Tory MEPs, protected from members and voters, refuse to answer questions on expenses

If greater transparency is being forced upon our MPs, our MEPs remain far from accountable.  Over the last two months the Open Europe campaigning group has been asking questions of MEPs from all parties.  Such outside efforts at accountability are necessary because the European Parliament as a whole requires very little transparency from its members.  Three of Open Europe's six questions were:

• Have you ever claimed less than the full entitlement, or repaid any excess?
• Do you employ any family members?
• Are you prepared to list the people currently in your employment (not their salary levels.)

They seem perfectly reasonable questions to us but only 19 of Britain's 79 MEPs were willing to provide full answers.  Another 14 gave partial answers.  Click here for a full breakdown.

Some Conservative MEPs answered in full: Richard Ashworth, Nirj Deva, Jonathan Evans, Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris, Syed Kamall, Sajjad Karim, Neil Parish, Charles Tannock, and Geoffrey van Orden.

The following thirteen have not answered:

1. Sir Robert Atkins
2. Christopher Beazely
3. John Bowis
4. Philip Bushill-Matthews
5. Martin Callanan
6. Den Dover
7. James Elles
8. Malcolm Harbour
9. Caroline Jackson
10. Timothy Kirkhope
11. John Purvis
12. Struan Stevenson
13. Robert Sturdy

Most disappointing of all, one MEP appeared to threaten Open Europe.  Malcolm Harbour, recently criticised in the Independent on Sunday for his acceptance of gifts, said:

"If you value your relationship with the Conservative Party I would recommend that you think very carefully about continuing with this... I regard the whole exercise as completely unnecessary."

Such arrogance stems, in part, from MEPs' almost untouchable status.  The opaque selection process used by the Conservative Party meant that all incumbent MEPs were put straight back at the top of regional lists.  The combination of a gerrymandered selection process and proportional representation means that it's almost impossible for ordinary voters to hold MEPs to account.

Now that the recent run of elections is over ConservativeHome is resuming our campaign on the MEP selection process.  We hope to have something to say in the next few days.

Comments

[Don Hoyle]

I dread to think what will happen to us if Brussels finally takes over as the Government, killing off Westminster.

[Jennifer Wells]

I am ashamed to be in the same party as Malcolm Harbour.

[Victor, NW Kent]

They are ashamed of their greedy feeding at the trough.

Is there a method of getting rid of the worst offenders? What is the process of selection? Are sitting MEPs automatically reselected?

My own preference would be to abolish this absurd and virtually powerless forum altogether. The EU is governed by tiers of non-elected officials. We should also take a look at them as well as the accounts which have not passed audit for many, many years.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Full transparency on expenses and benefits, as well as how MEPs actually spend their time is a prerequisite to ensuring that this motley contingent does not become the Achilles heal in Conservative success.

Full disclosure should be made a condition of reselection/ selection.

If the MEPs can't be straight with the Party and the people on this matter, they are incapable of being straight on the "Treaty" and eternally compromised when it comes to pursuing the right policy in Europe.

Written from my flat, 400 yards away from the European Parliament. Full credit to Open Europe for their courage in taking up this issue.

[David Parker]

We all know that transparency is anathema to the EU and its institutions, who do not consider themselves to be bound by the laws which they make for others. However, quite apart from regulations and statutory requirements, it is, quite simply a matter of personal integrity that our MEPs should be prepared to answer these very reasonable questions. If they are not, then they are not fit to represent the party, or us.
If the EU will not hold them to account then Cameron should. This swould be a popular move with Tory voters (and others) and would show positive leadership.

[Vince]

As the party nears government again we must not appear as though we are in it for ourselves.David Cameron needs to be 'zero tolerant' of snouts in the trough.

[mike clarke]

Better Off Out!

[Alan S]

I second what Vince says. It's not just our MEPS. Peter Oborne in Daily Mail targets Boris Johnson:

"Boris Johnson has got off to a more confident and powerful start as the new mayor of London than any of his critics predicted.

