Wednesday

8th Apr 2020

Exclusive

Ombudsman backs EUobserver on MEP expenses

  • 'The Bureau' consists of 14 parliament vice-presidents and president Antonio Tajani (centre). Rainer Wieland (right) wrote a document relating to how the MEP office expenses system should be reformed. (Photo: European Parliament)

The European Parliament should have granted access to documents on a decision about how transparent MEPs should be in future with their office expenses.

Its failure to do so last year, when EUobserver asked for the papers to be published, constituted "maladministration", the European Ombudsman said in a statement on Thursday (2 May).

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Emma O'Reilly: 'Given this situation, in which MEPs act as decision-makers whilst also being the receivers of the expenses, the ombudsman finds that there is an overriding public interest in scrutiny of the Bureau's decision-making process.' (Photo: European Parliament)

The case was about the controversial "general expenditure allowance" (GEA), a €4,513 lump sum which all MEPs receive every month - officially, to cover costs of running their office, like rent and supplies.

The lump sum system, which totals some €40m in taxpayer money annually, is highly-contentious, because - unlike most office expense systems - there is no requirement to keep receipts for items purchased, or to return unspent funds at the end of an MEP's term of office.

In an attempt to take some of the controversy out of the GEA ahead of this month's European Parliament elections, a working group consisting of MEPs set out options to reform the system.

That working group was set up in June 2017. Its options for reform were presented to the parliament's internal decision-making body, the Bureau, on 2 July 2018.

According to multiple sources, an 8-6 majority in the Bureau decided to go for only a minimal reform of the system, ignoring two key demands from a majority of MEPs, including a requirement for MEPs to keep receipts.

Two days later, EUobserver filed an access to documents request to the European Parliament - asking for the papers that were tabled for the 2 July 2018 meeting.

These included a letter from the working group chair Rainer Wieland, a German MEP from the European People's Party (EPP) who is also a Bureau member.

The parliament twice denied EUobserver access.

In first instance the case was handled by secretary-general Klaus Welle, who rejected publication.

This website then appealed, which was also rejected - this time by Hungarian MEP Livia Jaroka (also EPP).

Jaroka, one of the EU parliament's vice-presidents, is in charge of dealing with appeals - despite a clear conflict of interest, given that she, with Wieland, was among the Bureau MEPs that reportedly voted to reject any more far-reaching reform.

Both Welle and Jaroka had argued that the papers should be kept confidential, because if they would be released it would endanger the ability of future working groups to discuss sensitive issue freely.

"Working group members and the services involved in the drafting of the decision proposal would practise self-censorship in the future. They would be pressured into avoiding to express some contrasted views or novel proposals for fear that those views or proposals could become publicly available," Welle wrote.

Following this second rejection, EUobserver filed a complaint to the European Ombudsman, an independent watchdog.

Take but not give

On Thursday, EU ombudsman Emily O'Reilly dismissed the parliament's reasons for keeping the documents secret.

"The ombudsman underlines the importance of the context of this case: this is a situation in which MEPs, as members of the Bureau, decide on the coverage of expenses from the GEA," the ombudsman's formal recommendation said.

"At the same time, those MEPs receive repayment of those expenses under the GEA," she added.

"Given this situation, in which MEPs act as decision-makers whilst also being the receivers of the expenses, the ombudsman finds that there is an overriding public interest in scrutiny of the Bureau's decision-making process."

"Such a public interest also exists in ensuring that the rules governing the use of the GEA are assessed objectively and set sensibly," she added.

The ombudsman said "the public should have an insight into how the administrative decision was made in this case and which options were proposed and discussed".

Public scrutiny of how the EU parliament reached its decision "is of importance for public trust in the responsible use of public funds by their elected representatives".

In a final rebuttal, she also said that it was "unlikely" that releasing these papers would discourage future working groups from discussing the issue freely and openly.

While the ombudsman accepted the issue was sensitive, she stressed that there was "an overriding public interest in disclosure of those documents".

However, her recommendation is not legally binding.

Silence until after elections?

A spokeswoman for the EU parliament told EUobserver it had "taken note of the recommendation by the European Ombudsman".

"It now has three months to give a reasoned reply to the ombudsman," she added.

This suggests that the parliament make no decision until after the 23-26 May European parliament elections.

The spokeswoman also repeated the reasons for refusing public access to the preparatory papers, mainly that "disclosure of reflections on possible options would seriously undermine the willingness and possibility to have such frank and open exchanges in future".

She also noted that the actual new rules are "of course" public. (See page 60-63 of the minutes of the Bureau meeting of 2 July 2018.)

Magazine

The murky perks of an MEP

Accountability and transparency are in short supply when it comes to how MEPs spend €40m every year on "office supplies". Efforts to pry open this secrecy have been met with strong resistance from many of the parliament's most powerful MEPs.

Leading MEP defends expenses secrecy

The man tasked with making the EP more transparent has said there are more important issues than making MEP monthly expenses public.

EU parliament will not budge on office expenses

Hungarian centre-right MEP Livia Jaroka sticks to earlier decision: documents related to the minor reform of the expenses system, requested by EUobserver, should remain secret.

Opinion

The non-accountable MEPs

We did not ask what tax the parliamentarians pay or how they use their salary, or for information about their private lives. Rather we asked for documents to verify that this public money is spent in accordance with the rules.

Exclusive

Parliament mulls allowances for home-working MEPs

The European Parliament's internal decision making-body, the Bureau, is set to decide on whether MEPs should continue to receive a daily €323 lump sum despite working from home.

This is the (finally) approved European Commission

MEPs gave the green light to the entire new European Commission during the plenary session in Strasbourg - but with the abstention of the Greens and a rejection by the leftist group GUE/NGL.

Magazine

Welcome to the EU engine room

Welcome to the EU engine room: the European Parliament (EP's) 22 committees, which churn out hundreds of new laws and non-binding reports each year and which keep an eye on other European institutions.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. UNESDAMaking Europe’s Economy Circular – the time is now
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersScottish parliament seeks closer collaboration with the Nordic Council
  3. UNESDAFrom Linear to Circular – check out UNESDA's new blog
  4. Nordic Council of Ministers40 years of experience have proven its point: Sustainable financing actually works
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ministers paving the way for 5G in the region
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersEarmarked paternity leave – an effective way to change norms

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us