European elections. The issues. The debates. The money…

Malta’s political scene has often appeared to jar with the prevailing trends and currents among our European counterparts. While other EU governments were committed to a culture of austerity, Maltese political parties were trying to outdo each other with a pre-electoral bonanza of largesse. And while voter turn-out for European elections is on the decline almost everywhere else in Europe – an indication of the low level of public interest in this institution, which is also reflected in minimal press coverage outside Brussels – here in Malta we were recently treated to a dramatic illustration of how seriously we take the same EP.

The near-unanimous resolution condemning Malta for its celebrated passport scheme dominated headlines at the time; and the issue itself was used by both sides to reassert the importance of having a ‘strong presence’ in the Parliament. But like the resolution, the importance attached to the same EP by political parties – and to a lesser extent by the electorate; Malta enjoys the highest rate of participation in EP elections, even if it is low by local standards – may be overinflated.

For one thing, the European Parliament is only one cog – and a consultative one at that – in the wider European policy forming and legislating machinery, alongside the Council of Ministers (i.e., European governments) and the European Commission. However, in the power struggle between these three entities its own powers have recently been much augmented. Voters in European elections now get to indirectly also elect the President of the otherwise unelected Commission; and other changes have given the Parliament more say in the formulation and ratification of European laws.

Perhaps the most significant power enjoyed by the Parliament is that of setting the European Union’s Budget, which has a direct knock-on effect on most, if not all, the issues in which Malta has been prominently active or involved.

A glance at two of these issues may help to delineate the precise limits of the European parliament as a venue to address any of the problems concerned.

Immigration

Irregular immigration has been a constant electoral issue ever since the first EP election in 2004: which also coincided with an apparent escalation of the phenomenon.

Then as now, Maltese MEP candidates invested part of their campaign energies into voicing popular – and often populist – concerns about the issue, and above all imparting the message that a strong representation in the European Parliament may represent a possible ‘solution’.

When still an MEP, PN leader Simon Busuttil was an EP rapporteur for migration, and both he and his long-standing colleague David Casa were vociferous in their demands for more European support. Identical pleas have more recently been made in the Labour representation: Marlene Mizzi similarly lambasted European institutions for their failure to show solidarity to Malta last October.

Yet it is debatable whether the European Parliament is indeed the institution best suited to raise these concerns.

With both major parties committed to seek a mandatory burden sharing agreement, there is local consensus on a reform of the Dublin II regulation and Search and Rescue conventions on at least two counts. The first concerns the obligation (subject to interpretation) to transport rescued migrants to the country operating the Search and Rescue Zone – which would be Malta for all those rescued in the central Mediterranean – and the second, a proviso that asylum seekers must apply for asylum at their ‘first point of entry into the EU’: which, for reasons that are too complex to go into here, usually means that Malta has to assume responsibility for all such asylum seekers.

Both are direct contributors to the real or perceived problems at the heart of the immigration debate. But the European Parliament has no jurisdiction to unilaterally amend these laws, which are subject to international treaties. As such, the decision would have to be taken at Council of Ministers level… although the Parliament would ultimately have to ratify the decision for it to come into force.

All the same, as Green Party chairman Arnold Cassola (himself a candidate) recently pointed out, both the Christian Democrat EPP and Socialist EPS parliamentary groups have refused to include a reform of Dublin II in their manifestos. Together these two blocs account for the vast majority of the Parliament’s composition… implying that the situation will almost certainly remain unchanged in the next legislature.

For much the same reasons, the EP cannot (or will not) impose a mandatory burden sharing mechanism, of the kind repeatedly requested by Maltese MPs for years.

However, in one respect the EP does have considerable influence on immigration-related matters. This year, Malta’s budgetary allocation within the the EU’s 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework stands at almost €80 million: up by €15 million over the previous amount given by the EP.

Of these funds, €53 million go under the Internal Security Fund (External Borders and visas), €17 million under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; and €9 million under the Internal Security Fund (Police).

But on other issues concerning immigration, the EP has repeatedly stopped short of endorsing calls for ‘more action’ by Maltese MEPs, and has also sporadically criticised Malta over its detention policy, inter alia.

So far – and with the exception of our annual budgetary allocation – our local representation at the European parliament has not succeeded in changing this status quo… albeit not for lack of trying (and trying, and trying).

Hunting

The issue of spring hunting (and, earlier, of trapping at any time of the year) has likewise been a staple on the European election menu for 10 years. The 2005 election saw the candidature of FKNK – the hunters’ federation – secretary Lino Farrugia, in a bid to safeguard the interests of hunters against a direct threat from European legislation. Farrugia may not have been successful in his own electoral bid, but the FKNK undeniably succeeded in making spring hunting an electoral issue in both 2009 and 2014 elections.

