Photo by Bench Accounting via Unsplash

An in-depth look at the European Parliament’s new ethics package

Author
Daniel Freund
Date
13 December, 2016
Type
Article
Share

Limited progress on European Parliament ethics package

The European Parliament voted today a package of over 400 changes to the Parliament’s internal rules of procedure. The Corbett report seeks to streamline parliamentary processes and make the inner workings more effective. On the initial ambition of the report to overhaul the Parliament’s ethics rules in light of recent scandals the report brings only limited progress.

Transparency International EU had made detailed recommendations based on international best practice on how to reform the Parliament’s ethics rules. Our three main recommendations were to:

  • Increase lobby transparency in the European Parliament
  • Require MEPs to publish more detailed information on outside activities to allow a meaningful monitoring of potential conflicts of interest, particularly where MEPs have outside activities with registered lobby organisations
  • Make the oversight body (Advisory Committee) more independent and allow it to sanction members in case of violation of the Code

Increasing lobby transparency in the European Parliament

There are some real improvements in the area of lobby transparency. MEPs approved that they should only meet with those lobbyists on the EU Transparency Register. They also banned themselves from working as lobbyists while in office. It is unclear, however, if holding board positions with registered lobby organisations will be considered lobbying for example.

158 or 21% of MEPs currently have paid outside activities. 50 earn in excess of 20,000 EUR per year on the side. Seven MEPs are currently working for organisations registered in the EU lobby register, mostly in board positions. Transparency International EU recommended to ban any paid employment with organisations that are lobbying the EU institutions. Members should also no longer receive payments for any board memberships or speaking engagements, as these can bear high risks of undue influence.

MEPs that are currently employed by organisations on the EU Transparency Register:

Name Committees Outside Activity Employer Source
Hans-Olaf HENKEL ITRE, DROI Board member Continental http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124823
Viviane Reding INTA Board member Bertelsman foundation http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep1185
Robert Rochefort IMCO Administrator Eurotunnel http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep97022
Monika HOHLMEIER BUDG, LIBE Advisory board member BayWa AG http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep96780
Hannu TAKKULA INTA Board member TEOSTO RY http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep28316
Sylvie GOULARD ECON Board member Institut für Europäische Politik http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep97137
Albert DESS AGRI Board member BayWa r.e. Solar Projects GmbH http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep28228

Transparency International EU had also recommended that MEPs publish their meetings with lobbyists online. Similar rules already apply to European Commissioners and their closest advisors.           

More detailed declarations of financial interests

Following the Cash-for-Amendments scandal in 2011 the European Parliament introduced a Code of Conduct. The Code allows members to exercise outside activities, but all activities have to be declared in a declaration of financial interest. These declarations should allow the public to monitor MEPs’ activities for potential conflicts of interest.

Transparency International EU has been closely monitoring these outside activities. Our online tool EU Integrity Watch provides details on the almost 1,200 side activities of MEPs and the yearly outside incomes of 4.3 to 10.8 million euros. Dozens of MEPs provide meaningless information in their declarations such as “consultant” or “lawyer” that do not allow to monitor for potential conflicts of interest. Transparency International EU had also recommended to translate the declarations into English and possibly other official languages and make all information available in an easily accessible, searchable and machine-readable format to make it easier for the public to hold their elected officials to account.

Members should also be asked to publish the exact amount of their outside revenues, rather than broad categories such as “1,000-5,000 EUR per month”.

MEPs with descriptions where conflicts of interest cannot be ruled out earning more than 1,000 EUR/month from the activity:

Name Activity € / month Url
Bogdan Brunon WENTA Individual Economic Activity  10,000 or more http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124903
Rachida Dati  Lawyer 10,000 or more http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep72775
Bernard MONOT Senior employee – Economist and Financial 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124761
Edouard FERRAND Wealth Management Advisor 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124767
KOSTAS CHRYSOGONOS Lawyer 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep125061
Paulo RANGEL  Lawyer 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep96903
Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE Chartered Accountant 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124853
Stanislav POLČÁK Lawyer 5,000 – 10,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124704
Alain CADEC Insurance Agent 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep96849
Aymeric CHAUPRADE self-employed 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124752
Davor ŠKRLEC Expertise 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124756
Eleonora FORENZA Temporary employee 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep125193
Javier NART Lawyer 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep125005
Louis ALIOT Lawyer 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep30190
Salvatore CICU Lawyer 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124854
Steven WOOLFE Consultant 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep124966
Takis HADJIGEORGIOU Lawyer 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep96907
Timothy KIRKHOPE Lawyer 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep4542
William DARTMOUTH Consultant for land company 1,000 – 5,000 http://www.integritywatch.eu/ep.html#mep96958

Creating an independent oversight body

When the Code of Conduct entered into force in 2012, the European Parliament also created the Advisory Committee on the Code of Conduct. The Committee assists members that have questions and can issue recommendations to the President in case of violations. Indeed, the committee has made recommendations in 12 cases in which the Code has been breached since its creation. Not a single member, however, has ever been sanctioned by the President of Parliament. The committee is currently composed of five sitting MEPs from the five biggest political groups. This means MEPs are judging on potential ethics violations by their colleagues.

Transparency International EU had recommended to make the committee more independent and less political. The committee should also be able to initiate inquiries (rather than wait for a referral by the president which might never come) and issue binding sanctions in cases in which the Code has been broken. All final decisions by the committee should also be made public. Currently not only deliberations, but also all recommendations are kept secret and cannot even be accessed through access to documents requests long after decisions have been taken.

Introducing a cooling-off period for MEPs

There are currently no restrictions for MEPs upon leaving office. They can start lobbying their former colleagues or staff in the EU institutions the next day. Following the scandal surrounding former Commission President Barroso’s move to Goldman Sachs, on which many MEPs have been quite outspoken, the European Parliament should introduce cooling-off rules for members of Parliament. Transparency International EU had recommended to link the length of the cooling-off rules – during which MEPs should be banned from lobbying the EU institutions or accepting employment that could constitute a conflict of interest – to the period during which MEPs already receive a tax-payer-funded transitional allowance. Such changes would require a modification of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and cannot be achieved through changes to the rules of procedure. Changing the Statute for Members should now be high on the priority list for the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Related Projects

Integrity Watch

EU Integrity Watch is a central hub of online tools that allow citizens, journalists and civil society to monitor the integrity of decisions made by politicians in the EU

Want to know more? Get in touch

Daniel Freund

Head of Advocacy EU Integrity
dfreund@transparency.org