He has already assembled a strong team and I believe that he has the potential to be a fine leader of our great capital city.

But there has been one mistake - his decision to resume his former career as a columnist with the Daily Telegraph in return for a reported fee of £5,000 a week.

Boris was elected mayor on an unconditional promise to serve the interest of Londoners wholeheartedly. But he cannot do that if part of his time - and well over half his income - is tied up with a newspaper.

Johnson has extraordinary literary gifts - but he should share them with all Londoners, not just the small and relatively well-heeled minority who read the Telegraph.

There is great capacity for trouble here, and it is not too late for Boris to retreat from this greedy and hubristic commitment."

[woodentop]

Not helpful! This kind of thread takes the gilt of the gingerbread of the last few days.

[Libertarian]

Have you noticed that, with one exception, the Eurosceptics answered the questions but the Europhiles refused. This issue shows why members should be able to deselect MEPs who treat them and the electorate with contempt.

[Sammy Finn]

You are wrong to want to brush this under the carpet woodentop.

An anti-corruption slate of candidates at next year's European elections could derail the momentum that we currently enjoy.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Anyone surprised who agreed to the information request and didn't. I think its telling of the quality or lack thereof of some of the Tory MEPS.

[michael mcgough]

Veteran Conservative MEP Christopher Beazley said, “I would have to question the legality of these questions. What right do you have to ask these?” He argued that MEPs' taxpayer funded expense claims were not "a public matter", that it was "private".

Let us not forget that this anti democrat voted along with 498 other likeminded MEPs to reject the result of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon CONstitutional Treaty.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Spot on Mr Dodge!

[strapworld]

"You lie and you spin, you fiddle your expenses and you break your promises.... To describe this disengagement and cynicism as a ‘mood’ is to underestimate both the depth and the intensity of the breakdown in relations between the government and the governed... we need to understand why this political breakdown has happened. A lot of it is to with behaviour. The behaviour of a minority of individual politicians, in all parties. ."

David Cameron, March 1, 2008

Fine words Mr. Cameron. Now show you have some steel. Do not let Brown and the Labour Party seize on this and attempt to show that the Tories are still the party of sleeze!!!!

Warn ALL these MEP's disclose IMMEDIATELY or you WILL be de-selected. No equivication, no weak statement come out with a real fighting message and this will galvanise Tory support.

Ignore this and the party will suffer!

[woodentop]

So....let's assume that suddenly all the MEPs "see the light" and disclose - what happens then? Is everybody on this thread happy at that point?

[George Hinton]

The problem lies at the heart of the EU.
The way the entity has grown, the manner in which it has been promoted, the lies, deceit, deception, spin, disinformation and propaganda has ensured that there is something furtive and dirty about the EU.
The way that expenses are shovelled out, the manner in which claims are allowed and the connivance by the authorities themselves in ensuring that expense claims can be fiddled with official blessing all mitigate against openess and honesty. As has been said by many an MEP, caught out on the fiddle, its allowed, its the system. A system that allows you claim mileage then take a cheap plane. A system that has allowed Air France a virtual monopoly on flights to Strasbourg.
Yes, people are sucked in, and that is the aim. You make everyone around you as corrupt and dirty as the leadership and they all will kowtow and accept the existing staus quo.
Once you have corrupted people, they are hardly likely to kick up and argue against the master plan. It is by this manner of stealth that the EU progresses its plan to enslave the whole of Europe into the Soviet. By this that Hans-Gert Poettering can subvert due process in the EU Parliament by using a law that reasonates with the era of Hitler. By this the EU apparatchiks can get away with the chimera of respectability and democratic process, by creating a toothless and thoroughly ineffective parliament settled with individuals who have been brainwashed to accept the inevitability of the EU Soviet or have been made supine and indifferent with the grant of bribes and sops and allowed to peculate away to their hearts content.
As you suggest DC must move the MEP's away from the EPP.
DC must approve a referendum.
BUT, most importantly people like yourselves and others (Daniel Hannan) must work hard to expose the EU for what it is, a corrupt Stalinite organisation, hell bent on burning the euro-taxpayers monies and creating a modern day gulag. Run as always, by a select grouping of professional politicoes, who will take all the decisions and will hold all power, whilst granting the chimera of democratic process with a so-called parliament that will be muzzled and restricted.

