3+1 Proposals for the Future of the Support Body Without the First Lady

Proposals before Parliament outline competing visions for the future of the Social Support Body after the First Lady’s resignation.

Header Image

The Presidential Office informed Parliament yesterday that it is preparing a bill to restructure the Social Support Body, although it did not reveal its intentions. The Body’s former chair, First Lady Philippa Karsera, was recently forced to resign following revelations linked to the so‑called videogate affair, which suggested the existence of a corruption mechanism within the Presidential Palace involving private financial contributions.

The charitable fund relies exclusively on private donations and provides financial assistance to university students. However, in the public consciousness it has become associated with favour trading and political clientelism, largely because the Presidential Office imposed a lack of transparency regarding its donors and the amounts contributed.

The Proposals

1. Transfer of the Body to the Ministry of Finance

The remaining members of the Body, three permanent secretaries of ministries and the Auditor General, submitted a proposal to the House Institutions Committee recommending that the Body be transferred to the Grants and Allowances Service of the Ministry of Finance.

This recommendation was formed after three alternative options were examined and rejected. These included maintaining the Body in its current form, transferring it to the State Scholarships Foundation, or placing it under the Deputy Ministry of Social Welfare.

The members concluded that the Ministry of Finance option was preferable for the following reasons:

  • The Ministry already has specialised staff capable of assessing student grant applications based on documented socio economic criteria.

  • Synergies would be created between the two entities’ policies for addressing social needs, improving coherence and effectiveness.

  • The Ministry has advanced digital systems that can support the integration of the Body’s needs based assistance scheme into existing procedures.

2. Abolition of the Social Support Body

AKEL’s General Secretary, Stefanos Stefanou, presented to the Committee a draft law submitted on behalf of AKEL and co signed by DISY MP Kyriakos Hadjiyiannis and Volt MP Alexandra Attalidou.

Mr Stefanou proposes abolishing the Body entirely and transferring its responsibilities to the State Scholarships Foundation. According to him, “the dissolution of the Body will help avoid administrative overlap, promote good governance, ensure transparency and accountability, and allow for better use of public resources”.

3. Retaining the Body With Reforms

DISY, through MP Nikos Georgiou, argues for maintaining the Body but with safeguards to strengthen transparency and accountability. The proposal is co signed by independent MP Kostis Efstathiou.

Among the changes proposed are:

  • The chair of the Body’s Management Committee should be a person of recognised integrity and standing, rather than the First Lady.

  • The Management Committee should be required to publish on its official website a list of the fund’s resources, including the names of donors who contributed more than €500 during the current year and the total amount each donated. Publication would occur only with the donor’s explicit written consent. If a donor refuses consent, the Body would not accept the contribution.

A Proposal From the Presidential Office

Deputy Minister to the President, Irini Piki, informed the House Institutions Committee in writing that the government is preparing an amendment bill aimed at transforming the Body. She did not clarify whether the government intends to adopt the recommendation put forward by the Body’s remaining members.

According to Piki, the bill is expected to be submitted to Parliament in the near future.

 

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.