Special Report No 10/98 concerning the expenses and allowances of the Members of the European Parliament together with the replies of the European Parliament (submitted pursuant to Article 188c(4)(2) of the EC Treaty)
Date: 1998-06-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, parliamentary allowance, report

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/1

I

(Information)

COURT  OF  AUDITORS

SPECIAL  REPORT  No  10/98

concerning  the  expenses  and  allowances  of  the  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  together
with  the  replies  of  the  European  Parliament

(submitted  pursuant  to  Article  188c(4)(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty)

(98/C  243/01)

CONTENTS

Paragraph
reference

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 — 1.4

Scope  of  the  audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1 — 1.3

Financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

FORMAL  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5 — 1.7

MEMBERS’  IMPREST  ACCOUNT  TRANSACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.8 — 1.26

Lump-sum  travel  and  subsistence  allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.15 — 1.24

Travel  allowance  limited  to  ECU  3 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.25 — 1.26

GENERAL  EXPENDITURE  ALLOWANCE  —  SECRETARIAL  ASSISTANCE
ALLOWANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.27 — 1.38

General  expenditure  allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.30 — 1.31

Secretarial assistance allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.32 — 1.38

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.39 — 1.44

Improving  the  system  of  administrative  management

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.41

Making  the  allowance  mechanism  more  realistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.42

Making  the  system  more  transparent  and  easier  to  check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.43

Reducing  the  existing  loopholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.44

2

2

2

2

3

3

4

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

Reply  of  the  European  Parliament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

C  243/2

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

INTRODUCTION

Scope  of  the  audit

for  their  conformity  with  Parliament’s  rules,  with  the
Community  financial  regulations  and  with  the  principles
of  sound  financial  management.  The  weaknesses  and
risks  that  this  report  brings  to  light  are  all  supported  by
audit  observations.

1.1. Members  of 
the  European  Parliament  receive
salaries  paid  by  their  national  parliaments  which  vary
according  to  the  country.  They  are  not  remunerated  by
Parliament  but  are  indemnified  by  it  in  respect  of  the
costs  which  they  incur  in  performing  their  duties,  on  the
basis  of  a  set  of  regularly  updated  ‘Rules  governing  the
payment  of  expenses  and  allowances  to  Members’  which
were  adopted  in  1984  by  the  Bureau  of  the  European
Parliament  (EP  133.116) (1).

1.2. The  Court’s  audit  dealt  exclusively  with  the
implementation  of  the  rules  concerning  the  following
payments  by  Parliament  to  cover  Members’  costs:

(a)  the  lump-sum  travel  allowance (2);

(b) the  travel  allowance  with  an  upper  limit  of  ECU

3 000 (3);

(c)  the  subsistence  allowance (4);

(d) the  secretarial  assistance  allowance (5);

(e)  the  general  expenditure  allowance (6);

(f)  the  reimbursement  of  travel  and  subsistence  expenses
associated  with  attending  language  and  computer
courses (7).

1.3. The  audit  concentrated  on  developments  in  the
allowance system since the Court’s last audits concerning
the  1990  and  1991  financial  years (8).  The  documentary
audits  mainly  concerned  the  1996  financial  year.  The
administrative and accounting procedures were examined

(1)  See  E.P.  133.116  /  QUEST./  rev  VII  /  1-97.
(2)  The 

lump-sum 

is 

travel  allowance 

the
reimbursement  of  all  costs  associated  with  travel  by
Members  between  their  place  of  residence  and  the  place  of
the  meeting,  on  the  occasion  of  their  proven  and  authorised
attendance  at  the  meetings  of  the  official  organs  of
Parliament.

intended 

for 

(3)  The  travel  allowance,  irrespective  of  the  possibilities  covered
by the lump-sum travel and susbsistence allowances, aims to
refund,  up  to  a  maximum  of  ECU  3 000  per  year,
expenditure incurred by Members when travelling on official
business  outside  the  country  in  which  they  were  selected.
(4)  The  subsistence  allowance  is  paid  for  each  day  on  which
Members  are  engaged  in  activities  in  respect  of  which  the
lump-sum  travel  allowance  is  payable.

(5)  The  secretarial  assistance  allowance  is  intended  to  cover
expenditure associated with recruiting or using the services of
one  or  more  assistants.

(6)  The general expenditure allowance is intended to cover those
costs resulting from Members’ parliamentary activities which
are  not  covered  by  other  allowances.

(7)  The  audit  did  not  give  rise  to  any  significant  observation

concerning  this  type  of  allowance.

(8)  OJ  C  324,  13.12.1991,  Chapter  15  and  OJ  C  330,

15.12.1992,  Chapter  18.

Financial data

to 

the  payments  corresponding 

1.4. The  annexed  tables  (Tables  1,  2  and  3)  chart  the
the
evolution  of 
allowances  under  review  between  1990  and  1997.  The
total  amount  of  this  expenditure  came  to  ECU  142,6
million  in  1997,  representing  16 %  of  Parliament’s  total
administrative  expenditure.  48 %  was  for  the  secretarial
assistance  allowance,  33 %  for  the  various  travel  and
subsistence  allowances  and  16 % 
the  general
expenditure  allowance.  The  average  annual  expenditure
per  Member,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  respect  of
these allowances increased from ECU 138 000 in 1990 to
ECU  227 000  in  1997  —  i. e.  an  average  increase  of
7,4 %  per  year (9).  Upward  adjustments  to  the  payment
scale  for  the  secretarial  assistance  allowance  (+10,6 %  as
an  annual  average)  account  for  most  of  this  increase.
Since  June  1996  this  allowance  has  been  paid  directly  to
the assistants or to third-party paying agencies designated
for  the  purpose  by  the  Members.

for 

FORMAL  COMPLIANCE  WITH  THE  REGULATIONS

1.5. Except  for  the  reimbursement  of  costs  related  to
language and computer courses, the Members’ allowances
service  manages  the  allowances  under  review;  it  is
composed  of  two  separate  sections:

—  the  Members’  imprest  account  is  used  to  pay  travel
and  subsistence  allowances  under  the  supervision  of
an  authorising  department  which  is  responsible  for
checking  payments  made  from  the  imprest  account,
establishing  what  recoveries  or  additional  payments
may be necessary, and entering these operations in the
budget,

—  the  ‘secretarial  assistance  and  general  expenditure
allowances’  section  is  responsible  for  authorising  and
checking  the  related  payments  and  allowances.

internal  management  systems  within 

1.6. The 
the
Members’  allowances  service  ensure,  in  general,  that  the
rules  adopted  by  Parliament  are  correctly  applied.