"Brussels"..(as a generic term) and the rest of the fellow travellers can go and get stuffed, they are CNUTS.

[One of the Realists]

George your post was quite interesting, if a little rambly to say the least but the last sentence really let it down! I suggest you go and take your medicine now.

[woodentop]

Is nobody going to answer my question?

[cosmic]

Part of the problem is that MEPs are really separate from the mainstream of the parties they are in. Their constituents don't take them seriously and probably don't know who they are. The imperfect feedback of outrage over fiddled expenses which applies to Westminster MPs just isn't there.

So, there they are in a pointless parliament where they can do very little and in an atmosphere where fiddling and lack of transparency is normal, and they go native. Are they typically people who expect to climb through the party hierarchy anyway? Even the indirect threat of having their career checked isn't there.

Practically, the only thing Cameron can do about MEPs and sleaze is more careful selection and deselection. They work for a different boss than either the Conservative party or the UK government, and it looks as if their boss as good as encourages them to stick their noses in the trough. From what I can see, they're quite capable of waving two fingers at anyone in the UK who thinks they have any control over them.

[woodentop]

"Part of the problem is that MEPs are really separate from the mainstream of the parties they are in. Their constituents don't take them seriously and probably don't know who they are."

But Cosmic, some of them are former MPs and even Ministers in the last Conservative Government, and most of them have been involved with the Conservative Party for, maybe, forty years in some cases! Surely in that time they'd have managed to get themselves a bit known - wouldn't they?

[davidickeisnuts]

Seems to me some people are getting a bit sucked in by the Conspiracy Theory agenda!

[Editor]

I would be happier, woodentop.

It really isn't good enough for MEPs to refuse to be accountable.

When people all over Britain are struggling to make ends meet it's only right that we know how our elected officials are using taxpayers' money.

[woodentop]

Glad somebody would, Tim!

[cosmic]

Woodentop,

Most people know who their MP is. They get their names in the local papers, opposing hospital closures and all the rest. They hold surgeries etc.
Some of them appear in the national media and take stands on various issues. You get the impression that they are active in government. There's a definite relationship between the Westminster parliament and the electorate - it gets a fair bit of coverage in the papers and so on.

The turnout for European elections is very low all over Europe and most people don't know or care who represents them in the European Parliament. It all seems far removed from anything and doesn't seem to be able to do a lot anyway. So, there, may be some well-known names as MEPs, but they're not readily associated with anything relevant to people's lives. The relationship between the EU parliament and the electorate is a bit tenuous what?

[David Lindsay]

Sammy Finn, some of us are way ahead of you. Admittedly not for this reason, a slate is already being put together for next year. It's not where you are, I suppose. But it's a hell of a sight closer than either the pro-hybrid, anti-grammar school Cameroons or this crowd of crooks.

We are seeking to revive the party of the Attlee Government's refusal to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was "the blueprint for a federal state". Of Gaitskell's rejection of European federalism as "the end of a thousand years of history" and liable to destroy the Commonwealth.

The party of the trade unionists and Labour activists who in the early twentieth century peremptorily dismissed an attempt to make the Labour Party anti-monarchist (as it now is), and resisted schemes to abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence (as is now very well under way).

The party of Bevan's ridicule of the first parliamentary Welsh Day on the grounds that "Welsh coal is the same as English coal and Welsh sheep are the same as English sheep". Of those Labour MPs who in the 1970s successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution not least because of the ruinous effects that it would have had (and is now having) on the North of England. And of those Labour activists in the Highlands, Islands and Borders, and in North, Mid and West Wales, who accurately predicted that their areas would be balefully neglected under devolution.

