By Kyriacos Iacovides
One issue that has come back into focus following the parliamentary elections, the departure of 17 MPs, and the failure of others to win re-election is the generous pension package, lump-sum payments, and salaries enjoyed by members of the House of Representatives. I have written about this before, calling these benefits scandalous. Unsurprisingly, no MP has ever stepped forward to defend them.
According to published figures, the gross annual compensation of MPs, including allowances, comes close to €100,000 (€99,612).
The base gross annual salary is €56,310. On top of that, MPs receive a "representation allowance" worth €20,503, plus another €5,804 as a cost-of-living adjustment tied to that allowance. First of all, what exactly is a representation allowance? What are MPs spending it on? And another €5,804 because of inflation? Really?
Will even one MP come out and justify this? I doubt it. Nobody has the courage.
MPs are assigned parliamentary assistants whose salaries are paid by the state, yet they also receive an allowance for secretarial services. Do all of them actually employ secretaries, or what exactly is going on here?
With these additional benefits, an MP's net annual income reaches €68,684, despite the base salary being €56,310 before deductions.
Another benefit that is difficult to justify is the travel allowance, which amounts to €7,791 per year. How many workers are paid simply to get to and from work? And how many continue receiving that allowance even when Parliament is not in session?
Most MPs also continue practicing their professions while carrying out their parliamentary duties, whether as lawyers, accountants, doctors, or other professionals.
Now let's look at what awaits those leaving Parliament.
An MP who serves a single five-year term and contributes just 3 percent to the pension fund is entitled to a monthly pension of €1,600. Anyone who serves two or more terms receives a monthly pension of €4,500.
How many private-sector employees receive a pension after working only five years? None. How many collect a €4,500 monthly pension after ten years of work? None. So why should MPs qualify for such treatment?
Then there is the lump-sum payment.
To begin with, why should MPs receive one at all? They earn substantial salaries. They collect representation allowances. They receive travel allowances. Is it not excessive for them to also walk away with what is called a gratuity?
After a single term, an MP receives a lump-sum payment of €90,000. After two or more terms, that gratuity jumps to €250,000.
There is another detail worth mentioning. Under AKEL's internal rules, any party MP leaving Parliament must transfer the lump-sum payment received from the state to the party's coffers. In effect, taxpayers end up contributing money to AKEL whenever one of its MPs leaves office.
People can do whatever they want with their own money. Voluntarily donating it to a political party is one thing. Being required to do so under party rules is something entirely different. Otherwise, the party machine leaves little room for alternatives.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect is that MPs approve these salaries and benefits themselves. Has nobody considered that this is a clear conflict of interest?
But who pays attention to details like that?
Will any MP have the courage to publicly defend these benefits? I doubt it. As the saying goes, nobody has the guts when it comes time to back up their words.
Kyriacos Iacovides is a journalist and political scientist.