(9)  82 %  of  the  Members  in  office  at  1.11.1996  had  received  a
sum  of  between  20 %  above  and  20 %  below  the  average
annual  amount.

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/3

1.7. The  procedures,  whether  for  payments  from  the
imprest  account  or  for  the  other  allowances,  all  rely  on
efficient  and  well-designed  computer  systems.  They  are
consistent,  reliable  and  rapid.  Formal  compliance  of  the
expenditure  with  the  rules  adopted  by  the  Parliament’s
Bureau  is  ensured  by  requiring  the  Members  to  submit
the  documents  stipulated  in  the  rules,  which  are  then
systematically checked.

1.12. Whereas  Article  23(3),  of  Parliament’s  rules  of
procedure  authorises  cash  settlement  only  for  subsistence
payments,  a  decision  by  the  Quaestors  suspended  this
provision in 1990 and offered Members the possibility of
receiving  all  the  allowances  paid  from  the  imprest
account  in  cash.  In  1997,  42 %  of  the  total  number  of
transactions  carried  out  through  the  imprest  account
were  settled  in  cash.

MEMBERS’  IMPREST  ACCOUNT  TRANSACTIONS

In  Brussels  and  Strasbourg,  the  Members’  imprest
1.8.
account  is  used  to  pay  the  lump-sum  travel  allowance
and  the  travel  and  subsistence  allowances.  In  1997
payments  made  from  this  imprest  account  totalled  ECU
46,9  million,  which  represents  33 %  of  the  allowances
relating  to  the  Members.  The  upper  ceiling  of  the
renewable  advance  granted  to  this  imprest  account  has
been  set  at  ECU  3,2  million  since  1991.

1.9. The  Court  believes (10)  that  the  use  of  an  imprest
account to pay out such large sums does not comply with
the  principles  set  out  in  the  Financial  Regulation  (Article
54),  or  with  its  implementing  procedures  (Article  82  et
seq.).  The  nature  of  the  expenditure  in  question  cannot
justify  this  disregard  for  the  usual  rules  of  payment  and
control,  nor  are  such  payments  attended  by  any  special
urgency.

of 

the 

1.10. Furthermore,  Members 
European
Parliament  also  have  the  option  of  purchasing  travel
tickets  for  their  private  use  from  the  Parliament’s  travel
office, in application of Article 4(5), of Parliament’s rules,
the  cost  of  which  is  then  deducted  from  the  travel  and
subsistence  allowances  for  which  they  are  eligible.  As  a
result Parliament finds itself making provisional payments
in  respect  of  bills  that  are  unrelated  to  its  activities.  In
addition  it  subsequently  recovers  the  money  in  a  manner
not  consistent  with  the  rules  stipulated  by  the  Financial
Regulation  and  thereby  provides  the  Members  with
advances.

1.13. These  derogations  have  led  to  high  management
costs  and  risks.  The  very  system  of  an  imprest  account,
which  requires  both  a  cash  fund  and  a  control  and
authorisation department, requires considerable resources
in  both  financial  and  personnel  terms.  The  advances
granted  to  Members  for  private  use  also  take  up  staff
time and deplete the imprest’s cash resources. At present,
most  of  the  staff 
in  the  parliamentary  allowances
department  are  employed  to  deal  with  the  payment  and
checking  of  a  small  proportion  by  value  of  the  total
allowances.  Furthermore,  the  practice  of  making  cash
payments,  which  in  this  case  involves  considerable  sums,
entails  a  higher  management  risk  than  other  forms  of
payment.

1.14. Normal  payment  and  control  procedures  would
allow better distribution of the workload and would limit
the  risks  associated  with  handling  cash.  They  could
include  a  permanent  system  for  making  advances  that
was  in  accord  with  the  Financial  Regulation  (Article  46)
and  which  would  avoid  the  need  for  Members  to  pay
sums  out  of  their  own  pockets,  but  in  better  security
conditions  than  those  afforded  by  an  imprest  account.

Lump-sum  travel  and  subsistence  allowances

1.15. According  to  Articles  1  to  7  of  Parliament’s  rules,
the  lump-sum  travel  allowance  is  intended  to  reimburse
all costs associated with travel by Members between their
place  of  residence  and  the  place  of  a  meeting,  in  respect
of  proven  and  authorised  attendance  at  meetings  of  the
official  organs  of  Parliament.  The  subsistence  allowance
is,  according  to  Articles  11  and  12  of  the  rules,  paid  for
each  day  on  which  Members  are  engaged  in  activities  in
respect  of  which  the  lump-sum  travel  allowance  is
payable.

1.11. Contrary  to  the  Financial  Regulation,  this  imprest
account  is  used  to  recover  sums  owed  by  Members  on
various  counts  (notably  for  travel  tickets  for  private  use
and  for  allowances  paid  for  uncorroborated  attendance)
before  payment 
the
authorisation 
intervention  of  the  Financial  Controller.

and  without 

1.16. The  lump-sum  travel  allowance  is  calculated  by
applying  a  kilometric  scale  to  the  distance  between  the
place  of  the  meeting  and  the  Member’s  declared  place  of
residence.  Since  1994,  this  scale  has  been  ‘frozen’.  The
subsistence  allowance  is  calculated  by  applying  a  daily
rate  to  the  number  of  days’  attendance  declared  by  the
Member.

(10) Paragraphs 15.22 to 15.23 of the Annual Report concerning
the  1990  financial  year  and  18.7  to  18.8  of  the  Annual
Report  concerning  the  1991  financial  year.