The party of the Attlee Government's first ever acceptance of the principle of consent in relation to Northern Ireland, of the Wilson Government's deployment of British troops in order to defend the grateful Catholics there precisely as British subjects, and of the Callaghan Government's administration of Northern Ireland exactly as if it were any other part of the United Kingdom.

The party of the Catholic and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against abortion and easier divorce, of the Methodist and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against deregulated drinking and gambling, and of those in the Labour Movement who defeated Thatcher's and Major's attempts to destroy the special character of Sunday and of Christmas Day.

The party of Attlee's dissuasion of Truman from dropping an atom bomb on Korea, of Wilson's refusal to send British forces to Vietnam, and of his use of military force in order to safeguard the right of the people of Anguilla to be British.

And so on.

Not quite what you'd normally vote for? Fair enough, but who else is there? Our description of ourselves as pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker, anti-war, economically social democratic, morally and socially conservative British and Commonwealth patriots might not be entirely to your taste. But it must be nearer than anything else on offer.

[woodentop]

Fair enough, cosmic! I think the trouble is probably that the European Parliament is such a huge institution compared to the Westminster one. I went to France recently on a day trip to Lille shopping with a girlfriend and in the town square we saw a stall set up to acquaint the local people with what goes on in the European Parliament. I thought it was a good and positive idea for letting people know what is going on. We don't seem to do that here and I wonder if it might be a good idea?

[Sandy Jamieson]

Why am I not surprised that Sir Robert Atkins' name is top of the list?

[Vince]

Because you know your alphabet Sandy?

:)

[batman]

I will never, ever vote for the conservatives in the european parliament because of this story. I was planning to, now I will not. I will either vote for ukip, or not at all. For the simple reason that I do not trust the tories on europe. I want to believe Dave, but I don't. This story has pushed my doubts past the tipping point: I think they will find it so much easier to toe the line once in power and they will put the issue to the side, saying that people really care about other things first and the eu will continue to destroy our democracy.

[woodentop]

It seems to me that the problem of non-recognition stems in the main from the List System that has been imposed on us. So if you don't like it - blame this Labour Government!

[Jennifer Wells]

Unless David Cameron stamps on this fast many of will be joining batman in abstaining. I wouldn't vote UKIP although I support BOO.

[Nigel Syson]

If we had had a proper open selection of candidates for the next European elections the members could of dealt with this problem by deselecting all MEP who did not fully disclose their expenses. Together with the continued membership of the EPP this is a failure of leadership. MEPs should be given umtil 30 June 2008 to disclose their expenses and if they do not do so they they should be removed as candidates for next year's elections.

[The Ghost of Tony Makara's Sanity]

I will quite happily vote for UKIP at the next European elections, but still vote for the Conservative slate of candidates at ward and constituency level.

I was absolutely appalled at the selection process for European candidates. The only way to get rid of the likes of Robert Atkins is, sadly, by the ballot box, hence I would encourage others to go with UKIP until (if) the Party realises that it cannot bypass the will of the membership in a selection process.

[The Ghost of Tony Makara's Sanity]

To be honest, I'd probably vote for UKIP, anyway, as the North West set of MEPs are useless (although Saj is at least amiable and seemingly competent, by all accounts). Atkins is a complete tool- I'm told that arguing with a constituent/ voter on the doorstep is a cardinal sin when trying to get a pledge out of them, but he dropped the ball and carried on running on one occasion when out canvassing with him...

[Editor]

The Ghost: I'd be grateful if you would choose a friendlier Name for commenting.

[Miles]

What abour Helmer

[bluepatriot]

Every Tory should know that recommending voting for UKIP at Euro elections results in expulsion from the party even if the person votes Conservative in all other elections.

[Umbrella man]

Very surprised to see the very sound Martin Callanan among the non-repliers. Any explanation Ed?

[Martin]

I have heard it suggested that MEPs get EU pensions of £60,000 (euros?) after they have ceased to be MEPs, and that these pensions can be taken away if the person concerned acts against the interests of the EU.

Would some knowledgeable person please let me know if that is correct.

