Matthew Vella

Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil has congratulated MaltaToday for its “contribution towards greater transparency in the rules of a European Union institution” and declared he will present transparency proposals for PN MEPs after MaltaToday’s ombudsman complaint against the European Parliament.
The complaint brought an official censure from the Ombudsman against the European Parliament for refusing MaltaToday access to MEPs’ expense and allowances accounts. He said the EP’s actions constituted “maladministration”.
Writing to MaltaToday, in a letter copied to PN secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier, Busuttil said he will be presenting new transparency proposals “that PN MEPs will be required to follow in dealing with public funds placed at their disposal by the European Parliament.
“This proposal shall take into account the decision of the Ombudsman and shall seek a level of transparency for PN MEPs that goes beyond current requirements under the established rules of the European Parliament.”
Busuttil said that in previous exchanges on the subject with MaltaToday,he had reiterated that he and colleague David Casa always followed the established rules of the European Parliament.
“I also stated that, this notwithstanding, I will await the outcome of your complaint and be guided accordingly… the European Ombudsman has now confirmed his view that he feels that the current rules of the European Parliament are not sufficiently transparent. Of course, this decision affects the rules of Parliament and does not apply to one individual MEP.”
Busuttil told MaltaToday that he will be submitting his proposal to the Nationalist Party for its consideration in time for the 2009 elections.
“I hope that this proposal can be approved as soon as possible and included in the electoral platform of the PN in the upcoming European Parliament elections in June 2009. I also hope that other political parties fielding candidates for the upcoming European Parliament elections will likewise commit themselves to high standards of transparency.
“I congratulate MaltaToday for its contribution towards greater transparency in the rules of a European Union institution.”
The European Parliament is still refusing MaltaToday access to the payments of MEPs despite the opinion of the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Commissioner.
Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros told the European Parliament to accept MaltaToday’s request for public access to details of the payments received by MEPs, including general expenditure, travel and subsistence allowances, as well as allowances for their assistants.
The EP justified its refusal on the grounds of data protection.
After consulting the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), the Ombudsman concluded that the public has the right to access information about MEPs' allowances.
The EDPS advised that, whilst MEPs are entitled to protection of their privacy, the basic consideration in a transparent and democratic society must be that the public has a right to be informed about their behaviour, especially in relation to the expenditure of public funds. The EDPS considered it “obvious” that the data must be disclosed.
Diamandouros had said that MaltaToday’s case was “important because it highlights the need to carefully balance the right to privacy with the public interest in openness when deciding whether the public has a right to access information of this kind. MEPs have to be aware of the public interest in their use of public funds.”
Despite his opinion, this year the EP once again refused giving MaltaToday access, forcing the Ombudsman to issue a “critical remark” for failing to comply with the law on transparency as regards the allowances received by MEPs.
The Ombudsman said he regretted that the EP had interpreted the law governing access to documents “in a way that weakens the principle of transparency” and which conflicts with a relevant recent judgment of the Court of First Instance.
He said his critical remark “confirms to the complainant that the complaint was justified and informs the institution of what it has done wrong so that it can avoid similar maladministration in the future.”