1.17. The  scale  of  the  lump-sum  travel  allowance  does
not  correspond  to  the  actual  transport  costs  incurred  by

C  243/4

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

Members. The  Court’s  analysis  shows  that  in  1996
travel  between  Members’  places  of  residence  and  the
places  of  Parliamentary  meetings  resulted  in  payments
(ECU  27,6  million)  which  were,  as  a  global  average,
30 %  higher  than  the  cost  of  flying  business  class;  this
represents  an  overall  discrepancy  of  approximately  ECU
6,5  million.  The 
vary
individual 
considerably, depending on the Member’s place of origin,
and  increase  in  line  with  the  distance.  The  actual
discrepancy  is  larger  because,  in  practice,  less  expensive
modes  of  transport  are  often  used  (by  train,  or  by  air  in
economy  class)  and  a  few  national  parliaments  grant
European Parliament Members reduced fares on national
transport  routes.

discrepancies 

of  money  could  be  disbursed  without  the  corresponding
journey  having  occurred.

1.23. Furthermore,  the  Court  observed  that  there  were
no  criteria  defining  the  point  of  departure  (Members
declare  their  place  of  residence  at  their  discretion):  as  a
result,  there  was  no  transparency  and  no  checks  were
carried  out.

1.24. The  Court  notes  the  efforts  of  the  Bureau  of
Parliament, which, in 1997, took certain steps to remedy
these  weaknesses:

1.18. Until  the  end  of  1997,  lump-sum  travel  and
subsistence  allowances  were  paid  out  of  the  imprest
account  on  the  strength  of  Members’  declarations.
Checks  were  not  made  to  establish  whether  the  journeys
and the days spent in the location corresponded to reality
but  rather  to  establish  that  the  Members  had  actually
attended  the  meeting,  which  in  principle  was  proved  by
their  signatures  in  a  register  open  in  the  meeting  room.

rules  also  allow  a  Member’s  actual
1.19. The 
participation  in  Parliament’s  work  to  be  established  by
other  forms  of  supporting  document.  Members  holding
certain  offices (11)  may  be  exempted  from  having  to  sign
a register in the meeting room if they initial a specific list
instead.  All  Members  may  also,  if  they  omit  to  sign  the
register,  produce  alternative  proof,  such  as,  for  example,
travel  tickets  or  hotel  bills.  The  presentation  of  such
proof may, however, be authorised only on five occasions
for  each  period  of  two  and  a  half  years.

1.20. The  degree  of  proof  provided  by  documents  such
as air or train tickets or hotel bills, if they are accepted in
lieu  of  a  signature  in  the  attendance  list  or  register,  is
flimsy.  In  1996,  such  documents  were  provided  in
approximately half the cases where alternative proof was
offered. In all the cases examined in 1996, the hotel bills
submitted  to  the  administration  in  lieu  of  other  proof  of
attendance all referred to dates at the beginning or end of
weekly meetings.

1.21. Nor  does  a  signature  in  an  attendance  register
prove that the Member concerned actually participated in
Parliament’s  work.

1.22.
In  the  absence,  up  to  the  end  of  1997,  of  any
checks  to  verify  that  journeys  declared  to  qualify  for  the
lump-sum  travel  allowance  had  in  fact  been  made,  sums

(11) President,  vice-presidents,  quaestors,  committee  chairmen

and  vice-chairmen,  rapporteurs,  etc.

the 

(a) a  permanent  system  was  set  up  to  check  the
justification  for  the  lump-sum  travel  allowances  by
documentary
submission 
requiring 
proof. Since  1  November  1997,  the  payment  of  the
lump-sum  travel  allowance  has  been  conditional  on
the presentation of the boarding card or train ticket in
the case of air or rail travel, or of a personal, detailed
declaration  in  the  case  of  travel  by  private  car;

of 

(b) from  February  1st  1998,  all  Members  who  are  not
present  for  at  least  half  of  the  roll-call  votes  on  the
days  when  Parliament  deals  with  legislative  issues
(Tuesdays,  Wednesdays  and  Thursdays  during
Strasbourg  part-sessions  and  Thursdays  during
Brussels  part-sessions)  will 
lose  half  their  daily
allowance;

(c) in  Brussels,  Members  have  the  choice  of  either
initialling  the  attendance  register  at  committee  and
political  group  meetings  and  during  other  official
Parliament  meetings,  or  signing  a  central  signing-in
register.

Travel  allowance  limited  to  ECU  3 000

travel  and 

subsistence  allowances, 

1.25. Apart  from  the  possibilities  covered  by  the
lump-sum 
this
allowance  (see  Article  10  of  the  rules)  is  intended  to
refund,  up  to  a  maximum  of  ECU  3 000  a  year,
expenditure  incurred  by  Members  when  travelling  on
official  business  outside  the  country  in  which  they  were
elected.

1.26. Expenditure  by  Members  when  on  official  travel
which  is  covered  by  this  allowance  is  reimbursed  from
the  imprest  accounts  on  the  basis  of  a  declaration
accompanied  by  documentary  proof  of  the  journey,  an
invitation or the programme of the visit. The adoption of
criteria  specifying  when  Members  may  be  considered  to
be  travelling  in  the  performance  of  their  official  duties
would  also 
the  eligibility  of
expenditure.

facilitate  checks  of 

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/5

GENERAL  EXPENDITURE  ALLOWANCE  —
SECRETARIAL  ASSISTANCE  ALLOWANCE

may  be  reimbursed,  for  example,  by  a  few  national
parliaments.

