There seem to be as many opinions on what the European parliament should do about the fuss over abuse of the expenses regime as there are MEPs. That is part of the charm of the place. But if there is one thing all 785 should be able to agree on it is that the scandal is not going to die down. And with elections next year, that should give them an incentive to do something about it.

It began, you may recall, with Liberal MEP Chris Davies publicising some of the contents of an internal audit into the arrangements for paying staff. Members get around 16,000 euros a month for employing staff and there are only as many checks as they themselves institute.

The debate then moved on to whether the report should now be published.

The big centre-right and centre-left groups, the European People’s party and the Socialists, put paid to that.

There have been scandals like this before. But one reason this won’t go away is that the  European ombudsman, the administrative watchdog of the union, is also on the case. He has yet to find a convincing argument why the parliament should not force members to account for their allowances and expenses and how much they pay their staff.

Parliament sees it differently and has said it would merely collate for the first time and make available on the internet all the various stipends to which members are entitled. Diana Wallis, the British Liberal Democrat who drafted the reply, said this was a “step change” because many MEPs had once opposed even that. She also has the parliament’s legal team onside.

She commissioned research into how many national assemblies published expenditure and found there were few more transparent than Strasbourg.

“It would not be proper for this parliament to to do something that is out of step with [members] cultural and legal traditions at home,” she told me. “There should be nothing to stop individual members or national delegations from going further.”

She also added that it would be unfair to change the rules halfway through a mandate. Hence new procedures for employing staff will not come into effect before 2009.

Publishing assistants’ salaries, even without names, could give enough clues for them to be identified, breaching their privacy, she said. We shall see if this is enough for the ombudsman and the Maltese journalist who first filed a complaint. 

Some British members already give greater detail. Members of the Labour and Conservative parties must get their accounts audited, though they do not publish the results. They have recently pledged to reveal who employs their spouse, after the Derek Conway affair at Westminster.

The Liberals, the third biggest force, have so far been most vocal in pressing for reform. They voted for publication of the internal report. It was a Liberal president, Pat Cox, who forced debate on the issue during his time in office in 2004.

Group leader Graham Watson has been thinking radically about the issue. He believes that the comparatively low salaries []  means many see their allowances as an extra top-up - and they are allowed to get away with it. Members earn between 800 and 12,000 euros a month depending on where they are from though that will be replace  by a flat rate 7,412 euros in 2009, pegged at 38.5 per cent of the earnings of a European Court of Justice judge.

“We all know MEP’s salaries are low compared with what we could earn outside. Society has chosen to put a cap on salaries and given generous allowances.” That should be reversed, he said. Pay should be increased but all allowances paid out only on the basis of receipts. ”The public wants to know what MEPs are paid and they have a right to know.” 

“There are a number of people in this house who think they have very comfortable terms and conditions and do not wish to have them changed.”

Watson himself took a 50 per cent pay cut when he left HSBC bank to become an MEP though he says he did it for love, not money. As an underpaid hack, I can only agree with him but doubt there will be much sympathy for the likes of us as the chill wind of a US recession hits Europe’s voters.

March 4th, 2008 in MEPs, Transparency | Permalink