If so, does that not fatally compromise Nick Clegg from acting in the interests of this country.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

How MEPs/MPs spend their earnings is their own business but there are no good reasons why they should be hiding how they use their expenses.

[Time will Tell]

It may be just my PC but the James Elles website seems to down.
Can others find it?
If not, could this be coincidence?

[cosmic]

Woodentop,

Firstly, what is the EU? Is it a trading bloc of independent states? No, a trading bloc doesn't need a flag, a foreign policy etc. It's a state or a nascent state ruled by a bureaucracy and a clique and with no effective democratic control. All the trappings of democracy and the normal political processes appear to be there, but they're ineffective. You only have to look at the shenanigans over the Constitution with the lies and determination not to submit it to the peoples it affects. A state with no democratic control is damned dangerous. It's also a state being brought about by sleight-of-hand.

Secondly, given that MEPs are supposed to represent us and are paid from our pockets - very indirectly - I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be open about their expenses claimed from our money.

The quote from Christopher Beazley is jawdropping in its arrogance. He's thinks he's entitled to do whatever he does with our money and it's entirely a private matter into which it's rude and is, (or he thinks ought to be) illegal to pry.

Around the time when the Loans for Lordships scandal broke and there was talk of public funding for political parties, politicians were wondering why the public was disengaging from mainstream politics. This sort of thing which shows MEPs to be lacking in integrity, secretive and aloof doesn't help at all. The Tories can do themselves a lot of good by being seen to be above this.

[woodentop]

"Firstly, what is the EU? Is it a trading bloc of independent states? No, a trading bloc doesn't need a flag, a foreign policy etc. It's a state or a nascent state ruled by a bureaucracy and a clique and with no effective democratic control. All the trappings of democracy and the normal political processes appear to be there, but they're ineffective. You only have to look at the shenanigans over the Constitution with the lies and determination not to submit it to the peoples it affects. A state with no democratic control is damned dangerous. It's also a state being brought about by sleight-of-hand."

Aha - now we are getting to the problem, aren't we! I think people see it as a "Them and Us" situation. But how about ASPIRING to become one of the "Them's" yourself and helping to bring about the change you need from the inside? All right, perhaps you'll think that's naive of me and there is no chance of bringing about that openness and accountability craved by us all? Is this because it is easier to comment from the sidelines or do you REALLY think there is some sinister group running things - maybe blame it on the Bildebergers or the Lizards or whichever shadowy group is in vogue this week?!

[Saltmaker]

Roger Helmer:

1. My staff funds are administered on a fee basis by my wife, who works as a self-employed contractor.

2. I do not currently employ any relative.

Wives working as self-employed contractors so they’re not employees. No need to say more.

[Chris Gillibrand]

On the EPP, as I understand it, all the MEPs have signed that in the event that it is not possible to form up outside the EPP, they will abide by the decision of the Party leader which could mean marching them straight back into the Christian Democrat EPP again. Rather the not very Christian and not much more democratic EPP. Many of their MEPs are liberal Catholics, more of less lapsed, whose liberalism has consumed their Catholicism years ago.

[boredwiththis]

chris gillibrand - I think their religious beliefs are not really our concern!

[Andrew Frank]

Some of us (and I'm directing this at you boredwiththis) are bored with MEPs who are so full of themselves that they think they are free to use taxpayer money without accounting for it.

[woodentop]

Andrew Frank that does seem unnecessarily nasty! I also don't understand why religion has to come into it but then perhaps I'm being a bit thick!

[Martin Cole]

Congratulations to Conservative Home for hosting this debate.

[Alex Swanson]

I also don't understand why religion has to come into it

Because some European politicians describe themselves as "Christian" Democrats.

[cosmic]

Woodentop,

I said nothing about Lizards or Bilderbergers. These are your colourful contributions to the discussion.

All I'm saying is that I see the EU going in a particular direction which is as political project and total disregard of democratic control is a part of it. It appears to be thoroughly corrupt and resists all attempts at reformation. It isn't a direction I want my country to follow.