1.27. The ‘secretarial assistance and general expenditure
allowances’ section validates and authorises amounts due
in  respect  of  these  allowances,  which  are  paid  on  a
monthly basis by bank transfer in one of the Community
currencies  designated  by 
the
maximum rate fixed by Parliament’s Bureau. In 1997, the
corresponding  expenditure  totalled  ECU  93,6  million.

the  Member,  up 

to 

1.28. Article  11(4),  of 
the  Financial  Regulation
applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  European  Union
lays down that conversions between the ecu and national
currencies  must,  in  principle,  be  made  at  the  exchange
rate  applicable  on  the  day  in  question  or,  in  exceptional
and  duly  substantiated  cases,  by  applying  the  rate
applicable  on  the  penultimate  day  of  the  month  prior  to
the  month  for  which  the  rates  were  established.

secretarial  assistance  and  general 

1.29. For  the  purpose  of  converting  monthly  payments
expenditure
of 
allowances 
into  national  currencies,  Article  26  of
Parliament’s  rules  selects  the  exchange  rate  applicable  on
the penultimate day of November in the year prior to the
year  in  question  and  guarantees  that  throughout  the  life
of  a  Parliament  —  i. e.  until  the  next  elections  —  the
secretarial  allowance,  as  expressed  in  national  currency,
will  be  kept  at  the  previous  year’s  level.  Moreover,  the
Members  freely  choose  and  change  the  currencies  in
which  they  are  reimbursed.  These  derogations  from  the
normal  conversion  rules  may  entail  considerable  expense
for  the  institution.  Other  mechanisms,  which  conform  to
the terms of the Financial Regulation, should be found so
as  to  satisfy  the  legitimate  requirement  that  the  pay  of
assistants  should  be  shielded  from  exchange  risks.

General  expenditure  allowance

1.30. The general expenditure allowance is, according to
Article 13 of the rules, intended to cover expenses which
result  from  Members’  parliamentary  activities  but  which
are not covered by other allowances. It is paid at the rate
fixed  by  the  Bureau  (ECU  38 304  per  year  in  1997)
following an annual application. This allowance is halved
for  Members  who  attend 
the
part-sessions.

than  half 

fewer 

1.31. The  scale  for  this  flat-rate  allowance  is  not  based
on  any  precise  figures  for  the  various  expenses  covered
that
and 

overheads 

account 

takes 

no 

of 

Secretarial assistance allowance

1.32. The  secretarial  allowance  is,  according  to  Articles
14  to  16  of  the  rules,  intended  to  cover  expenses
resulting from the recruitment, or the use of the services,
of  one  or  more  assistants.  It  is  paid  on  a  monthly  basis
up  to  an  annual  ceiling  set  by  the  Bureau  (ECU  110 460
in  1997).

in  this  respect  appeared 

1.33. The  rules  do  not  specify  the  real  cost  factors
justifying the fixed ceiling. The only instructions provided
by  the  Parliament 
in  the
comments on the 1993 and 1994 budgets, specifying that
each  Member  may  recruit  two  assistants,  one  in  Brussels
and  the  other  in  the  Member  State  of  origin.  This
comment  is  absent  from  subsequent  budgets.  As  a  result,
the  subsequent  appreciable  increase  in  the  rate  of  this
allowance  is  not  justified  by  any  transparent  reference  to
the  expenses  it  is  intended  to  defray.  Furthermore,  the
payment  of  the  secretarial  assistance  allowance  takes  no
account  of  similar  allowances  that  a  few  national
parliaments  pay  to  their  nationals  who  are  Members  of
the  European  Parliament.

1.34. The  payment  of  the  secretarial  allowance  each
month  is  conditional  on  the  submission  of  a  request  for
payment  by  the  Member  for  a  single  payment  or  for
repeated payments to a parliamentary assistant, or on the
production  of  an  invoice  for  research,  documentation  or
secretarial  work.  Since  June  1996,  assistants  have  been
paid  directly  or  by  a  third  party  designated  by  the
Member.  With  the  exception  of  restrictions  on  the
recruitment of staff from the political groups or from the
European  institutions,  the  choice  of  assistants  is  left  to
the  Members’  discretion.

1.35. The  rules  specify  that  Members  are  required  to
sign  a  contract  with  their  assistants  which  is  subject  to
the  applicable  national  legislation,  but  do  not  require
Members  to  file  a  copy  of  this  document.  Parliament
does  not  make  any  check  of  whether  the  contracts  for
which  the  rules  provide  have  actually  been  signed,
whether  the  fiscal  or  social  provisions  of  these  contracts
are  valid  or  whether  the  corresponding  invoices  are
eligible.

In  practice,  no  distinction 

is  made  between
1.36.
payment  based  on  a  contract  and  payment  for  services
based on invoices. In fact, assistants may submit invoices
in  addition  to  their  contract  of  employment  or  be
considered  not  as  permanent  employees  but  as  providers

C  243/6

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

of  individually  invoiced  services.  Similarly,  a  request  for
payment  may  be  submitted  in  respect  of  a  fixed  contract
or  of  a  ‘single  payment’  that  is  indistinguishable  from  a
standard invoice.

the  adopted 

flexibility  of 

is  characterised  by  a 

regulatory
1.37. The 
framework,  which 
lack  of
transparency and of scrutiny of the nature and content of
contracts,  does  not  provide  the  budgetary  authority  with
reasonable insurance against the risk of inappropriate use
of  the  secretarial  allowance.  As  things  stand,  the
regulatory  framework  has  allowed  excessive  diversity  in
terms  of  contractual  legal  arrangements  and  of  the  types
of  expenditure  that  are  reimbursed,  without  sufficiently
ensuring  that  the  services  paid  for  were  genuinely
provided.

the  Communities.  Within 

1.38. The  current  regulatory  framework  is  likely  to
change in the near future. The Commission has prepared
a  draft  proposal  for  a  Regulation  introducing  a  new
Article  concerning  the  status  of  parliamentary  assistants
into the Regulations on the terms of employment of other
servants  of 
this  new
framework,  it  will  be  Parliament’s  responsibility  to
employment  of
determine 
parliamentary  assistants.  According 
latest
the 
information  available,  the  future  status  of  a  ‘European
assistant’  is  expected  to  complement,  but  not  replace,
current 
national
legislation,  with  a  view  to  increasing  transparency  in  the
way  assistants  are  managed  while  maintaining  the
flexibility  of  the  current  system.

employment 

possibilities 

terms  of 

under 

exact 

the 

to 

CONCLUSION

1.39. The  rules  governing  allowances  relating  to  MEPs
must  aim  to  ensure  that  expenses  incurred  by  Members
in  the  context  of  their  duties  are  adequately  reimbursed.
On the whole, the existing administrative and accounting
procedures  ensure  compliance  with  the  rules  adopted  by
Parliament.  During  the  1997  financial  year,  Parliament’s
Bureau adopted various measures which aimed to remedy
some  of  the  weaknesses  in  the  system.  Furthermore,  a
draft of parliamentary assistants’ terms of employment is
being  prepared.

