Call for greater power by inquiry committees

Date: 10/10/1996

By Michael Mann

IF they are to work effectively, the European Parliament's committees of inquiry must have the right to insist that witnesses appear, and be guaranteed improved and automatic access to documents.

These are the clear conclusions emerging from the committee investigating the Union's handling of the BSE crisis as the MEPs' investigation reaches the half-way stage.

Committee members have been particularly upset by the UK government's decision to send civil servant Richard Packer to give evidence in place of Agriculture Minister Douglas Hogg.

“Anyone who comes in front of the committee does so voluntarily. They are not required to give evidence and supporting documents, and can request a closed session,” said British Socialist MEP Philip Whitehead, adding: “We have to have the power to call for persons and papers as a House of Commons committee would.”

An official involved in coordinating the committee's work supported this view, claiming that “our inability to obtain the necessary documents automatically impedes our work, which is slow enough anyway because of the mechanics of the Parliament”.

Given the volume of paper the committee is ploughing through and the growing list of potential witnesses, some committee members feel there may be a need to extend their inquiry beyond the initial 17 November deadline.

Strictly speaking, the inquiry can last for up to a year, but officials say that in this case, there is a strong political will to “keep things short”.

This week's cross-examination of a number of scientific experts marked the first stage in the committee's attempts to gauge whether politicians and civil servants who have testified really did, as they maintain, act correctly on the basis of the scientific knowledge available to them.

But, with their suspicions already aroused, MEPs will decide at next week's session whether to invite along a list of notables including former Agriculture Commissioners Ray MacSharry and René Steichen and former Commission President Jacques Delors.

Already lined up for the hearing on 21 October is former Directorate-General III (industry) boss Ricardo Perissich, the official whose correspondence with his agricultural counterpart Guy Legras sparked the recent accusations of a Commission cover-up.

Although unwilling to be drawn before rapporteur Manuel Medina Ortega has put together his conclusions, committee members point out that there was a significant gap in Commission action to combat BSE between 1991 and 1994, even though up to 90,000 cases of the disease were recorded in the UK during that period.

“There is simply a black hole, and we think there is a link with the priority the Commission was giving to the completion of the single market. There were just 12 inspectors, who concentrated on inspecting slaughterhouses rather than dealing with BSE,” said an official on the committee, stressing that future sessions would have to find out who had made that decision.

The infamous Legras memorandum and a similar decision within DGV (public health) not to contradict policies coming out of DGVI (agriculture) have led a number of MEPs to suspect mismanagement of the crisis.

There are also suggestions that the various scientific committees charged with monitoring the disease were far from independent of political influence.

“The composition of the Scientific Veterinary Committee was changed after one controversial note was submitted, and the Commission changed the chairmanship of the Standing Veterinary Committee at one point, putting in Deputy Director-General Mansito,” said an official.

“If this is Medina Ortega's conclusion, we will certainly make a recommendation to ensure that it is not repeated. The committee itself is not entitled to propose a draft resolution, but it could be taken up by a political group.”

Whitehead believes that Commission President Jacques Santer could be forced into insisting on more stringent internal procedures.

“He has been made to look foolish by his denials that officials downplayed evidence. He will not want to be made to look foolish again,” he said.

But however the Commission decides to react to whatever report is finally adopted by the full Parliament, everyone involved in the committee is convinced that the procedure is, and will continue to be, a useful exercise.

“It can shed a lot of light on what has happened in the past and also serve as a warning to officials. They will now be aware that if they are not prudent, they could be faced with answering to a committee of inquiry,” said an official.