Saturday

30th Jul 2016

Opinion

EU parliament boycotts transparency check

  • It took parliament President Martin Schultz's office seven months to address a request for transparency, and the answer was No (Photo: Parti Socialiste)

When the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs committee voted on changes to the EU lobby register (18 March), it explicitly noted its support for transparency NGOs.

"The European Parliament … welcomes and encourages the role played by non-institutional watchdogs in monitoring the transparency of the EU Institutions,” it said.

Dear EUobserver reader

Subscribe now for unrestricted access to EUobserver.

Sign up for 30 days' free trial, no obligation. Full subscription only 15 € / month or 150 € / year.

  1. Unlimited access on desktop and mobile
  2. All premium articles, analysis, commentary and investigations
  3. EUobserver archives

EUobserver is the only independent news media covering EU affairs in Brussels and all 28 member states.

♡ We value your support.

If you already have an account click here to login.

Noble sentiments indeed and there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the committee's members, or the hundreds of MEPs who will most likely endorse this report when the plenary vote takes place in Strasbourg on Tuesday (15 April).

Sadly, these sentiments are not universally shared within the parliament, or, at least, not by those MEPs who are responsible for organising its internal affairs.

Last summer, Transparency International (TI) EU started the research for its study of the EU integrity system, which assesses the transparency, accountability and integrity of 10 EU institutions.

The study looks at the rules in place, but also how those rules are observed in practice. To do it properly it meant interviewing those people responsible for enforcing these rules in each institution.

All the institutions responded positively, with one striking exception – the European Parliament.

Delays, prevarications, silences

The initial request for interviews was directed to the secretary general of the parliament, Klaus Welle, back in July 2013. It was met with a series of delays, prevarications and long silences.

Last December, with time running out, we took the step of writing directly to the parliament’s governing body, the Bureau, pleading with them to look again at our request.

The parliament was even offered the opportunity to review the research findings before publication, in view of the short amount of time left.

A response from the President’s office finally came in February. It was a resounding No. The reasoning behind that refusal is so curious that it is worth reprinting in its entirety here.

There are a number of points worth noting in this short letter.

Firstly, look at the delay between the first request (as acknowledged in the text) and the date marked on the letterhead – a full seven months. Not a great result for an institution that aspires to be responsive to EU citizens' concerns.

Secondly, and peculiarly, the word integrity is placed in scare quotes, as if the authors of the letter were unsure what this means.

Thirdly, the claim that “comprehensive information and documentation has been sent to you” is slightly misleading. Transparency International received the information following access to document requests made through formal channels.

Fourthly, it cites a long list of committees and institutions that monitor the parliament's affairs, but fails to acknowledge that the same is true of the other EU institutions that did acquiesce to interviews.

Finally, there is a rather baffling passage which appears to suggest that as the parliament's internal bureaucracy is purely at the service of the political arm, that is a good reason why it should not talk to an NGO concerned with transparency and accountability.

It is possible to accept that this is parliament’s final word on the matter.

What is not possible to accept is that this is a full account of the reasons why the parliament refused to cooperate.

This is not merely speculation. A preparatory note for the meeting where the Bureau made its decision is worth quoting in full:

Too ‘political’ and too close to EU elections

"The request for co-operation and holding of interviews goes beyond normal administrative proceedings of the secretariat-general and the study could be considered as an audit of parliament, comparing it to other institutions (instead of comparing the parliament with national parliaments).

"The main focus is on members and the institutions' approach to 'integrity'. The objective of the study is political in nature and is likely to have a political impact on the Institution, taking into account past studies by TI in relation to members states and the chosen date of publication just before the European elections.

"The institutions approached by TI have all reacted differently. Documentation sent by arliament to TI so far does not seem to satisfy TI's purposes. It should also be pointed out that co-operating with TI should not create a precedent which could be invoked by other NGOs in order to carry out similar exercises. The president has been informed of the matter in November and has decided to put the issue to the Bureau."

Translation: This is not in our job description. We disagree with the approach taken by the study. We are unsure what "integrity" means.

What can one say about this unfortunate state of affairs?

Fortunately, it is not representative of the vast majority of MEPs, assistant and officials we work with on a day-to-day basis.

And over the last five years the parliament has helped to push major anti-corruption and transparency reforms in the oil and gas sector and in anti-money laundering legislation.

As an anti-corruption organisation, we talk a lot about 'tone from the top' and how that impacts on the values and behaviour of an organisation, making it clear that the rules apply to everyone with no exceptions. In this case, the tone is decidedly off-key.

We can only hope that the next parliament changes its tune.

The writer is director of Transparency International's EU office. The EU integrity system will be published later this month. A version of this article was originally published on the TI website.

Column / Brexit Briefing

Brexit plans missing in action

The Brexit referendum has created an almighty political and economic mess, with little sign of a British or EU plan to clean things up.

Opinion

Brexit seed was planted in 2004

The clause allowing a member state to leave the EU was introduced at a time of prosperity. EU leaders should not repeat the mistake and use the crisis to reinforce eurozone membership.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Counter BalanceThe Trans Adriatic Pipeline: An Opportunity or a Scam in the Making for Albania?
  2. Dialogue PlatformFethullah Gulen: I Condemn All Threats to Turkey's Democracy
  3. GoogleHelping Emergency Services Find You When You Need It Most
  4. Counter BalanceWhat's New in the Investment Plan for Europe: Business as Usual or True Innovation ?
  5. Belgrade Security ForumMigration, Security and Solidarity within Global Disorder: Academic Event 2016
  6. GoogleHow Google Fights Piracy: Creating Value While Fighting Piracy
  7. EJC"My Visit to Israel" - Opinion by MEP Lopez Aguilar, Chair of the EP Working Group on Antisemitism
  8. World VisionChildren Migrating, Out of School and at Work as Hunger Deepens in Southern Africa
  9. European Healthy Lifestyle AllianceStand-Up (and Exercise) to Prevent Chronic Diseases
  10. Centre Maurits CoppietersLaunches a Real-time News Hub Specialised in EU Stakeholders
  11. GoogleEU-US Privacy Shield: Restoring Faith in Data Flows and Transatlantic Relations
  12. World VisionWorld Leaders & Youth Advocates Launch Partnership to End Violence Vs. Children

Latest News

  1. EU encouraged car industry to cheat, French report says
  2. Terrorism and migration top EU public's concern
  3. Spain's Rajoy warns of minority rule
  4. Car lobby complained about emissions tampering by others
  5. Critical IMF report heralds new Greek bailout battle
  6. EU free movement must be curbed, UK says
  7. EU political pressure alone cannot save the rule of law
  8. Merkel: Attacks won't change refugee policy