1.40. Nevertheless,  the  Court’s  audit  gave  rise  to  the
following  observations  and  recommendations,  which
should  justify  a  profound  overhaul  of  the  regulatory
framework.

Improving  the  system  of  administrative  management

and  entail  high  management  costs.  This  is  true  of  the
imprest-account  procedure,  as  also  of  the  system  of
advances  to  Members  for  private  travel.  The  exchange
rates  used  should  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  rules
laid down by the Financial Regulation, and the exchange
should be covered, where necessary, by other mechanisms
(see  paragraphs  1.13  and  1.29).

Making  the  allowance  mechanism  more  realistic

1.42. The  procedures  do  not  make  it  possible  to  ensure
that the principle of sound financial management is being
observed.  Most  of  the  allowances  are  of  the  lump-sum
variety or take the form of annual entitlements with fixed
ceilings  that  are  not  linked  closely  enough  to  actual
situations  or  costs.  Costs  that  may  be  reimbursed  under
the general expenditure and secretarial allowances should
be  clearly  defined  and  quantified,  taking  due  account,
should  the  occasion  arise,  of  benefits  and  payments  that
may  be  made  to  Members  from  other  sources.  The
reimbursement  of  travel  expenses  on  the  basis  of  actual
expenditure should be envisaged. Where appropriate, this
reimbursement  could  comprise  a  system  of  regular
advances, thereby ensuring that Members continue not to
be  required  to  make  payments  out  of  their  own  pockets.
Modern  means  of  payment,  such  as  credit  cards,
negotiated  with  carriers,  could  also  make  it  possible  to
settle  travel  invoices  directly  with  the  service  providers
concerned  (see  paragraphs  1.14  to  17,  1.31  and  1.33).

Making  the  system  more  transparent  and  easier  to
check

system  of  declarations  with 

1.43. Payment of these allowances is based for the most
part  on  a 
limited
requirements  in  respect  of  supporting  documents  and
checks. Furthermore, in several areas, the basic rules have
been  amended  by  provisions  which  make  them  less
restrictive. The  system  of  allowances  must  provide  for  a
reasonable  degree  of  scrutiny  and  transparency  so  as  to
ensure  that  the  funds  disbursed  are  used  in  accordance
with  the  rules  (see  paragraphs  1.18  to  1.23,  1.26  and
1.35).

Reducing  the  existing  loopholes

1.41. Some  of  the  provisions  of  Parliament’s  rules
the  Community’s  Financial  Regulation
contravene 

1.44. The  loopholes  in  the  regulatory  framework  may
lead  to  the  inappropriate  use  of  funds.  If  an  allowance
system  based  on  entitlements  to  certain  sums  with  upper

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/7

limits  is  to  be  maintained,  it  should  operate  through
transparent  payment  methods,  conditional  on 
the
submission  of  conclusive  documentary  evidence  (such  as
contracts  and  properly  made  out 
invoices).  The
for
introduction  of 
parliamentary  assistants,  which  could  prove  more  costly

terms  of  employment 

formal 

to  the  budget,  can  only  lead  to  greater  transparency  and
improvements  in  the  management  of  expenses  resulting
from  the  recruitment  of  such  assistants  if  the  new
arrangements  are  compulsory  and  make  it  possible  to
verify  whether  the  services  paid  for  were  actually
provided  (see  paragraphs  1.36  to  1.38).

This  report  was  adopted  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  Luxembourg  at  its  meeting  of  15  July
1998.

For  the  Court  of  Auditors

Bernhard  FRIEDMANN

President

ANNEX

TABLE  1

EVOLUTION  OF  THE  EXPENSES  AND  ALLOWANCES  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  1990  to  1997

1990

out-turn

1991

out-turn

1992

out-turn

91/90

(as  %)

appropr.  1004  —  Travel  and  subs.  allow.

27 922 700

30 887 238

10,6

32 331 931

appropr.  1005  —  Special  travel  expenses

369 103

490 162

32,8

496 792

1993

out-turn

93/92

(as  %)

1994

out-turn

94/93

(as  %)

1995

out-turn

(1)

95/94

(as  %)

1996

(1)

1997

(Payments  in  ecu)

Average
annual
rate

out-turn

96/95

committed

97/96

97/90

(as  %)

(as  %)

(as  %)

35 096 345

8,6

34 173 834

−2,6

45 806 085

34,0

46 999 898

2,6

47 323 473

0,7

7,8 %

621 409

25,1

522 231 −16,0

720 335

37,9

856 053

18,8

1 000 000

16,8

15,3 %

92/91

(as  %)

4,7

1,4

appropr.  1006  —  Gen.  expend.,  telem.
allow.

14 755 036

15 527 609

5,2

16 570 839

6,7

17 343 114

4,7

20 309 700

17,1

22 601 640

11,3

23 241 252

2,8

24 024 304

appropr.  1050  —  Language  courses

463 023

460 766

−0,5

413 949 −10,2

481 659

16,4

532 193

10,5

617 094

16,0

525 077 −14,9

541 703

3,4

3,2

7,2 %

2,3 %

appropr.  1051  —  Data-processing
courses

35 788

58 827

64,4

113 985

93,8

102 758

−9,8

99 386

−3,3

99 150

−0,2

101 141

2,0

111 400

10,1

17,6 %

appropr.  106  —  Members’  sec.  expenses

27 847 411

33 495 866

20,3

38 568 359

15,1

46 206 872

19,8

56 839 962

23,0

60 337 199

6,2

67 232 235

11,4

69 605 045

3,5

14,0 %

TOTAL  Expenses  and  allowances  (in
payments)

71 393 061

80 920 467

13,3

88 495 856

9,4

99 852 158

12,8 112 477 306

12,6 130 181 503

15,7 138 955 656

6,7 142 605 925

2,6

10,4 %

Number  of  Members

518

518

518

518

567

626

626

626

TOTAL  of  Parliament’s  administrative
expenditure  (in  payments)