I for one, have heard enough of 'In Europe but not ruled by Europe', 'not shouting from the sidelines', and see the results.

You still haven't explained what your position is on MEP's secrecy over expenses.

[woodentop]

cosmic - happy to help! Nothing wrong with a bit of accountability; nothing at all. I'm just a bit concerned that whilst people are only too willing to criticize our MEPs they seem only to want to complain from the sidelines and are not queueing up to take an active part in things themselves. Or am I wrong?

[Alex Swanson]

I'm just a bit concerned that whilst people are only too willing to criticize our MEPs they seem only to want to complain from the sidelines and are not queueing up to take an active part in things themselves. Or am I wrong?

You are wrong. Criticising the party as a whole, or policies, or individuals, is perfectly valid and a form of activity in itself. One of the problems with John Major's government was precisely that they completely lost touch with what people on the ground were thinking. Wouldn't it - for example - have benefited them if the grassroots had made it crystal clear from the word go that "sleaze" in all its forms was completely unacceptable? Wouldn't it ultimately have been a good thing both for them and the country if a referendum on Maastricht had been forced on them? If it had been, then everybody would have had to accept the verdict and the poison of the "rebels" would have been drawn.

Teamwork is not the same as blind loyalty.

Plus, of course, you can have no idea of what people on here are doing in other respects.

[woodentop]

"Plus, of course, you can have no idea of what people on here are doing in other respects"

Very true of course Alex Swanson and of course you don't necessarily know how many and which MEPs may have been very helpful in our recent successful campaign in Crewe & Nantwich for example. The point I make is that most of them are not "grey men" but Conservatives and active ones who have been around from the time that some posters on here will have been in short trousers.

[Edinburgh Voter]

You (rightly) said:
"The combination of a gerrymandered selection process and proportional representation means that it's almost impossible for ordinary voters to hold MEPs to account."

If we elected all our MEPs by STV-PR we would have both proportional representation AND direct personal control over the candidates elected to represent each party.

[Yet Another Realist]

Nobody has yet (apart from the Editor I think) replied to the question asked earlier as to whether people would be happy with the MEPs if there was a sudden "Road to Damascus" moment and they all decided to disclose 100% of their expenses? I can't help wondering if people just don't like them very much and would find another tack to go on.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The religious beliefs of candidates are pretty irrelevant in Conservative politics, but very relevant when considering the EPP- indeed impossible to understand without this consideration.

Once the Catholicism is given up, they are indistinguishable not from conservatives, as would be recognised in the UK, but from socialists or social democrats. It also means that there is no real debate in the European Parliament, other than about details of regulations.

This study from Louvain University gives the background, among other KADOC publications.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Europe - your favourite subject. Ah, bless!

From what I can tell, our MEPs have not broken any laws.

[cosmic]

Yet Another Realist said...

Nobody has yet (apart from the Editor I think) replied to the question asked earlier as to whether people would be happy with the MEPs if there was a sudden "Road to Damascus".........

There are two separate issues:

1. Should MEPs be there at all? Yes/No/Yes in some altered form.

2. Regardless of the answer to 1, why as elected representatives should be expenses they claim from public funds be subject to secrecy?

2 applies to MPs as well, some of whom have been keen to tell us in connection with the National ID database, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". This was their chance to lead from the front, and it's taken a protracted struggle via FOI requests to extract the information.

[cosmic]

Justin,

Europe and the EU are not quite the same thing. Do try and keep up.

[And Another Member of the Realist Family]

"1. Should MEPs be there at all? Yes/No/Yes in some altered form."

The message seems to come through loud and clear that (a) nobody likes MEPs (b) nobody can agree what they are for and (c) even if they were as truthful as the Young George Washington After Cutting Down the Cherry Tree, as compassionate as The Late Mother Teresa and as Intrepid as Indiana Jones himself they could not do right for doing wrong!
The fact is that they are Conservatives trying to do a job. Many of them have been MPs and volunteers - they are still the same people.

