Vote on interests splits MEPs

Date: 23/05/1996

By Rory Watson

MEPS will be asked next week to support internal rule changes which would prevent them from voting on issues in which they have a direct personal financial interest.

The proposal is among a range of ideas to tighten up existing behaviour and shed more light on the outside activities of Euro MPs. Parallel efforts are being made to introduce official guidelines for the first time to govern the activities of the growing army of lobbyists seeking to influence EU legislation.

Supporters of both initiatives insist they are necessary to guarantee the European Parliament's credibility and want them approved before the summer recess. This would go a long way towards repairing the damage done when MEPs failed to approve earlier proposals for new rules governing their behaviour and that of lobbyists at their plenary session in January.

But the issues involved continue to generate fierce debate among MEPs.

“If the Parliament votes No again, then a lot of attention will be paid to us. Ninety-eight per cent of members have nothing to hide. I want everything to be open and to be seen to be above board,” said British Labour MEP Glyn Ford, who is drafting the new rules for lobbyists.

In the absence of a Euro-statute for MEPs, one idea put forward to reconcile the many different traditions in the Union is for members to follow their own national practices.

French Liberal Euro MP Jean-Thomas Nordmann will offer this as a means of meeting demands for members to divulge their movable and immovable assets when the Parliament's rules committee examines his report on MEPs' financial interests on 29 and 30 May.

Despite the different obligations this would place on MEPs, most appear to accept it as the only way out of one of the political minefields ahead. But there is less consensus on the ethics of MEPs accepting gifts or favours. French members, reflecting a national policy applicable

to all France's elected representatives, argue that all gifts should be forbidden. Others say it would be ridiculous if cups of coffee offered by outsiders had to be refused or free calendars returned.

Opponents of the restrictions may try to resurrect one of the hurdles which led to the project's downfall in January by proposing a financial ceiling below which gifts would be acceptable.

MEPs adopting a pragmatic approach believe that their new code of conduct should establish general principles of behaviour, including a basic rule of no gifts for members and staff, but leave their detailed interpretation to the Parliament's business managers and political group leaders.

Whatever new rules MEPs may have to follow, there is growing pressure for their register of interests to be more widely accessible. Disciples of more openness want to see it made available to the public in all the Parliament's EU offices, ending the current practice of making it available for scutiny only in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. But they face opposition from many who argue that every request must be well-founded and cleared by the Parliament's business managers before access is granted.

The degree of support for the respective camps will become clear when the Parliament's rules committee examines Nordmann's report.

The outcome of next week's meeting will have a direct bearing on the shape of Ford's report on lobbyists. He is pressing for the code of conduct which the Parliament's quaestors now apply to lobbyists on a de facto basis to become an established principle, and wants outside consultants to sign a register in exchange for regular access to the institution.

Ford's Socialist colleague Alex Falconer is even suggesting that the register should include detailed biographies of employees working for consultancies.

And in a move which might provoke hostility from parliamentary staff, Ford is also advocating the introduction of a requirement for parliamentary visitors to wear badges denoting the degree of access they should be allowed. “It is a sensible security precaution,” he insists.

Ford's report will be considered by the rules committee on 10 and 11 June in the hope that it can be tabled, along with the Nordmann report, for consideration by the full Parliament at its June or July plenary session.