RATIOS

Exp.  and  allow./Parliament’s  admin.
expend.  (as  %)

421 229 367 481 172 959

14,2 573 272 757

19,1 616 208 926

7,5 644 973 515

4,7 822 715 204

27,6 758 114 685

−7,9 867 715 417

14,5

10,9 %

16,9 %

16,8 %

15,4 %

16,2 %

17,4 %

15,8 %

18,3 %

16,4 %

Expenses  and  allowances  per  Member

137 824

156 217

13,3

170 841

9,4

192 765

12,8

198 373

2,9

207 958

4,8

221 974

6,7

227 805

2,6

7,4 %

(1)  The  overall  increase  in  expenditure  in  1995  and  1996  must  be  relativised  by  taking  into  account  the  election  of  Members  in  the  new  Member  States  (see  the  ratio  ‘expenses  and  allowances  per  Member’).
Source:  General  budget  of  the  European  Communities  —  payments  made  in  respect  of  commitments  of  the  financial  year  n.

C

2
4
3
8

/

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

3
.
8
.
9
8

 
 
 
 
 
 
EVOLUTION  OF  THE  EXPENSES  AND  ALLOWANCES  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT

Average  expenditure  per  Member  1990  to  1997  (not  including  the  allowances  payable  for  the  office  of  the  President) (1)

TABLE  2

1990

out-turn

1991

out-turn

91/90

(as  %)

1992

out-turn

92/91

(as  %)

1993

out-turn

93/92

(as  %)

1994

out-turn

94/93

(as  %)

1995

out-turn

95/94

(as  %)

1996

1997

(Payments  in  ecu)

Average
annual
rate

out-turn

96/95

committed

97/96

97/90

(as  %)

(as  %)

(as  %)

Number  of  Members

518

518

518

518

567

626

626

626

appropr.  1004  —  Travel  and  subs.  allow.

53 905

59 628

10,6

62 417

appropr.  1005  —  Special  travel  expenses

713

946

32,8

959

4,7

1,4

67 754

8,6

60 271 −11,0

73 173

21,4

75 080

2,6

75 597

0,7

4,9 %

1 200

25,1

921 −23,2

1 151

24,9

1 367

18,8

1 597

16,8

12,2 %

28 485

29 976

5,2

31 990

6,7

33 481

4,7

35 820

890

−0,5

799 −10,2

930

16,4

939

7,0

0,9

36 105

986

0,8

5,0

37 127

2,8

38 377

3,4

4,4 %

839 −14,9

865

3,2

−0,5 %

appropr.  1006  —  Gen.  expend.,  telem.
allow.

appropr.  1050  —  Language  courses

appropr.  1051  —  Data-processing
courses

894

69

114

64,4

220

93,8

198

−9,8

175 −11,6

158

−9,6

162

2,0

178

10,1

14,5 %

appropr.  106  —  Members’  sec.  expenses

53 759

64 664

20,3

74 456

15,1

89 202

19,8

100 247

12,4

96 385

−3,9

107 400

11,4

111 190

3,5

10,9 %

TOTAL  Expenses  and
allowances/number  of  Members  (in
payments)

137 824

156 217

13,3

170 841

9,4

192 765

12,8

198 373

2,9

207 958

4,8

221 974

6,7

227 805

2,6

7,4 %

(1)  Total annual expenditure borne by Parliament for the expenses and allowances referred to in paragraph 1.2 of the observations, paid to the MEPs or third parties (assistants, training bodies), divided by the total number

of  Members.

Source:  General  budget  of  the  European  Communities  —  payments  made  in  respect  of  commitments  of  the  financial  year  n.

.

3
8
9
8

.

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

C

2
4
3
/

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
C  243/10

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

TABLE  3

RESPECTIVE  SHARE  OF  EACH  ALLOWANCE

1990

(as  %)

1991

(as  %)

1992

(as  %)

1993

(as  %)

1994

(as  %)

1995

(as  %)

1996

(as  %)

1997

(as  %)

39,1

0,5

20,7

0,6

0,1

39,0

38,2

0,6

19,2

0,6

0,1

41,4

36,5

0,6

18,7

0,5

0,1

43,6

35,1

0,6

17,4

0,5

0,1

46,3

30,4

0,5

18,1

0,5

0,1

50,5

35,2

0,6

17,4

0,5

0,1

46,3

33,8

0,6

16,7

0,4

0,1

48,4

33,2

0,7

16,8

0,4

0,1

48,8

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

appropr.  1004  —  Travel  and  subs.
allow.

appropr.  1005  —  Special  travel  expenses

appropr.  1006  —  Gen.  exp.,  telemat.
allow.

appropr.  1050  —  Language  courses

appropr.  1051  —  Data-processing
courses

appropr.  106  —  Members’  sec.  expenses

TOTAL  Expenses  and
allowances/number  of  Members
(in  payments)

Source:  General  budget  of  the  European  Communities.

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/11

EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  REPLIES

INTRODUCTION

Points  1.1  to  1.4

For  the  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  to  assist  Parliament  in  improving  the  transparency  of
the system of Members’ allowances, Parliament would like to underline the context in which its
system  of  allowances  has  developed,  the  constraints  under  which  it  organises  its  activities,  the
very  nature  of  a  parliamentary  institution,  the  role  of  its  Members  and  the  reforms  already
made  by  the  Bureau  to  the  current  system  —  a  process  initiated  before  the  Court’s  audit.

In this context, it is important to note the absence of a common level of remuneration resulting
from  the  fact  that  Members  of  Parliament  do  not  as  yet  have  a  common  statute,  unlike  the
Members  of  the  Commission,  the  Court  of  Justice,  the  Court  of  First  Instance  or  the  Court  of
Auditors.

There are particular circumstances pertaining to a Parliament operating at a supranational level:
the  numbers  of  citizens  represented  by  each  Member,  the  size  of  constituencies,  the  very  heavy
burden  of  travel  for  each  Member  (from  his  or  her  own  Member  State  to  the  working  places,
between  the  working  places,  and  to  other  Member  States).  These  points  have  not  been
addressed  by  the  Court.

