Statement from Sir Robert Atkins MEP

Yesterday we featured a News of the World story about Tory MEPs and their allegedly "greedy" use of expenses and allowances.  Sir Robert Atkins MEP was featured prominently in the NotW and we invited him to respond.  This is his reply, just emailed to us:

"My wife Dulcie was a qualified secretary when I met her in 1968.   For 30 years, during my time as an MP, Minister and MEP, she has been my full-time secretary, paid the market rate.   This has always been openly declared and well-known.

She has also been active in the community for many years, as is the case with many thousands of local councillors who give of their time, over and above their normal working environment.   Dulcie is no different, except perhaps that she works during too much of her “leisure” time!

My son worked full-time in Brussels for a period after leaving University and was paid at the same – if not slightly lower rate – as other Parliamentary assistants of his age and experience.   He was head-hunted away on a much higher salary and ceased working for me in 2004.

These employments were legally contracted and registered with the Parliamentary authorities, who have approved and audited them each year."

Comments

[woodentop]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

[Alan S]

Sir Robert may be squeaky clean but I'd prefer it if the European Parliament had the same standards and privileges cttee as the Commons. Can we believe that his employment of his family is really above board when we know that MEPs recently voted to stop publication of a report into MEPs' abuse of expenses?

This remember is the same EU that has accounts that keep failing to be audited.

[Neil Wilson]

I really don't see the problem with employing relatives when they are professionally qualified for the job they will be doing.

This statement wasn't at all as confusing as Sir Robert is alleged to have told the NOTW it would be.

[Brussels_Sprouts]

Yes - that sounds fair enough to me too Robert. It's just that it isn't true.

If it "has always been openly declared and well-known" that you employ her then why did you change quietly edit your declaration of interests last month after the orginal story ran in Stern?

Here is the old version, saying you have "nothing to declare".

http://tinyurl.com/3spw5b

Here is the new version dated 14 April, in which your wife appears.

http://tinyurl.com/4e4du7

Also you say that she is paid "at a normal market rate". There is no truth then, in the rumour that she has been paid up to £5,629 pounds a month? (67,500 a year is a fair bit for secretarial help)

[ilikebrussels-sprouts_butipreferbroccoli]

Brussels_Sprouts - if you were the Brussels "insider" that you are obviously pretending to be, then you'd know that they have had to change the form of their Financial Declarations recently to accommodate the new rules passed at the last Plenary!

[woodentop]

Agree with you, Neil Wilson! Family businesses have operated for hundreds of years - and not just in politics.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

" Family businesses have operated for hundreds of years - and not just in politics. "

What? ..with public money.. Surely these jobs should be advertyised and candidates independently selected based on their ability

This is public money for heavens sake.

Does noone have any scruples out their.

Why can't call me Dave get a grip on this?

Nothing like keeping it in the family.

[Norm Brainer]

"What? ..with public money.. Surely these jobs should be advertyised and candidates independently selected based on their ability"

What?.. With public money?
Surely advertising and interviewing for a job where you know your wife is going to be the best candidate sounds like a very new labour style waste of money... unless you expect other candidates to lay next to you in bed and tell you your appointments for the next day etc!