Diana Wallis MEP - Statement on Expenses

Much attention is now being focused on the issue of MPs expenses and MEPs have inevitably been drawn into this. I want to make some brief comments about my own position. Firstly, you can read a breakdown of my expenses for the last years by following this link: www.dianawallismep.org.uk/pages/transparency.html . I believe you will find it more complete than that offered by any other MEP in the region. Even so, if re-elected, I have no doubt that in future I should do even more.

In terms of my activities as a Parliamentarian, you may wish to follow the link to Vote Watch (www.votewatch.eu) which gives an assessment of all MEPs activities. Further, according to an article in the Brussels-based English language newspaper European Voice (see here: http://tinyurl.com/pdm75w), I have been recognised as the region's best performing MEP. In fact, I was placed 10th out of the entire complement of 784 MEPs across 27 EU states. The independent think tank Open Europe also rated me as the region's best performing MEP, and the 4th best in the UK, when it comes to promoting transparency and reform in the European Union (see here: http://tinyurl.com/rb6ul5). I leave it to you to judge for yourself.

However, on the specific expense issue, I want to share two things: firstly about the attempts that we have made over the last years to reform the expenses system for MEPs, and in particular our successes and failures. Secondly, to say something about the anger that we all feel about some of the disclosures from Westminster, which show just how out of touch some elected representatives have become. In this respect I welcome Nick Clegg's initiative to remove the Speaker who appears to be such a block on reform.

In my time in the European Parliament, I have been a member of the Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee which has had to deal with important legislation on Members' pay and expenses and also that of their assistants. In addition, over the last two and a half years as a Vice-President of Parliament (a role similar to that of Deputy Speaker at Westminster), I have had responsibility for transparency issues. In terms of progress, when the new parliament returns in July, we will - at last - have a system of travel expenses based solely on actual cost. Brussels based staff will be employed by the Parliament and the opaque method of employing staff through so called 'service providers', used by some, will be more or less excluded. This will end the worst abuses criticised by our own Internal Auditor. There is also a general tightening up on auditing and checking provisions. Could we still do better? Yes, of course, but let me share with you the reality of the opposition we have faced (especially myself when trying to deal with transparency issues.)

The European Parliament is subject to legislation like Westminster on Access to Documents (the so-called Regulation 1049). This is currently up for revision. During the amendment process, German colleagues of the British Tories put forward amendments to totally exempt certain MEP documents from the Regulation (it was clear what was intended - anything to do with expenses). All Tories and Labour MEPs voted in favour of this amendment (Am 114 to the Cashman report). Likewise UKIP, (with one exception who abstained). All Lib Dem MEPs standing for re-election voted against. The same pattern was repeated by the two main parties for another amendment (Am115) which again gave a special transparency exemption for MEPs' personal files and accounts. A Daily Telegraph posting on this vote confirming the Lib Dem position can be found here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_waterfield/blog/2009/03/11/euromps_keep_their_expenses_secret

I have persistently argued within Parliament's Bureau for greater disclosure, for instance for the disclosure of the Internal Auditors report and for greater disclosure relating to our own General Expense. Equally, most of the time I have found myself entirely on my own. I believe the Parliament has come a long way on transparency issues and is certainly better than many national governments, but the whole expenses issue has the potential, as we have seen at Westminster, to completely undermine any other positive progress.

The whole Westminster saga shows the danger of politicians somehow living in a different world to those that elect them. I still cannot take in some of the activities. Last year my husband and I came near to paying off the mortgage on our one home and property in East Yorkshire by virtue of a small inheritance following my father's death. This was a big event for us, a chance to consider other options. I cannot conceive ever not being aware that I was about to, or indeed had, paid off a mortgage. Likewise, I try to treat my MEP general expense money like I treated 'client' money when I was a solicitor; it has to be accounted for - it is not mine to spend.

So I am angry, but also sad. When I was first elected I was proud of those letters MEP, so proud that when my bank-manager suggested I have them after my name on my cheque book I agreed. Now I want them away - I don't want to face what people will be thinking when they see them. It's a great pity but sadly it will take a long time before people can respect elected politicians again.