Also  omitted  is  a  recognition  that  Members  in  a  parliamentary  institution,  are  ‘on  duty’  not
only  when  attending  formal  meetings  of  official  bodies  of  the  institution,  but  also  when
attending  a  very  wide  range  of  public  events  in  which  parliamentarians  have  a  role.

The Court recognises the sustained efforts already made by Parliament, on its own initiative, to
provide  a  sounder  basis  for  the  allowances  system:

—  Parliament’s  insistence  that  the  Commission  bring  forward  a  proposal  to  provide  a
Community  legal  framework  for  Members’  assistants;  this  proposal  has  now  been  tabled,

—  the  introduction  of  measures  requiring  documentary  proof  for  travel  undertaken,

—  the  linking  of  payment  of  the  attendance  allowance  to  participation  in  roll-call  votes,

—  the  freezing  of  the  travel  allowance  for  several  years.

The  Court  makes  no  mention  of  any  comparison  with  systems  and  checks  in  place  in  national
parliaments.  For  example,  the  obligation  for  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  to  prove
attendance  by  signing  a  register  is  not  required  in  a  majority  of  national  parliaments.  Nor  is
documentary  proof  for  travel  always  a  requirement  at  national  level.  The  Court  does  not
explain  what  yardstick  it  has  used  to  measure  the  efficiency  of  the  controls  that  have  been  put
in  place,  but  it  is  clear  that  whatever  criteria  it  may  have  in  mind,  they  are  not  based  on
standard  practice  in  parliaments  in  the  Member  States.

C  243/12

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

The  growth  of  expenditure  (point  1.4)  is  due  to  the  budgetary  authority  increasing  the
allowance in order to improve the level of assistance provided to Members, in particular in the
light  of  the  new  powers  conferred  on  the  institution  and  its  Members  following  the  entry  into
force  of  the  Maastricht  Treaty.

It should also be pointed out that the most recent enlargement, with two of the three countries
involved being situated far from the centre of Europe, has been a relevant factor in the increase
in  travel  and  subsistence  expenses.  Taking  these  factors  into  account,  readers  will  be  able  to
gain a clearer picture of trends in the two most important categories of expenditure relating to
Members,  i.e.  expenditure  on  Members’  assistants  and  travel  costs  (82 %  of  the  total).

MEMBERS’  IMPREST  ACCOUNT  TRANSACTIONS

Points  1.8  to  1.14

As  regards  Members’  imprest  account  transactions  (points  1.8  to  1.14),  Parliament  once  again
rejects  the  view  which  the  Court  of  Auditors  has  already  expressed  in  its  previous  reports  on
this  matter,  that  the  use  of  an  imprest  account  to  pay  the  travel  and  subsistence  allowances  is
not  consistent  with  the  principles  set  out  in  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  detailed
implementing rules. Parliament takes the view that the large number and the frequency of such
payments  fully  justify  the  use  of  the  imprest  account  system  provided  for  by  Article  54  of  the
Financial  Regulation  and  Article  82  et  seq.  of  the  detailed  implementing  rules.  Parliament  thus
stands by its replies to the Court’s annual report for the 1990 and 1991 financial years, to the
effect  that  ‘Article  54  of  the  Financial  Regulation  permits  an  imprest  account  to  be  set  up  in
order  to  pay  certain  categories  of  expenditure.  The  Financial  Regulation  lays  down  no
conditions with regard to the level of the amounts to be paid’ (see OJ C 324, 13.12.1991, p. 14,
and  OJ  C  330,  15.12.1992,  p.  453).  Parliament  would  also  like  to  stress,  in  connection  with
these  payments,  that  the  standard  system  involving  the  issue  of  a  payment  order  signed  by  the
authorising  officer  and  approved  by  the  Financial  Controller  before  the  accounting  officer  can
make  the  payments  concerned  would,  in  this  particular  case,  give  rise  to  substantial  delays
without  reducing  to  any  significant  degree  the  workload  of  the  departments  concerned  or  the
related  management  costs.

As  regards  the  observation  that  advances  on  the  said  allowances  may  be  paid  ‘for
uncorroborated attendance’ (point 1.11), it should be emphasised that in these infrequent cases
systematic steps are taken to make the requisite recoveries once the signatures on the attendance
lists  which  entitle  Members  to  the  payments  in  question  have  been  checked.  Payments  from
imprest  accounts  become  final  and  are  charged  to  the  budget  only  after  they  have  been
regularised  —  the  authorising  officer  who  signs  the  regularisation  order  and  then  submits  it  to
the Financial Controller for approval must first have carried out all the checks laid down in the
Financial Regulation.

The  observation  that  payments  are  made  from  the  imprest  account  to  cover  non-official  travel
by  Members  (point  1.10),  payments  which  are  then  regularised  and  recovered,  is  accurate.
However,  the  number  of  tickets  concerned  is  relatively  small  and  Parliament  is  prepared  to
review  this  issue.

The  same  applies  to  the  payment  procedures  with  a  view  to  reducing  or  even  eliminating  the
risks  involved  in  the  handling  of  cash.

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/13

The Court of Auditors acknowledges that the improved system it suggests could usefully include
‘a  permanent  system  for  making  advances,  which  would  avoid  the  need  for  Members  to  pay
sums out  of  their own  pockets’. This would in practice, result in 626 individual MEP accounts
and be extremely cumbersome to manage. Parliament will carefully consider the suggestions for
the  modernisation  of  its  current  system  with  a  view  to  revising  it  accordingly.

Lump-sum  travel  and  subsistence  allowances

Points  1.15  to  1.26

It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  a  lump-sum  reimbursement  that  it  should  not  tally  exactly  with  the
costs  actually  incurred.

In  this  connection,  since  1997  Parliament’s  Bureau  has,  as  the  Court  itself  acknowledges,
strengthened  the  system  of  checks  in  connection  with  the  condition  governing  payment  of  the
lump-sum  travel  allowance  (payment  on  submission  of  proof  that  the  journey  concerned  has
been  undertaken).

