International

This week, in an interview on a Dutch website, I proposed that the salaries of EU officials be halved. I received a large response from people who said that they were relieved that at last someone wanted to do something about these ridiculously high wages, but I also got hate-mail….from EU officials. Despite this hate-mail (or perhaps in part because of it, indeed) I am going to make a real attempt to press this issue - in the negotiations over the EU multi-annual budget, and in the framework of the revision of the conditions of service which is on the agenda for 2012-2013.

The SP is in favour of fair and decent conditions of service for everyone. It may therefore seem odd that a Euro-MP from the SP is arguing in favour of halving the salaries of officials. In Brussels, however, the situation is completely out of hand. Each and every Dutch civil servant who takes up a comparable position at the European Commission earns from that moment on around double what he or she was paid in the Netherlands. The Commission itself understands that something must change, but is only tackling supporting and administrative positions, and not the salaries of those who make policy. For these less well-paid positions the Commission in the future intends to work with contractors, which is much cheaper. The proposals for policy-making officials are, however, marginal. Their pension regulation will be adjusted and they will be asked to work a few extra hours per week for the same salary, hardly a drastic reform.

In my view it would be good all round if the salaries paid to newcomers were substantially reduced, so that people no longer found themselves in a goldmine, but would be able, to a far greater extent than is now the case, to work for a relatively short period in Brussels before returning to their national civil service. This would prevent European officials from having too little affinity with the views of the citizens in the member states. And people would come to Brussels to work in the public interest, instead of for the money.

The response to these ideas was clear. I gained an impression of how many people had been for years annoyed by this and, moreover, had a good idea of the salaries and – let’s not forget – the bonuses which pass for normal in Brussels. For that reason alone it would also be good for the European Union if this source of irritation was removed. This would have more effect than all the billions which the EU currently spends on ‘information campaigns’.

The hate-mail was also revealing. The EU officials who reacted felt themselves in general to be pitiable. Far from their homeland, they were obliged to be able to express themselves in five languages or more, and this demanded greater rewards. Of course, additional expenses should be reimbursed. Actual removal costs and even perhaps a settling in bonus for the first term of office, fine, but to give a permanent bonus of 18%, as is now done, is out of all proportion. The fact that the officials don’t appreciate this demonstrates how great is the chasm between them and ordinary people. The reactions of officials who compared themselves with Euro-MPs were amusing, as naturally the salaries paid to MEPs are also much too high, but as a member of the SP I stick to the standard sum for elected representatives approved by the party and give the rest to causes of which the SP and I approve. Reactions of this kind were thus sent to the wrong address.

The SP European Parliament team will in the coming months be putting substantial efforts into this. I intend to ask the Commission for further data, for example regarding the turnover of EU officials, and then I will be bringing more developed proposals forward. Given some of the comments, it promises to be a lively parliamentary year.