Maltese MEPs fare poorly in study by Open Europe

Maltese MEPs did not score so well on their record to promote transparency and reform in the EU, ranking 15th among the 27 countries represented at the European Parliament.

With EP elections just a day away, Open Europe, a British Eurosceptic think tank, published a ranking of all 785 MEPs, listing their record over the last five-year term.

The ranking, which seeks to answer some of the questions for voters, is based on different categories, from voting records to written declarations, accountability and whether MEPs took part in wasteful activities, such as the controversial second pension fund reserved for MEPs.

The European deputies were classified according to how they voted on certain important proposals, how they used their office allowance and other perks and on whether pension funds currently provided by the EP for MEPs should stop.

Although the issues surveyed by Open Europe do not have a direct impact on Malta and the five Maltese MEPs generally followed their political group's position, the ranking still distinguishes between their records.

Labour's Louis Grech tops the Maltese MEPs ranking on transparency and reform proposals, receiving 27 of the 58 points available, placing 237 out of 785 MEPs. He is followed by former Labour MEP John Attard Montalto, Nationalist MEPs David Casa and Simon Busuttil and Labour's newcomer Glenn Bedingfield.

One of the criteria given some weight in the study dealt with whether MEPs were members of the EP's controversial pension scheme.

Mr Casa and Mr Bedingfield are the only two MEPs of the Maltese contingent who chose not to subscribe to this fund. The other three started to contribute towards their EP pension when they became MEPs in 2004. Former MEP Joseph Muscat was also a member of this scheme until he resigned to become Labour leader last year.

On this thorny issue, the study showed that 395 MEPs either took part or had taken part in the EP's second pension scheme, which the think tank dubbed as "controversial for various reasons".

Open Europe said the European Court of Auditors consistently questioned the legality of the scheme: for every €1 MEPs contribute to the fund, the taxpayer contributes €2; the MEPs' own contributions do not come from their salary but are taken automatically from their generous office expenses; and, under current rules, the scheme's €120 million deficit is guaranteed by European taxpayers, via the EU budget, meaning taxpayers could be required to make up the shortfall caused by the recession.

According to Open Europe, just nine per cent of all MEPs responded to a survey by the think-tank asking them to answer six simple questions about whether their expenses were handled in an honest and reputable way.

Open Europe's research director Mats Persson said: "No matter where their political sympathies may lie, MEPs should all be working for a more open, democratic EU while trying to reduce the waste of taxpayers' money".

These issues should be at the top of their agenda, especially now when the public's trust in politicians was at an all-time low in many countries, he added.

"MEPs might talk a good game at home but too many of them have voted against transparency and EU reform on a number of occasions in the past five years. What we need now is a new generation of MEPs, committed to acting in the public interest and pushing for a much better deal for taxpayers," Mr Persson said.

According to the study, Swedish MEPs top the transparency and reform agenda while Cypriot, Italian and Spanish MEPs ranked at the bottom of the table.