EU Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros decided on 14 July that Parliament's continued failure to disclose details of MEPs' allowances constitutes "maladministration".
But British ALDE MEP Diana Wallis, who is responsible for transparency, yesterday stressed that recently adopted "major reforms" to its allowances system "amount to a substantial increase in transparency and will largely address the spirit of the Ombudsman's remarks".
Transparency issues rose to prominence recently following last month's resignations by UK Conservative MEPs Giles Chichester and Den Dover following allegations that they broke the European Parliament's rules by making payments to companies linked to family members from their expenses.
In response, UK Conservative leader David Cameron announced a "deep clean" of "unacceptable" European expenses, launching a new code of conduct for his party's MEPs which requires more detailed disclosure of how they spend their allowances. The new measures, which will only affect Tory members, come into force on September 1 2008.
Meanwhile, the changes being introduced by Parliament include:
- The entry into force of a new MEPs' statute after the 2009 elections with a common salary, coupled with a new system for travel expenses based directly on reimbursement of ticket prices.
- MEPs' assistants employed in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg must be employed within the EU staffing system from after the 2009 elections.
- No close family members will be given new contracts as assistants with immediate effect, but existing contracts can be extended if this is noted in the member’s declaration of interests.
- The publication of information on the expenses and allowances of MEPs on the Parliament's website.
Accordingly, Diamandouros welcomed the Parliament's announcement that it "plans to re-assess its position after the entry into force of the new statute for MEPs in 2009". "But that cannot excuse its failure to comply […] now," he stressed.
The Ombudsman stressed that his role in the Maltese affair "concerned the principle of transparency and not the principle of financial accountability, which is the responsibility of the budget control authorities". "I maintain my finding of maladministration, but unlike the Court [of First Instance], I have no power to annul Parliament's decision," he added, closing the case.
