Viewpoint: Trim Euro MP expenses

Euro MPs' expenses have long been under scrutiny, amid allegations that it is too easy to bend the rules. European elections in June will put the parliament in the spotlight.

Chris Davies is Liberal Democrat MEP for the North-West of England

In the first of a series of viewpoints on EU issues, Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies explains why he is pressing for more transparency.

Preparations for the next European elections coincide with another row about MEPs' expenses. It was ever thus, not that repetition makes it any better.

Bankers may currently occupy the prime slot as the public's hate figures, but revelations that MEPs could add £1m to their family income over a five-year term suggest that we are strong challengers for the role.

It doesn't have to be like this. An MEP's salaries budget (£145,000 annually) can be used entirely to pay the salaries of staff.

The office budget (£36,000) can be used entirely to pay the expenses of running an office.

Even the ludicrously large sums handed over automatically for travel expenses that bear no relation to the actual cost of tickets can be handed back, although I have never done so myself. (Handing back money goes against the grain, so my own invented code of conscience has been to use it for charitable and political donations, rather than stuffing it into my back pocket.)

Birthday present

But the European Parliament's rules aren't designed to encourage an approach to the use of taxpayers' money that MEPs would themselves expect of any other public body.

If you really don't give a damn the system is open to abuse. There is nothing to say that a member can't pay his spouse a salary equivalent to the entire budget.

Such curbs on perks as are being introduced will apply only to new members rather than existing ones - turkeys don't vote for Christmas! MEP expenses 'can reach £1m'

There is no requirement to produce any receipts to justify use of the office budget. A signature to support a claim for the daily Brussels subsistence allowance (£266) doesn't guarantee that any work is done. And the travel allowance? Well, it can be like a birthday present that arrives every week.

Maybe I am too cynical. The other week I asked a Romanian MEP what he did with his salaries budget. "I only have two employees so I hand the rest back," he said. "YOU HAND IT BACK?" I questioned incredulously, not being sure whether I was more astonished by his honesty or by the fact that a politician couldn't put to use all the money available to help promote his political agenda. The trouble is, you just don't know who is cheating and who is not.

Secret

My reforming colleagues tell me that improvements are on the way. After the elections in June, travel expenses will be paid at actual cost, although with some extra allowances added. Assistants employed in Brussels will be paid directly by the parliament, although not those working elsewhere.

Each month MEPs and their staff move to Strasbourg for full sessions

There will still be no requirement to produce receipts for office expenditure, and such curbs on perks as are being introduced will apply only to new members rather than existing ones - turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

Critics will still have plenty of scope for complaint, and with good reason; that a majority of MEPs have voted to keep secret the results of future auditors' investigations does not bode well.

There is another aspect of European Parliament procedures that should also arouse concern, one relevant to the abuse of power rather than the abuse of expenses.

The Parliament is far from toothless. It may revise proposals for EU legislation rather than initiate them, but it has co-decision powers equal to the Council of Ministers.

With no executive body to insist upon a line to be followed, and with the freedom to forge cross-party alliances, individual MEPs can have a great deal more legislative influence than their counterparts at Westminster. Their actions can change the law of the land in 27 countries, not just one, and the lobbyists know this very well indeed.

Could do better

First point of call for anyone seeking to know whether a parliamentarian has a financial interest that may sway a vote will be the Register of Interests.

Procedures in Brussels trail a long way behind those now established at Westminster. Yes, a register is maintained, is available for public inspection in the parliament, and has to be updated annually.

Entries are also published online, subject to the MEPs concerned having given their permission. But this weakness is hardly relevant, for the gaping flaw in the European Parliament rules is that no requirements whatsoever are imposed as to the content of the declarations to be made. The information provided is left entirely to the discretion of each member, and there are no penalties for omission.

Successive scandals have promoted reform in House of Commons procedures. They will have less influence over the European Parliament unless the flames of public outrage are fanned simultaneously in a significant number of member states. Even then, national practices vary so greatly that what may be regarded as unacceptable in one may be greeted with stoic indifference in another. By comparison with the Italian parliament the European body is perhaps not doing too badly.

It would be nice to hope that we could do better, and that the European Parliament could set standards of best practice by which others legislatures would be judged. On current performance I am not sure that such hopes will ever be realised.