Digging into the financial statements of our MEPs is pleasant sport, as Guido is demonstrating. Ban a people from hunting foxes, and they will find alternative targets.

The trouble is that many MEPs choose to keep their details sketchy at best. We can only guess what some of the declared items referred to, and in many cases we’re left with questions rather than answers.

For example, why has Graham Booth not updated his declaration since 11 October 2006 even though the rules say it must be updated once a year? And what is the name of the company of which he’s a director?

UPDATE:  A concerned Mr Booth calls to tell me it’s a mystery why his declaration hasn’t been updated. He’s signed it but it hasn’t been uploaded. Incidentally his company was a Torbay hotel which he sold last year, not a service provider.

UPDATE: I’ve removed a question about Nirj Deva’s assistants as he’s been in touch and named them all. I can’t see any reason to post their names here, however, since there’s nothing in the rules that says he has to make their names public.

Why is Peter Skinner’s declaration of interests dated 3 July 2008 when we’re still in June?

What’s the name of the service company providing secretarial assistance to David Sumberg?

Why has John Whittaker not updated his declaration for almost two years? The last is one is dated 7 September 2006, even though the rules say the declaration must be updated every year.

Questions, questions.

The EU Ombudsman has published his annual report for 2007. Clearly there’s a growing feeling that the institutions of the EU are not sufficiently transparent. People are beginning to understand that they have a right to know what public servants are doing in their name. Taxpayers are making the connection between the money they pay, and the jobs officials are supposed to be doing.

However, like the oil tankers that take seven miles to stop, the EU institutions are only responding in a dilatory way, reports the Ombudsman.

A record number of inquiries (28%) carried out by the European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, in 2007 concerned lack of transparency in the EU institutions, including the refusal of information or documents. “Complaints concerning lack of transparency are an opportunity for EU institutions and bodies to demonstrate their willingness to be as open and accountable as possible. I hope that the Commission’s proposals for reform of the legislation on public access to documents will contribute to realising this important goal”, said the Ombudsman.

I wouldn’t bet on it, Mr Diamandouros. You are mincing your words to describe the sheer arrogance of some EU organisations when it comes to releasing information. They fight tooth and nail to obstruct access to anything significant, such as the notorious report on Parliamentary allowances.

This situation will continue until the law is changed, and eurocrats are forced to improve their attitude.

UPDATE: We now have the text of the resolution, which - as Bruno Waterfield suggested - boils down to a demand that MEPs pay contractors via accountants. This means that because some MEPs simply can’t be trusted to play the game, they need to be overseen by somebody else who can be. I imagine the theory is that accountants are closer within reach of the law and professional transparency standards and can be collared more easily if things look wrong.

The other thing is that MEPs would no longer be allowed to employ people in their families, something which will piss off the Brits.

These demands simply highlight the extraordinary situation MEPs enjoy. Those in the private sector would be amazed if they knew what goes on.

=== Original post:

I’m playing catch-up here, as I missed Bruno Waterfield’s Telegraph report of an oral resolution Parliament’s budgetary control committee passed on Wednesday night. 

In essence:

“Euro-MPS are to be banned from employing their relatives or paying family-owned companies staff allowances in a reform of their £125 million annual expenses.”

The comments to Bruno’s piece evidence a certain scepticism.

I’m trying to get hold of a copy of the resolution.

Daniel Hannan says MEPs can no longer milk the EU dry.

“I’ve watched it happen: someone is elected on a more-or-less Eurosceptic platform but, as his lips clamp around the allowances teat, he finds all sorts of arguments for closer integration. Aware that his own house is made of flimsy crystal, the last thing he’ll do is lob stones at the fraud-ridden EU budget. Clever, no?”

Indeed. I would only point out that MEPs weren’t actually millking the EU dry, since there’s always plenty of money to go round as long as you’re creative enough.

And whether the practices will stop or simply evolve is another question. I don’t see the proposed changes to accounting requirements necessarily cleaning up Parliament.

Parliament is reacting to criticism of its gilded life.  It plans to make changes, but transparency and open government doesn’t seem to be a priority. It will make the minimum reforms it feels it can get away with, and no more.

On Monday, the Bureau of the European Parliament unanimously agreed to a recommendation from the Conference of Presidents of the political groups, based on a proposal by Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering, regarding the system for Members’ assistants.

The Bureau decided to:

charge the Secretary General to ensure the consistent application and implementation of the European Parliament’s internal rules on the reimbursement of Parliamentary assistance expenses;

entrust the Secretary General with a mandate to make contact with the Commission and Council, with the aim of securing the possibility of a new set of rules for Members’ assistants, through an amended Contract Staff regime, whilst preserving the freedom of Members to recruit their assistants and independently determine their salary levels;

charge its working party on the Member’s Statute, Assistants and Pension Fund, chaired by Martine Roure, Vice President, to assess as a matter of urgency the operation of the existing rules in detail, and given the importance of the matter, to come forward with proposals for changes to the rules which it considers necessary.

In fact, the simplest and most effective thing they could do is publish details of expenses in a consistent and transparent way.