The Court describes as flimsy the nature of the ‘degree of proof provided by documents such as
air or train tickets or hotel bills, if they are accepted in lieu of a signature in the attendance list
or  register’  (point  1.20)  and  the  fact  that  a  signature  in  an  attendance  register  does  not  prove
that  the  Member  concerned  actually  participated  in  Parliament’s  work  (point  1.21).The  nature
of parliamentary work, which may often involve, for example, talks and meetings held off and
indeed,  inside,  Parliament’s  premises  has  not  been  taken  into  account.

As regards the eligibility of expenditure in connection with journeys undertaken by Members ‘in
the  performance  of  their  official  duties’, which is charged to the special ECU 3 000 allowance,
in  the  absence  of  criteria  by  which  the  nature  of  such  journeys  can  be  established  (point  1.26)
the  Court’s  judgments  should  also  be  placed  in  context,  since,  as  politicians,  Members  are
required  to  take  part  in  a  wide  range  of  public  events.  In  practice,  every  claim  is  examined  to
see  whether  there  is  an  official  programme  involved.  In  case  of  doubt  the  matter  is  referred  to
the  responsible  Quaestor.  Finally,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  this  type  of  expenditure  makes
up  only  a  very  small  proportion  of  total  spending  on  Members’  allowances,  that  payments  are
made solely on the basis of supporting documents (costs actually incurred) and that one third of
Members  makes  no  call  on  this  allowance.

GENERAL  EXPENDITURE  ALLOWANCE  —  SECRETARIAL  ASSISTANCE  ALLOWANCE

Points  1.27  to  1.38

Although accurate, the Court’s observation concerning the exchange rate laid down by the rules
for conversions between the ecu and national currencies when these allowances are paid (points
1.27  to  1.29)  is  essentially  of  historical  interest,  since,  with  the  introduction  of  the  euro,
exchange differences will no longer exist for the currencies of the Member States eligible to take
part in EMU. As the Court acknowledges, the use of a fixed annual exchange rate was dictated
by the ‘legitimate requirement that the pay of assistants should be shielded from exchange risks’.
Appropriate  transitional  solutions  could  be  found  for  the  currencies  of  the  other  Member
States.

The  lump-sum  general  expenditure  allowance  is  intended  to  cover  a  whole  range  of  expenses
which  Members  have  to  bear,  chiefly  in  their  country  of  origin,  such  as  office  management

C  243/14

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

3.8.98

costs,  telecommunications  and  postal  charges,  the  cost  of  data-processing  equipment,  etc.  Its
lump-sum  nature  is  justified  by  the  wide  range  of  expenditure  it  covers  and  as  a  means  of
avoiding  the  substantial  management  costs  and  delays  inevitable  in  a  system  based  on  the
submission  of  supporting  documents  by  626  Members  from  15  Member  States  and  combined
with  non-cumulation  rules  which  differ  from  country  to  country.

The Court of Auditors’ observations concerning the secretarial assistance allowance relate to the
rules  themselves,  rather  than  their  implementation.Parliament  would  stress  the  following
points:

—  whereas  Parliament  has  the  responsibility  to  ensure  that  expenditure  for  assistants  is
properly  executed,  the  recruitment  of  assistants  creates  a  private  law  relationship  between
the Member and his assistant or assistants which in no way renders Parliament liable as an
institution. It follows that Parliament’s administration, if it wishes to avoid the risk of being
deemed  by  a  national  judge  to  be  the  assistants’  direct  employer,  cannot  intervene  to  check
that  these  private  law  contracts  are  consistent  with  the  applicable  national  laws  (civil,
commercial,  fiscal  and  social),

—  the  flexible  nature  of  the  regulatory  framework  (employment  contracts,  service  contracts,
single  payments  on  the  basis  of  invoices,  etc.)  is  designed  to  offer  Members  the  scope  to
bring  the  arrangements  for  meeting  their  assistance  requirements  into  line  with  the
constantly  changing  nature  of  their  duties  and  the  specific  tasks  allotted  to  them.

As  the  Court  points  out,  this  regulatory  framework  is  being  revised,  in  cooperation  with  the
Commission  and  Council,  with  a  view  to  incorporating  into  the  Conditions  of  employment  of
other  servants  a  new  category  of  staff,  i. e.  Members’  assistants.  That  reform  should  make  the
arrangements  for  managing  assistants  more  transparent  and  more  efficient,  as  the  Court
concedes  (point  1.38).

The  Court  indicates  the  possibility  of  Members  receiving  certain  travel  allowances  from  the
Member  States  in  addition  to  allowances  from  Parliament  for  the  same  purpose.  This  is  not  a
widespread  practice.  Nevertheless,  Parliament  is  ready  to  introduce  into  its  rules  a  provision
prohibiting  such  duplicate  payments  and  to  ensure  that  the  appropriate  checks  are  carried
out.

Parliament  is  aware  of  no  cases  where  national  parliaments  are  paying  or  have  paid  additional
secretarial  assistance  allowance  to  Members  of  the  European  Parliament,  except  where  a
Member  has  a  dual  mandate.

CONCLUSIONS

Points  1.39  to  1.44

Parliament notes the Court’s overall conclusions that the existing administrative and accounting
procedures  ensure  compliance  with  the  rules  adopted  by  Parliament.

The Court’s observations should be read in the context in which the current allowance systems
operate:  namely,  the  absence  of  a  common  statute  for  Members  and  of  a  common  level  of
remuneration,  and  the  particular  working  conditions  of  Members  of  a  supranational
parliamentary  institution.

3.8.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

C  243/15

Parliament  believes  that  the  measures  taken  during  the  1997  financial  year  have  improved  the
current  system  as  will  the  proposal  from  the  Commission  for  a  new  legal  framework  for
Members’  assistants.

Parliament  is  continuing  its  review  of  the  current  allowances  system,  which  it  began  in  1995,
with  a  view  to  increasing  transparency  and  improving  the  checks  and  the  coherence  of  the
system.  It  will  consider  the  recommendations  from  the  Court  where  they  are  practicable.

Notwithstanding  its  continued  commitment  to  improve  the  present  rules,  Parliament  will
continue  its  work  on  the  draft  common  statute  for  Members,  in  order  to  provide  a  sound  and
fair  basis  for  the  remuneration  of  its  Members  in  the  future.