MEPs defend relatives on the payroll

Date: 22/01/04

WITH the European Parliament elections less than five months away, MEPs will be keen to present themselves in the best possible light to the electorate and dispel their "gravy train" image. It may be a struggle for some.

They have already suffered one setback. Their bid to set a common €8,500-per-month salary, to put an end to the massive differentials resulting from members being paid at the same rate as their national counterparts, has run into trouble. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is said to believe the figure is too high.

To make matters worse, MEPs are facing probing questions from within their own ranks about those members employing relatives as paid assistants.

While many such staff are well qualified for the job, the issue does raise eyebrows. One Spanish MEP, who asked not to be named, told European Voice: "The practice of deputies employing wives to be their secretaries is dubious at best. Some MEPs use this as a way to top up their salaries."

It is unclear exactly how many deputies use part of their €142,000-per-year office allowance to pay a husband, wife or other relative.

One reason it is difficult to assess the numbers accurately is that MEPs are obliged only to declare the names of staff working for them in Brussels on the Register of Accredited Assistants; they do not have to provide details of staff employed in their home states. Moreover, some ties are obscured because of the use of maiden names.

Eleven MEPs, whose nationalities are not known, have sought to conceal the identities of their assistants on the grounds of privacy.

Following reforms aimed at stopping potential abuse of the allowances system, members must now produce contracts of employment for their assistants and tax certificates to prove they are paying them the agreed salary. But the standard contract provided by the Parliament does not stipulate how many hours per week staff are supposed to work or detail what jobs they are supposed to do.

Only one country, Germany, prohibits politicians from employing relatives. Some MEPs believe this should be the rule right across the assembly, but previous attempts to do this have been thrown out.

Dutch Socialist Michiel van Hulten, of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform group, said: "The secretarial allowance rules still contain loopholes which mean that not all the money is being spent on staff as it should be.

"I am not against members employing their relatives, provided it is done in an honest and transparent manner, but I don't think it is wise." He regrets that some MEPs give the impression that the "only purpose of their membership of the European Parliament is self-enrichment".

Van Hulten, rapporteur for the 2002 discharge of the Parliament's budget, added that a "substantial" part of his report would deal with MEPs' allowances.

Guillaume McLaughlin, of the Parliamentary Assistants Association, said: "It is unfortunate that MEPs employ relatives at all, it raises questions over whether it is being done above board."

This newspaper contacted 15 MEPs known to have relatives on their payroll.

These are their comments:

Nuala Ahern, Ireland, Greens/European Free Alliance (pictured 1).

Relation employed: Niece Róisín in Brussels.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What she said: Did not respond.

Robert Atkins, UK, Conservative (pictured 2).

Relation employed: Wife Mary in home constituency.

Salary: Paid the "going rate".

What he said: "I have nothing to hide. My wife has worked for me for 23 years, including my time as a government minister. She is employed as a secretary in my constituency office and works seven days per week. She is paid through an independent account. It is all done properly and transparently."

Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Greek United Left group (pictured 3).

Relation employed: Son Vasileios in constituency office.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: Did not respond.

Antonio Campos, Portugal, Socialist (pictured 4).

Relation employed: Daughter Isabel as an assistant in Brussels for four years.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: Did not respond.

Gérard Deprez, Belgium, European People's Party (pictured 5).

Relation employed: Daughter Anne-Michele in Brussels for ten years.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "She is very efficient and well qualified. That's why I employ her."

Malcolm Harbour, UK, Conservative (pictured 6).

Relation employed: Wife has been his assistant in constituency since 1999.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "The situation is ridiculous: it is somehow felt that we are behaving improperly and abusing our secretarial allowance when we are, in fact, doing the job properly. Some people have an idea that we get paid a lump sum and run off and do what we like with it, but that certainly is not the case.

"It is difficult to say if there is abuse [in other cases] but, yes, there needs to be more transparency. One solution would be for all MEPs to provide a statement of account detailing how the allowance is spent."

Neil MacCormick, Scottish Nationalist (pictured 7).

Relation employed: Wife Flora as one of five assistants.

Salary: "A private matter".

What he said: "Subject to data protection law, and to professional confidentiality between myself and my staff, I would welcome and actively support a serious and objective study of rates of pay for MEPs' assistants, whether employed in Brussels or elsewhere - family members or not. Such an inquiry would help in establishing a much-needed range of recommended salary levels according to experience, responsibility, qualifications and other relevant criteria.

"All my staff, including my wife, have contracts of employment with appropriate job descriptions. Each of these has been lodged with the European Parliament in accordance with its rules."

Bill Miller, Scottish Socialist (pictured 8).

Relation employed: Wife Elizabeth in Glasgow constituency office.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "I don't have a problem with people employing members of their family as long as they are doing their work. I register all my staff on the Brussels register so couldn't be more open and transparent."

Ian Paisley, Northern Ireland, non-aligned (pictured 9).

Relation employed: Son Ian Paisley Jnr in constituency.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What they said: Did not respond.

Roy Perry, UK, Conservative (pictured 10).

Relation employed: Daughters Caroline and Elizabeth as assistants in constituency office.

Salary: "None of your business!"

What he said: "Each works an average 42-hour week, and often much longer. They are both qualified and experienced at their jobs and their contracts are deposited with Parliament.

"I act with absolute propriety and make no secret of the fact that I employ family members. Parliament has rules on how this particular allowance is spent, but that isn't to say there isn't room for improvement to the system."

Dana Scallon, Ireland, Independent

(pictured 11).

Relation employed: Brother John in Brussels and Ireland.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What she said: "He's part of my inner circle and if he couldn't do his job I wouldn't employ him. I don't know how many MEPs abuse the system, but if people are being paid out of the public purse for doing nothing then that is unacceptable."

John Bowis, UK, Conservative (pictured 12).

Relation employed: Wife has been his secretary in London since 1999.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "She is employed in a genuine job, dealing with all my constituency casework, my diary, and she liaises with the 74 constituencies in London. She also worked for me during my ten years as a Westminster MP and, before that, she'd worked for another MP. She is, therefore, highly qualified in this work and it would have been perverse had I not used this experience once elected myself."

Diana Wallis, UK, Liberal Democrat

(pictured 13).

Relation employed: Husband Stewart Arnold.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What she said: Her husband has specialist knowledge of northern European affairs.

Ian Hudghton, Scottish Nationalist (pictured 14).

Relation employed: His wife.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "It is no secret that I employ my wife as one of two full-time assistants as an office manager/secretary. She previously ran the constituency office of a Westminster MP and, therefore, had all the necessary qualifications and experience for her current role.

"My wife receives no preferential treatment in terms of working conditions or salary and regularly works longer than the 35 hours stated in her contract."

Gary Titley, UK, Socialist (pictured 15).

Relation employed: Wife Charo, as secretary in his constituency office.

Salary: Not disclosed.

What he said: "My wife is a highly qualified, trilingual secretary who took a drop in salary when she started working for me in 1989. She is paid according to Labour Party pay scales and has got a proper contract of employment.

"There are, however, widely-held suspicions that some members may be abusing the system by paying a relative a salary for which they do little or no work. [This] is clearly an outrageous misuse of public funds and should be stopped.

"The question is, what can you do to stop it? One possible, albeit imperfect, solution would be for all staff employed by MEPs to be paid by Parliament.

"The simple truth is that, because of the unsocial hours, employing a spouse keeps many relationships together."

Feature investigates the question of MEPs employing relatives as assistants and secretaries at taxpayers' expense.

• Primary Source