£100,000 mis-spent?

Today (June 14th) the Guardian carries a report that the European parliament proposes to demand £100,000 from me for staff expenses which were allegedly mis-spent.  Naturally I have had many media bids from journalists who want more information.  And I’ve had to tell them that in respect of this alleged demand for £100,000, I know no more than they do.  I have had no communication whatever from the parliament on the question.

This may seem surprising, but it is not the first time that some allegation of this type has emerged through a press leak, with no information from the parliament to the individuals concerned.  Indeed the parliament has a technique where it deliberately leaks speculative allegations to friendly journalists, and then uses the consequent media reports as a basis for a hostile enquiry.  This procedure is totally improper and prejudicial, but it seems to be common practice.

The Guardian also seeks to link the £100,000 story to my resignation.  But I signed resignation papers on May 31st, and my first inkling of the Guardian story was an e-mail yesterday morning from Jennifer Rankin, a Guardian journalist.  I immediately sent the Guardian e-mail to Klaus Welle, the parliament Secretary General, demanding an explanation, but so far I have no reply.

The story (such as it is) is a follows.  The parliament indicated to me at the turn of the year that it was concerned about payments to two of my UK staff – though it was not at all clear why they had such concerns.  Nonetheless, I prepared and submitted two very substantial dossiers of evidence supporting the work done by the employees.  After some time and several enquiries, I was able to establish that they had cleared one case, related to my regional Press Officer.

The other case relates to my Constituency Manager Paul Oakden.  Paul joined me shortly after I moved to UKIP in March 2012, and had been a hugely committed and effective Constituency Manager until his resignation in December last.  Initially he worked for me, or for me plus my regional colleague Margot Parker MEP.  In January 2015, Margot decided to make other arrangements, and I put Paul on a half-time contract, and reduced his salary accordingly by 50%.  Paul naturally decided to seek other employment for the remaining 50% of his time, and took a second half-time contract with another employer, as he was perfectly entitled to do under UK employment law.  The second contract was with UKIP.

Paul’s duties (for me) included running a busy office in Market Harborough, managing two or three administrative staff, dealing with or supervising correspondence with constituents, organisations, companies, pressure groups, charities and NGOs who phoned, or e-mailed, or visited the office in person.  He had overall responsibility for my UK diary and managed my events in the region.  He oversaw relations with the media and accompanied me on media meetings.  He and I had regular review meetings at weekends in the region, in Market Harborough or at the Costa Coffee Shop in Lutterworth.  He also occasionally accompanied me on overseas missions.  He was even my driver of last resort to get me to the airport when my car was in for service.

I do not issue my mobile phone number widely, but Paul’s number was on a notice board outside the office.  He was available to constituents 24/7.  He was also available to me 24/7.  Because of the nature of parliamentary work we often had to talk outside normal working hours, at anti-social times, and over weekends and so on.

In the dossier I presented to the parliament I provided hard-copy records of phone and e-mail exchanges during 2016.  These were incomplete.  The parliament’s own phone records, for example, only went back six months, while earlier parts of the e-mail record were no longer available.  Despite repeated efforts we have still been unable to obtain Paul’s phone records for 2016, and he frequently called me.  Yet despite these limitations, we identified around 830 proven contacts in the year.  There are typically around 240 working days in the year, and Paul was nominally working half-time (though I believe he did more than that).  But 50% of 240 days is 120 days, so we have hard evidence of an average of at least seven contacts every working day.  If the records were complete, I would expect the figure to be around ten contacts per working day.

Against this background, to suggest that Paul wasn’t working for me is simply risible.

An affront to natural justice: The problem, of course, is that the parliament is judge, jury and executioner in its own cause.  In a criminal case, the onus of proof is on the prosecution.  In a civil case, we deal with a balance of probabilities.  But in the European parliament, they demand proof beyond doubt that work was done – in other words, the rule is guilty until proven innocent.  Had I known that such an enquiry might arise, I might have required monthly reports and so on.  But I come from a business background, not a bureaucratic background.  Rather than pile up interminable reports, I prefer to hire good people and delegate.

There is an appeals procedure in the European parliament, but it amounts to little more than asking the same people who made the first decision to confirm it.  And the great majority of bodies in the parliament are dominated by pro-Europeans who would find against eurosceptics on an automatic ideological basis.  It may be time to consider other legal options.




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to £100,000 mis-spent?

  1. Shieldsman says:

    Another good reason for leaving an Undemocratic, dogmatic, bureaucratic, Empire building DICTATORSHIP

  2. charles wardrop says:

    I wish you good fortune in your dealings with this essentially corrupt protection racket, the EU.
    All I can say is “don’t let the b*ggers get you down,” and that you have earned great political moral capital in your very clear and convincing messages, Mr Helmer.

  3. John Burnett says:

    I can understand why there comes a time when feeding at that particular trough puts you off your food. The Guardian does not appear to notice the smell

  4. David says:

    Truly objectionable people, organisation, methods, rules, it stinks of a swamp.

    Better of out Roger, asap.

  5. Jane Davies says:

    I think I’m right in saying the Guardian will weigh in on anything that smacks down on anyone who wants to leave the EU and would never let the truth get in the way of any story that can whipped into a “scandal”. I suppose we must accept that the EU parliament will implement these tactics, much like a spoilt teenager would when facing opposition from getting his/her own way. Their manipulative and scheming and downright dishonest ways should surprise no-one and says so much about the mindset of these overpaid and over fed crooks.

  6. Simon Blanchard says:

    Good luck in getting out of this and another reason to leave the EU. Their legal system on the continent is totally incompatible with UK law.
    The principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law by your own peers is very long established in UK law called Habeas Corpus. The prosecutor has to gather enough evidence to prove guilt. If insufficient evidence can be found, the defendant must be released, all charges dropped and the final decision of guilt or innocence is made by the jury.
    On the continent they approach it from the other end, you are guilty until you provide evidence to prove your innocence called Corpus Juris.

  7. catalanbrian says:

    Whilst you may well be telling the truth about your employment of Mr Oakshott surely it was up to you to know the rules regarding the proper reporting of your expenses.

  8. Frances Fox says:

    Roger, you are right in what you wrote and I think it is disgusting to treat you like this. Ask them why Students could have two votes one from where they lived at home and one at the Students University. Probably, they will ignore it.


    Frances Fox

  9. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Are you surprised at this Roger ? Although it is you in the crosshairs, I suggest you take it with the amount of gravitas that it deserves. That is damn all ! The EU would not recognise a decent guy if they fell over him, as the only fuel for the majority in the EU circus, is money. Any doubts about this can be cleared by looking at our very own Lord and Lady Kinnock. (Did next to nothing, but knew the right hands to shake in Brussels, and let the good times roll !). The more I consider the EU, the more angry I get at voting in the 70s.- I should have listened to my old Dad, who voted no. He told me he had seen enough of Europe during the war.

    • Jane Davies says:

      Don’t get me started on the Kinnocks who as you say have done nothing. But they have stuck their faces in the taxpayers trough and the whole family have done very nicely thank you.  Not only have they accumulated millions but also Ma and Pa now draw huge pensions paid for by the hard working Jo public…….is it any wonder people like them don’t want to leave.

  10. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Leader of the Labour Party, without success, but supposed to fight for the workers ! ! ! ……………… ”The working class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the Commissioners job at last.” – (The red flag), but let the good times roll. What a sick joke, Kinnocks + EU + Our money. The real joke is that the ‘Born again’ Labour voter, can’t or won’t see it for what it is !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s