By Lee Rotherham
Now that MEPs are starting to settle into the routines of Brussels and Strasbourg, no doubt their attention will presently be drifting to the issue of expenses.
In some cases the rules have recently changed. One example is the new set relating to language and computer courses for Members (2009/C 204/03).
One need not necessarily be a complete clog-wielding luddite about such matters (if one is permitted to mangle the wrecker metaphor). There is obvious merit in an MEP being more proficient in foreign languages, particularly core languages, not least in order to reduce the need for the prop of expensive interpretation – a subject explored with some horror by the European Court of Auditors in the past, and indeed recently referenced in the TaxPayers' Alliance comedy A-Z of Brussels.
Whether the taxpayer should pay for it, on the other hand, is open to question. You might have hoped that one of the credentials for which an MEP was selected in the first place was that he displayed some propensity for linguistical gymnastics. In that regard, the mellifluous tones of a Dan Hannan or a Charles Tannock already carried their erudition across to multiple audiences through a choir of tongues. The Lib Dems obviously have a good rep on this score thanks to their ex-Brussels Westminster frontbenchers.
Of concern, however, are the terms. Does an MEP need to be quite so computer literate at public expense, given his other generous office allowances in staff and gadgetry, or is this just an exercise in expanding a cv? Should the taxpayer be paying for an MEP to learn one of the more esoteric (no offence!) languages for reasons of simple intellectual curiosity? How will the system work authorising MEPs payment to learn non-EU languages, for instance where an MEP has known Russian oil links and an interest in that field after leaving Brussels? Why on earth is any MEP reasonably expected to be able spend up to €500 annually on teach-yourself books and tapes?
My main concern, though, is over the amount on offer. Each year, an MEP can spend €5,000 on language courses and another €1,500 on computer courses.
The going teaching rate, to judge by assistants provided by the Parliament itself, appears to be €40 per hour. By my fag-packet calculations, that works out at MEPs taking about half a day off every working week in Brussels or Strasbourg for self-improvement purposes.
An hour here or there you might agree with, but I would have thought constituents would have taken priority over a weekly half day of bookwormery and self-actualisation.
At least the Eurocrats got one thing right: the teacher or trainer has to have a professional qualification recognised by a member state. But, sadly, the loopholes expand elsewhere: if the courses take place abroad, the MEP is allowed to go on a week’s language blitz made up of half-day courses, and get both them and his air fare paid for, plus taxis from the airport for up to 40km distance. On top of all that, he gets half of his usual subsistence pay.
Far better to have just scrapped the allowance and required MEPs to take the in-house courses. I wonder why they didn’t.
Perhaps because someone clocked that it has the potential of a great new wheeze in the making for the less scrupulous set. But now that it’s been flagged up, will any of Britain’s MEPs now be found windsurfing away the winter afternoons of a language blitz in the Canaries?
