|
Parliamentary absentees
At the latest since the blunder, when during a vote on the childcare allowance the Left conjured up a
division in the Bundestag,
in order to prevent the
“stay-at-home” bonus,
and the boycott succeeded, because too few members returned to the chamber, it has been clear: For votes on
whatever subject, there should be enough members present in the Bundestag in order to form a quorum. This faux
pas meant that the CDU/CSU and FDP, who were all greatly in favour of the “stay-at-home” bonus, had to vote a
second time (9.11.12), and this time there were obviously enough members present and ready to raise their fingers,
cards or hands. Now one might be forgiven for thinking that MP’s would have become a little more disciplined after
this with regard to their presence, but that would be far from the mark.
“Focus”
reported that the Bundestag remained empty even when crucial legislation was being debated, and this already when a
vote had been announced. Focus lists the most zealous absentees; the Alliance for Democracy asks the question: How
can it be that neglect of responsibility to this level still goes unpunished? These MP’s are supposed to be
representatives of the people. They are paid out of tax funds and enjoy many other benefits. Instead of doing their
work and being concerned for the good of the people, MP’s sit in talk-shows, make
speeches
and are often very well paid for these activities.
Nor was it only
Peer Steinbrück
who prompted discussions about the disclosure of the additional earnings of politicians (for Peer however, the
debate meant that it was impossible fir him to become a candidate for Chancellor for the SPD because of the level
of his additional earnings); there were also cases before his time which begged the question of what interests
these politicians and MP’s really represent.
We should at this point remember Friedrich Merz, who went too far with these secondary activities. In addition to
his seat in the Bundestag (2005), he was also on the boards of the AXA group (where he was also a member of the
Supervisory Board), the Commerzbank AG, the Deutsche Börse AG and the auditors Ernest & Young. He was also a member
of the Supervisory Board of Interseroh AG and the Administrative Board of BASF AG (Antwerp) – these were just the
positions which became known. There were other members who were general representatives of insurance companies or
worked for large clinics, or were associated with their corporations.
The rules on the work regime of MP’s are laid down in Art. 38 and 48 of the
Constitution,
and also in the
Members of Parliament Act,
which describes the exercise of the
mandate
and the
rules of conduct
applicable to members. The
rights and obligations of parliamentarians
are founded in the
orders of business of the Bundestag,
together with the framework for the formation of parliamentary groups or the work on various committees.
No matter which of these legal bases can be referred to, all require the presence of the member, and Paragraph 44
of the Members of Parliament Act requires in particular:
“(1) The exercise of the mandate of a member of the Bundestag shall be central to his or her activity. Without
prejudice to this obligation, activities of a professional or other nature alongside the exercise of the mandate
are permissible in principle.
(2) For the exercise of his or her mandate, a Member of the Bundestag may not accept any allowances or other
pecuniary benefits besides those for which the law provides. In particular, it is inadmissible to accept money
or allowances with monetary value which are only granted in the expectation that the interests of the payer will
be represented and asserted in the Bundestag. It is also admissible for a Member of the Bundestag to accept money
or allowances with monetary value if he or she does not render an appropriate service in return. The foregoing
provisions shall be without prejudice to the receipt of donations.
(3) Allowances or pecuniary benefits which are inadmissible under Paragraph 2 above or their monetary equivalent
shall be payable to the federal budget. The President shall assert this entitlement by means of an administrative
act, provided that a period of three years has not elapsed since the receipt of the allowance or pecuniary benefit.
Loss of membership of the Bundestag shall not affect this entitlement. Details shall be regulated in the Code of
Conduct pursuant to section 44b of this Act.
(4) Activities predating the acceptance of the mandate and activities and activities concurrent with the exercise
of the mandate which may indicate combinations of interests with implications for the exercise of the said mandate
shall be disclosed and published in accordance with the Code of Conduct (section 44b). If disclosable activities or
income are not reported, the Presidium may impose an administrative penalty of up to half of the annual Member’s
remuneration. The President shall affirm the penalty by means of an administrative act. The foregoing provisions
shall be without prejudice to section 31 of the present Act. Details shall be regulated in the Code of Conduct
pursuant to section 44b of this Act.
(5) In the case of a non-minor breach of order or failure to respect the dignity of the Bundestag during its
sittings, the President may impose a fine of € 1,000 on a Member of the Bundestag. Any repetition shall result
in an increase in the fine to € 2,000. In the case of a serious breach of order or failure to respect the dignity
of the Bundestag, a Member may be ordered to leave the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting and suspended from
taking part in sittings of the Bundestag and meetings of its bodies for up to 30 sitting days. Details shall be
regulated in the Rules of Procedure of the Bundestag.”
To this extent it is surprising that many Members still take their seats and accept money for an activity which
they obviously do not practice enough, as found recently by Focus, or that no regulation has yet been passed on
the disclosure of secondary earnings. Instead Friedrich Merz lodged an objection against this regulation before
the Federal Constitutional Court, although this was rejected. Since then, regulations are supposed to have been
made which regulates secondary earnings and the obligations of disclosure. That anyone should stick to these
regulations can hardly be expected, and perhaps this will only be shown by a report of the Alliance for Democracy.
For the time being, our proposal should be followed, as described in the article in relation to
Steinbrück’s earnings.
|