Again, however, it is debatable whether the EP can in fact influence the outcome of any local decision on this matter. Ultimately it was the European Commission that took Malta to the European Court of Justice in 2007, without any input from the parliament at all. Moreover, the issue does not revolve around any proposed amendment of European legislation – in which case, EP support would be useful – but rather, around interpretations of the ECJ’s 2009 verdict, and the correct way to apply a derogation from the Wild Birds Directive.

These are all technical issues which fall outside the European parliament’s remit, though the EP naturally retains the ability to pass non-binding resolutions… for instance, asking the Commission to take (or not to take, as the case may be) action in any given case.

On another level, MEPs are also ideally positioned to ask parliamentary questions that may be instrumental in resolving these technical issues. Individually, elected representatives could use their facilities to influence the debate one way or another… though whether any has ever successfully done so is another question.

As things stand, Malta’s six MEPs represent two political parties that are both committed to safeguarding the ‘hobby’ of spring hunting, and have been for the past eight years at least. To date, the only discernable resolutions concerning hunting in Malta have been sporadic condemnations of illegal shooting… which in a sense also illustrates the effectiveness of Malta’s representation on this issue.

Having said that, it remains to be seen whether an MEP representing a different agenda would register more success. Judging by past resolutions, the European Parliament may be more easily convinced to approve a resolution against spring hunting than in favour; and it only takes one MEP to propose such a resolution in the House.

But even in the unlikely event of an MEP elected on the anti-spring hunting ticket, the most that can be expected is an EP resolution urging the Commission to reopen the case against Malta… which would in a sense take us back to the starting point of the entire discussion.

What’s in it for them?

But it’s not just about policies and issue-driven debates. There’s also the small matter of financial remuneration. MaltaToday asked Peter Agius, director of the European Parliament Information Office, for a detailed breakdown of salaries, pension schemes and other additional perks and allowances enjoyed by members of the European Parliament:

Salary

Net annual salary: €74,400

Since July 2009 all MEPs receive the same salary. The monthly pre-tax salary of MEPs under the single statute is €7,956.87 (June 2013, as in 2011 and 2012). This salary is paid from Parliament’s budget and is subject to an EU tax, after which the salary is €6,200.72. Member States may also subject this salary to national taxes. The MEPs’ basic salary is set at 38.5% of the basic salary of a judge at the European Court of Justice, so MEPs do not – and cannot – decide on their own salary.

Breakdown of allowances

1. Travel reimbursement

Most European Parliament meetings, such as plenary sessions, committee meetings and political group meetings, take place in Brussels or Strasbourg. MEPs are refunded the actual cost of their travel tickets for attending such meetings upon presentation of receipts, up to a maximum of a business class air fare plus fixed allowances based on the distance and duration of the journey to cover other costs of travelling (such as excess baggage charges or reservation fees, for example).

MEPs may also be refunded up to €4,243 per year for other travel outside their own member state undertaken as part of their work, and be reimbursed for up to 24 return journeys within their own member state.

2. Daily allowance (also called “subsistence allowance”)

Parliament pays a flat-rate allowance of €304 for each day that MEPs attend on official business, provided that they sign an attendance register. This covers hotel bills, meals and all other expenses involved. On days when plenary votes are held, if MEPs miss more than half the roll-call votes, this allowance is reduced by half.

For meetings outside the EU, the allowance is €152 (again subject to signing a register) with hotel bills refunded separately.

3. General expenditure allowance

This flat-rate allowance is intended to cover expenditure such as office rent and management costs, telephone and postal charges, computers and telephones. The allowance is halved for members who, without due justification, do not attend half the number of plenary sittings in one parliamentary year (September to August).

In 2013 the allowance was €4,299 per month (as in 2011 and 2012).

4. Medical costs

MEPs are entitled to a reimbursement of two-thirds of their medical expenses.

5. Other entitlements

Parliament provides equipped offices to MEPs in both Brussels and Strasbourg. MEPs may make use of Parliament’s official vehicles on official business when in either city.

Pensions

Members are entitled to an old-age pension from the age of 63. The pension will be 3.5% of the salary for each full year’s exercise of a mandate but not more than 70% in total. There are also private scheme funds for MEPs.

Staffing arrangements

MEPs may choose their own staff, within a budget set by Parliament. Accredited assistants, based in Brussels (or Luxembourg/Strasbourg) are administered directly by Parliament’s administration, under the conditions of employment for non-permanent EU staff.

Assistants based in MEPs’ member states are administered by qualified paying agents to ensure that tax and social security requirements are properly met.

In 2013, the maximum monthly amount available for all the costs involved is €21,209 per MEP (as in 2011 and 2012). None of these funds are paid to the MEP themselves.

Up to a quarter of this budget may be used to pay for services from providers chosen by the MEP, such as ordering an expert study on a particular subject. MEPs may no longer have close relatives among their staff.