European Union (Amendment) Bill

moved Amendment No. 12A: 12A: Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after ““excluding”” insert— ““(i) Article 1, paragraph 18, inserted Article 9D TEU, paragraph 8, unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that in his opinion there is no evidence of fraud or impropriety within the European Parliament and that it is a suitable body to exercise this function; and (ii) ”” The noble Lord said: In view of recent developments, Amendment No. 12A is extremely important. The Committee may or may not be aware that the European Parliament recently produced a secret, or covert, report that has uncovered extensive, widespread and criminal abuse by Euro MPs of staff allowances worth almost £100 million a year. European Parliament officials have tried to hush this up and Harald Rømer, the secretary-general of the European assembly, was asked, I believe, by Hans-Gert Pöttering, to take measures to ensure that there was no collateral damage from this report. A source said: "““We want reform but we cannot make this report available to the public if we want people to vote in the European elections next year””." Only Euro MPs on the Budgetary Control Committee were allowed to see the report. Even then they had to apply to enter a secret room, which was protected by biometric locks and security guards. They were not allowed to take notes or to divulge to anyone else the contents of that report. In response to criticism of this procedure, a parliamentary official said that it was, "““not secret. It is confidential””." I am happy to say that Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat MEP, blew the gaff on all this. He complained to OLAF and asked it to investigate this serious matter. He said that the findings, "““most definitely fall within OLAF’s terms of reference ... They are so serious that it should be assumed that criminal proceedings may follow””." That is directly relevant to Amendment No. 12A, which refers to a certificate or document stating that the European Parliament is a fit body to operate. However, it is obviously not. OLAF has now asked to see the secret report and will follow that up. I am sure that Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Benches will wish to support Mr Davies, who has said that, "““without transparency there was no way of checking suspicions that some members were using … parliamentary allowances to cover their contribution””," to their pension funds, which he said amounted to ““embezzlement””. That is a very serious charge, which, again, justifies requiring this certificate to be issued before giving the European Parliament any more powers. The Parliament voted by a very large majority against making this report public, which is absolutely disgraceful. Mr Davies went on to say: "““These votes bring discredit and dishonour upon the entire parliament. Taxpayers could be forgiven for believing there are more honest people to be found in prison than sit in the European Parliament””." That is a direct quotation from Mr Davies’s official website, which I looked at this morning. Far from cleaning up their act, a majority of MEPs seem to think that they are allowed to put their fingers in the till and carry on enjoying the gravy train, which is outrageous. Not only is there possible, or likely, fraud going on, but the MEPs do not want even to acknowledge it. They voted to keep this report secret or confidential, whichever terminology one cares to use. The fact that OLAF is involved is not all that reassuring, because it itself was caught with its trousers down or its fingers in the till—whichever you choose. OLAF admitted that it lied to the European Court of First Instance over allegations that it had asked the Belgian police to look at the investigative journalist Hans-Martin Tillack’s file. It told the European Court of First Instance in August 2004: "““Neither OLAF nor any other Commission staff have ever contacted juge d’instruction Franzen””." This was to ask for Hans-Martin Tillack’s file. It has now admitted that it did do that. OLAF, the organisation against fraud in the European Union, actually lied to the European Union’s own Court of First Instance, so the fact that OLAF is investigating possible fraud in the European Parliament does not give me any confidence. This amendment is entirely worth pursuing. Some MEPs have shown themselves to be, to use Mr Davies’s words, verging on carrying out ““embezzlement”” and therefore one has to ask whether, in the words of the amendment, there is, "““evidence of fraud or impropriety””." I think embezzlement is definitely fraud or impropriety. I beg to move.