Transparency standards

In 2005 a Maltese journalist, Matthew Vella, asked the European Parliament to hand him detailed information on payments made by the European Parliament to the five Maltese MEPs.

The European Parliament refused stating that MEPs were already subject to the scrutiny of internal and external audits with respect to the funds paid to them in the course of their parliamentary duties and that the supply of this information would breach the right to privacy.

The journalist challenged this refusal and filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman who, last month, issued his decision.

The Ombudsman found that the European Parliament's refusal constituted a case of maladministration, that is, bad administrative practice.

However, it welcomed Parliament's readiness to provide information on certain aspects and its intention to overhaul the entire system of payments to MEPs with effect from next July after the EP elections.

The full decision of the Ombudsman may be accessed from: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/053643.htm.

Here is a brief account of the funds paid to MEPs and the issues involved.

Firstly, MEPs are paid a monthly "office expenditure allowance" amounting to €4,052. This is used to cover costs relating to running their office, such as rent, stationery, office equipment, communications and ancillary expenses. There was no issue on this allowance since the monthly sum is already publicly known.

Secondly, MEPs get a monthly office budget, known as "secretarial allowance", amounting to €16,954. This is used by MEPs to recruit members of staff in their office. For example, I employ six full-time parliamentary assistants (four based in Malta, two in Brussels) and engage the part-time services of three external advisers and a financial controller. The identity of these people has long been available on my website.

The issue here was not so much the amount of the allowance - this is publicly known - but how this is used and whether the identity and salaries of the staff engaged by an MEP should be revealed.

Thirdly, MEPs get a daily allowance of €287 for every working day in Brussels or in Strasbourg, to cover expenses related to accommodation and living when they travel. The issue here was not the amount of the daily allowance - again this is publicly available - but the total amount of daily allowance received by each individual MEP based on how many working days they spent in the European Parliament.

Fourthly, MEPs get a travelling allowance to cover their travelling expenses to and from Brussels and Strasbourg or other working places, calculated on the basis of their travelling methods (e.g. plane, car etc...) and distance covered. Here, the outstanding issue was the total amount received by each MEP.

This case was given huge publicity in Brussels and in many European capitals. As one of the Maltese MEPs, I initially felt that this complaint unfairly cast a shadow on the integrity of all Maltese MEPs indiscriminately, regardless of whether they comply with the rules or not.

On the one hand, I have absolutely no issue with transparency and I have always followed all established parliamentary rules on public funds entrusted to me.

But, on the other, I appreciate that the complaint was groundbreaking because it challenged obscure parliamentary rules, even if these existed and applied long before any Maltese member ever set foot in the European Parliament.

Indeed, the Ombudsman's decision found that the current rules on public funds entrusted to MEPs in the course of their parliamentary duties are not sufficiently transparent and it criticised the European Parliament in this respect. Although the decision of the Ombudsman is not legally binding, I feel that everyone should take stock of the ruling and be guided accordingly.

On my part, I have informed the Maltese journalist concerned that, as head of the Maltese EPP delegation, I shall be drawing up a proposal on the transparency standards that PN MEPs should be required to follow in dealing with public funds placed at their disposal by the European Parliament.

This proposal shall take into account the outstanding issues raised in the decision of the Ombudsman and shall seek a level of transparency for PN MEPs that goes beyond current requirements under the established rules of the European Parliament. It will also go beyond the annual declaration of financial interests that MEPs are already required to make.

I will submit my proposal to my political party for its consideration and, I hope that it can be approved as soon as possible and included in the PN electoral platform for the upcoming European Parliament elections next June.

I also hope that other political parties fielding candidates for the upcoming European Parliament elections will likewise commit themselves to high standards of transparency.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an email, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist, member of the European, Parliament.