Chaotic decision-making - Damned if we do, damned if we don't. (Batley and Spen Liberal Democrats)

Batley and Spen Liberal Democrats <kath.pinnock@kirklees.gov.uk>

Chaotic decision-making - Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

April 18, 2009 5:14 PM
Originally published by Diana Wallis MEP

Pile of Euros European Parliament Vice-President Diana Wallis criticise the Parliament's Bureau's decision-making over the additional pension fund for MEPs. On record before for criticising the Bureau's working methods, they now question the wisdom of making a decision with far-reaching financial, budgetary and legal implications.

Diana Wallis said, "It could not be right to deal with this issue after 9.30 in the evening at a meeting scheduled to end at 8pm, where, by the end, only 3 or 4 voting Vice-Presidents remained in the room. All who spoke during the discussion voiced concerns over the speed of the process, asking for further advice from the Parliament's legal service or requesting that the matter be referred to the Committee on Budgets. I had to leave the meeting after expressing my reservations against the proposal - I did not expect the matter to be forced to a decision. I believe that others were in a similar position. I see no reason why it should have been forced through - we had already put in place interim protective measures to stop any run on the fund, these could have been continued."

"I had also asked for comparative information on pension funds elsewhere in the economy and as to how their policyholders were being treated in the financial crisis. Annoyingly, no such information was provided to inform our deliberations. Hopeless! We should be treating MEPs in the same way as those we represent."

"More heads and more information should have come to the process making it more transparent and understood. In a sense we are damned if we do not take action, but are likewise damned if we do. The truth is that there may be no need for any public money to bail out the fund if the economic situation improves in the next years, but likewise the inverse could occur."

"Some MEPs are put into real hardship because they do not benefit from any national pension fund or only from very limited ones - these are the cases I would like to see us concentrate on. At the moment, the problem is that all the contributing MEPs have a contract with the fund and all have to be treated equally even though some may have access to perfectly adequate pension provision from their own state. These MEPS, who have perfectly good provision already, are the ones, in my view, who, ahead of the test of public opinion at the European Parliament elections in June, should be examining their consciences about their membership of an additional scheme."