Grading the Performance of British Meps
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
www.taxpayersalliance.com Could Do Better? Grading the Performance of British MEPs Dr Lee Rotherham Contents Summary 3 1. Methodology 6 2. Results 10 3. Final Scores 41 4. Conclusions 46 About the author Dr Lee Rotherham is a graduate of the University of London and holds an MPhil and PhD from the University of Birmingham. Dr Rotherham is one of the most experienced researchers on EU issues working in British politics, having been a researcher for the “Westminster Group of Eight” Eurorebels and an adviser to three successive Shadow Foreign Secretaries, a role part- based within the European Parliament. This expertise led to his appointment as Chief of Staff to the Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP, British parliamentary delegate to the Convention on the Future of Europe. Dr Rotherham played a central role assisting delegates opposing the European Constitution, and the drafters of the Minority Report. A reservist with service in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been extensively published internationally. 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 2 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) Summary Every Briton is affected by the laws passed in Brussels, which drive everything from the introduction of bin taxes to high electricity prices. Most people though, couldn’t even name their MEP. That lack of involvement means that MEPs can too easily get away with failing to represent their constituents effectively. This report analyses British MEP activity over the last European Parliamentary session, in order to increase transparency and drive accountability, particularly ahead of the forthcoming European Parliament elections. In the final league table: The highest scoring MEP is Jim Allister, elected as a Democratic Unionist but now independent. Two MEPs, Christopher Beazley and Den Dover, both elected as Conservatives, poll bottom with ratings of 0 per cent. Five parties have MEPs within the top ten. Of the 16 MEPs who score higher than 50 per cent, there is one Green, two UKIP, three Liberal Democrats, eight Conservatives, and two Independents. The parties spread right across the range of scores. The exception is Labour; the poor voting profiles of MEPs on key votes means that the highest scorer, Robert Evans, comes in at 27 th , just outside the top third. The top ten MEPs are as follows: Rank Name Per Cent Party rating 1 Allister 79% IND 2 Heaton-Harris 77% CON 3 Hannan 72% CON 4 Helmer 66% CON 5 Kamall 65% CON 6 Lucas 62% GREEN 7 Clark 59% UKIP 8 Parish 59% CON 9 Tannock 59% CON 10 Watson 58% LD 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 3 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) The bottom ten MEPs are ranked as follows: Rank Name Per Cent Party rating =69 Nicholson 9% LD =69 Titley 9% LAB 71 Kinnock 8% LAB 72 Howitt 4% LAB 73 Cashman 3% LAB =75 Gill 2% LAB =75 Skinner 2% LAB 76 Hughes 1% LAB =77 Beazley 0% CON =77 Dover 0% IND The worst performing leader of the four largest parties, Glenis Willmott from the Labour party, came in 63 rd and voted against her own UK party’s official policy in a crunch vote. After laying out the various problems and advantages of different methodologies, this paper sets out a point scoring system designed to identify those representatives who have stood out from the herd: Ten points out of a baseline of fifty are based on European Parliamentary Questions, demonstrating how effective the MEP is in challenging the executive. Ten points are given for their frequency as internet hits, demonstrating campaigning and local activity. Ten points are available for financial transparency; five for openness to a past transparency initiative, and five for whether expenses and allowances are in the public domain today. Twenty points are available based on a score of key roll call votes over the lifespan of the current European Parliament, with explanations as to why each vote was important. Negative scoring is possible in this field. Bonus points are also added for MEPs who have declined the allure of participating in the generous second pension scheme, and deducted for those embroiled in financial scandals. The scores of MEPs who have not served a full term are adjusted to compensate. 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 4 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) The end scores are then tallied and turned into a percentile approval rating. The final result produces a starting point for MEPs to describe and defend their track record in the run up to the MEP elections, and aims to encourage electors to elicit pledges on future conduct and priorities. 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 5 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) 1. Methodology 1.1 Difficulties There are critical considerations that need to be addressed in order to find a fair way to assess how MEPs have performed. All of the measures below have serious shortcomings: Attendance: but MEPs can infamously sign the attendance register and then speedily leave for home. Nor does attendance automatically equate to valued action. Number of speeches in Chamber: this does not address the question of what constitutes a meaningful contribution, or reflect the merit of the argument. For example, five speeches supporting a corrupt Commissioner in an empty Chamber would rank higher than one calling him to account in a key debate. Committee activity: This may reflect an MEP becoming a part of the European Union’s bureaucratic machine. Number of European Parliamentary Questions (EPQs): Probably the single clearest way to assess an MEP’s critical ardor, although this does not reveal if he followed his discoveries up, nor the quality, variety and inventiveness of his line of pursuit. Overall voting record: Unfortunately, in each session there are hundreds of votes, tens of thousands over the course of a parliamentary term. There are so many that the vast majority are anonymous, preventing a broad brush analysis.1 Roll-called votes: Probably the most reliable way of determining an MEP’s independence and, from his constituents’ viewpoint, reliability. The problem lies in determining which votes mark out the effective MEPs. Individual votes can also be missed by duties elsewhere, so bad luck may play a (small) part and a range of dates needs to be selected. A key flaw of a simple activity database is that it marks attendance and activity without qualifying it. 2 An assessment of voting pattern can at least attempt to distinguish merit from presence. Constituency casework: The evidence that can be used to monitor this is anecdotal at best, typically measured by volume of complaints rather than by positives. 1 Even registered votes can be recorded by being cast, as in one known case, after jamming a bread roll into a voting button and disappearing for coffee. 2 As in the recently launched www.parlorama.eu , though it does have its uses and is an advance for transparency. 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 6 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) Public engagements: This cannot be quantified without access to the MEP’s diary, though it would prove a useful addition to the attendance figure. It is also debatable as to which engagements should be counted, and what should be excluded beyond the constituency: events in the UK; non-speaking engagements; international fora; or those open just to party members. Number of staff: However, an absentee MEP with no staff will score better than a hard worker with three or four part time helpers. It also ignores the contentious issue of employment of the extended family. Office cost: Again, this would need to be somehow measured against value for money. At the moment, the figures are only in the public domain if the MEP chooses to put them there, which means the more open MEPs would be punished in our rankings for leading the way in transparency. Reported scandal: This excludes MEPs whose scandals are unreported, or subject to court order. Allowances taken: This can be a key indicator; unfortunately, it is hard to monitor and to grade. The most cost-aware MEPs are likely to be those who provide most information about their use of allowances, but their actions again cannot yet be compared like with like. Role: A complicating factor is how to factor in if an MEP also chairs a committee or has a position of some substance within the European Parliament. There have been known cases of chairmen voting against their own party in support of the will of the committee on which they have been serving, because their independence has been compromised by participation in the process. Outside interests: In some cases, these may be conflicts of interest that limit an MEP’s ability to serve their constituents. In other cases, they might actually be complementary. The best example is probably that of Dan Hannan, the MEP whose newspaper articles have contributed more to the public’s understanding of the European Parliament than political activity from most of his colleagues. Press coverage: An internet frequency count provides one mechanism to assess what efforts the MEP is making to reach a wider audience, rather than simply operate on behalf of a party clique. In some circumstances, this might be unduly favourable to MEPs who already have a measure of fame from outside of politics, or could include massive negative media coverage relating to a scandal. Coverage could be for reasons unassociated with simply being an active representative, such as 43 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9JA www.taxpayersalliance.com 7 0845 330 9554 (office hours) 07795 084 113 (media – 24 hours) defecting to another party.