[will.b]

"From what I can tell, our MEPs have not broken any laws. "

You can't tell very much if they don't disclose anything.

I will continue to vote UKIP at the european elections, until I get the option of voting for a democratically selected, accountable Conservative.

[nonty]

"Every Tory should know that recommending voting for UKIP at Euro elections results in expulsion from the party even if the person votes Conservative in all other elections."

Oooh! Hit me down with a feather....

[nonty's friend]

biff!!!

[Derek W. Buxton]

Woodentop.

Enter the real world, the EU works precisely as it was designed to work, no more no less. It was set up based on a paper written by a British civil servant working for a European group. They knew that they could not attain the results they wanted openly, so they resorted to lies, stealth and cheating. It was never intended to be accountable and democratic, it was to be ruled by the "enarques", French civil servants. It is working, it is an internal fifth column eating away from within.
As to the MEPs, they are paid by taxpayers money, ours, so why shouldn't they have to account for every penny?

[woodentop]

"it is an internal fifth column eating away from within."

How frightfully dramatic - sounds like a termite!

By the way, what does the "W" in your name stand for?

[Yet Another Realist]

That was a bit uncalled for, woodentop, but I do agree with you that talking about fifth columns eating away from within is just a little bit OTT!
I think debate should be a little less febrile.

[observer]

What about the Westminster MPs? Have they disclosed all their expenses? No, probably not! Let's get that house in order before we start quibbling about Europe.

[Richard]

Who do these MEPs think they are? How dare they behave in this way! Tim, what is Conservative Home going to do to increase the pressure on some of these MEPs who think they can get away with doing very little real work while bleeding the tax payer dry?!

MEPs are unaccountable on two levels; firstly they do not have to face the Party membership in order to get selected and then they don't even have to face the electorate as thanks to the list system people vote for a party and not an individual.

Each MEP knows that as long as they are selected either first or second then there is almost no chance of them not being elected.

This creates the problem that very few people actually have any idea as to who their MEPs actually are. I know there are around 10 MEPs that cover London, who are they? I obviously know who Syed Kamall is as he works very hard within the party and as a Party member I know of John Bowis and Charles Tannock, but I have no idea who the other MEPs for London are.

Now I am sure most of MEPs would come back and say that they all work very hard, putting in lots of hours of work etc, but from what I see that work is meeting business people and lobbyists etc. As important as this is when do our MEPs actually get out and meet the mass of the general public?

These MEPs get paid vast amounts of money and could if they wished do very little to earn that money. They are also entitled to claim a vast array of expenses. This is all paid for with our money and the very least our MEPs can do when all of the above is also taken into consideration is to give detailed accounts of how much they claim and what they spend.

We do have a small number of very good MEPs and we must not forget that, but increasingly the quality of our MEPs is very poor indeed, many are either failed Westminster politicians or people who couldn't get selected for Westminster in the first place. The recent round of MEP selections has hardly done much to improve the pool of talent in Brussels.

It is all very sad and very depressing. If the European Elections are not held on the same day as other elections then I am not sure that I will even bother to help with the campaign.

[Bruxinsider]

When it came to re-selection, several Tory MEP's argued that they deserved the same benefits of incumbency that MP's enjoy. It seems that they're happy to enjoy equal status with MP's when it suits their purpose, but not when it comes to the responsibilities that also brings with it. The fact remains that several Tory MEP’s employ relatives, some according to their market-value and some as a way of (corruptly) topping up their income. Since this has been going on for quite some time without a whiff of embarrassment, I’m almost certain that not a single MEP will face disciplinary procedures or criminal investigation. For many MEP’s, it now seems that their main concern is to perpetuate the system, rather than hold their hands up and realize that the British public has seen through this blatant rip off.

[Aurora Borealis]

Rather sorry to see this morning's article in the Sunday Times about Giles Chichester. I don't know how true or otherwise the story is, but I am afraid that if Mr Chichester really has been channelling half a million through his family's company then this is an entirely different ball game and comes into the Derek Conway category.