Yet this secret auditors report now is not about formal mistakes but discloses real cheating. The Parliament reacts with double standards when they ask one member to pay back for a formal mistake the like of which is found in 84 % of all contracts, while they do not claim money back in these cases of suspicion for real cheating.
The European Parliament gains a very negative image by keeping this report secret. The secrecy was defended by the two biggest groups in the EP. Ten members of the budget control committee asked in writing for a roll call vote on the publication of the report. The president of the committee, Austrian PES member Herbert Bsch, refused to allow the vote.
Vaxholm in the Danish Parliament
Friday 22 February, I was in the European affairs committee in the Danish Parliament with the leader of the June Movement, Hanne Dahl. We have asked for a so-called deputation to meet with this committee. This is a right open for all Danish citizens. Two weeks ago active people from the trade unions went in a delegation about the problems arising from the Vaxholm-Laval case from 18 December.
We came with a possible solution: a protocol to neutralise the effects of the revolutionary court case which will otherwise destroy the Danish model of flexicurity. In Denmark, it is absolutely legal to work for 1 euro or eurocent per hour. But nobody does that because we have a well organized workforce with 85 % in trade unions.
Danes receive the salary and working conditions described in voluntary collective agreements and they do not go on strike against their own agreements. High salaries and good education allow for high productivity and competitiveness. 800.000 Danes have a new job every year because it is easy both to fire and hire. People who are fired easily find a new job.
We are missing workers at the same time as we outsource a lot of jobs. Every time we outsource we gain more jobs at home. Who can be interested in destroying this almost perfect system?
The Commission bureaucrats and the European Court!
They think everything must be identical. If a Latvian salary is good enough for the Latvians in Latvia it must also be good enough for Latvians working in the Scandinavian countries. The Commission bureaucrats and the judges in Luxembourg will only respect a publicly decided minimum salary or collective bargaining made generally binding by law.
In the verdict from 18 December the Court interpreted the treaty principle of free movement against the right to strike. The right to strike can not disturb the free movement of workers and services. We therefore suggested this protocol.
Implications for Ireland, France and other Member States with minimum salary
In Ireland the minimum salary is 8 an hour but very few Irish will go for this salary. They also have their collective agreements and higher tariffs. With the Laval court case it is now legal for the very many foreign workers in Ireland to pa paid the minimum salary only and it is forbidden for the trade unions to organize strikes against the minimum salary.
My Irish colleague, Kathy Sinnott, has therefore proposed a similar protocol to be attached to the Lisbon treaty before final ratification. In Ireland, they will have a referendum maybe 29 May. Let us see if the Irish government will propose a protocol when the prime ministers meet for their summit in Brussels, 14 March.
Vaxholm in the European Parliament.
Tuesday 26 February, the social committee in the European Parliament has a public hearing on the Vaxholm-Laval case. The only outcome concerns the daily life of millions of European families so we can hardly count on the interest from the press who is more interested in day to day polemics than complicated decision making in the Union.
Wednesday 20 February, we voted on the Corbett-de Vigo report on the Lisbon treaty. An amendment against the Vaxholm-Laval case was rejected with 568 votes against and 64 in favour. All the Danish Social Democrats voted against this part of the amendment. The amendment was divided into 2 parts and the second part was about the right to collective action being a matter over which the Member States have exclusive competence. 3 of the 5 Danish Social Democrats voted for this part together with all the Swedish Socialdemocrats. The leader of the European Socialist Party, former Danish prime minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, surprisingly voted against the amendment with one of his colleagues and so did the representative of the Socialist Peoples Party, Margrete Auken. I hope they did it by mistake!
Am 36 rv 1: Condemns the fact that the provisions contained in the existing treaties which the Court of Justice has recently used as a basis for justifying social dumping and for making collective action by workers conditional upon acknowledgement of the freedom to provide services (Vaxholm and Viking Line judgments) are incorporated in full into the Treaty of Lisbon;
See how members voted on this part of the amendment here: am_36_1.pdf
Am 36 rv. 2: right to collective action should continue to be a matter over which the Member States have exclusive competence;
See how members voted on part 2 of the amendment: am_36_rev_2.pdf
But no one cares it is only the salary of the citizens. MEPs can serve themselves.