Parliament’s reputation on the line

Date: 11/07/1996

THE long-running debate over MEPs' outside interests and the activities of lobbyists who seek to influence their deliberations is set to come to a head in Strasbourg next week when the Parliament votes on proposals for new rules in both areas.

But now, at the eleventh hour and after months of painstaking work, a dispute over whether it is acceptable for parliamentarians to accept gifts of any kind threatens to dash hopes of agreement yet again.

Anxious to avoid another negative vote on the proposals, as happened in January this year when MEPs debated the issue at a plenary session for the first time, leading parliamentarians are already considering postponing a decision if there is no sign of a consensus emerging in the run-up to next Wednesday's vote.

Their caution is understandable. If MEPs once again reject a set of measures aimed at shedding more light on their outside activities and laying down basic guidelines to govern their behaviour, this will not go down well with the public and will undermine the Parliament's oft-repeated calls for greater openness and transparency in other EU institutions.

But simply ducking the question by failing to put the issue to a vote will not go down well either. As European Voice has warned on this page before, failure to agree on the new rules - whether by voting to reject them or by simply delaying a decision - will give the impression that MEPs have something to hide and that this is their prime motive in refusing to establish formal rules to govern their activities.

All the Parliament's political leaders have a responsibility to themselves, their parties and the voters they are elected to serve to ensure that this does not happen. It is time for them to deliver a stark warning to their members about the consequences of failing to approve the new rules, and to work around the clock in the run-up to next week's vote to find a compromise acceptable to all - instead of holding out the prospect that the vote will be delayed if they cannot agree.

That will simply encourage those on both sides of the debate to stick to their guns, as those experienced in getting member states to reach agreement on particular contentious proposals for EU legislation in the Council of Ministers know only too well.

For it is only when politicians, be they MEPs or ministers, have no option but to make a choice - and face the consequences - that apparently unbridgeable differences of opinion are reconciled.

None of the Parliament's 626 members should be under any illusion about the damage they will do to their reputations if they fail to take a decision next week on the rules to govern their own behaviour.

Nor should they allow the relatively uncontentious proposals for new rules to govern the activities of lobbyists to be shelved once again because they cannot agree to put their own house in order.

The public expects and deserves more of its elected politicians.

All the Parliament's hard work since the Maastricht Treaty came into force to demonstrate its growing maturity and its ability to use the additional powers MEPs were given by the treaty wisely will be seriously undermined if it fails to reach agreement on this crucial issue before the summer break.