This Europe: Come in, Poland. Take a £10m seat
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Only three years after opening with so many design flaws it was called "Faulty Towers", the European Parliament in Strasbourg is to summon the builders once again – this time to construct an extension.
The £10m projectis designed to ensure every MEP has a designated seat in meeting rooms when the EU takes in up to 10 more countries in 2004.
But the alterations to the £250m building – which has twice suffered legionnaires' disease scares – have provoked anger from some MEPs, who resent meeting in Strasbourg. Two weeks ago, Simon Murphy became the second leader of Labour's 28 MEPs to quit within three years, blaming the pressures of travel.
The site lies unused for three weeks out of every four while MEPs meet in Brussels. The monthly journey between the Belgian capital and Strasbourg costs at least €100m (£62m) a year.
Moreover, critics argue that the extension is only needed because each MEP is used to having a seat reserved at group meetings whether or not they turn up. Instead, they argue, MEPs should be willing to take their places on a first-come, first-served basis. Michiel van Hulten, a Dutch MEP, said the plans wereexcessive. "It seems to be more about the prestige of the meetings than the practicalities. There is no need for new meeting rooms," he said.
The plans need approval from the parliament's budget control committee, some of whose members are threatening a veto. Neena Gill, a Labour MEP and member of the committee, said: "We moved into the new buildings in Strasbourg in 1999. Now, three years on, we are talking about spending more money. Everyone knew enlargement would happen, yet no one seems to have thought this would have an impact on buildings."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments