Bjerregaard diary furore puts focus on interests

Date: 26/10/1995

By Rory Watson

THE behaviour of Danish Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard has provided entertainment and embarrassment in equal measure in recent weeks.

Her decision yesterday (25 October) to withdraw her controversial Brussels diary may be a belated damage limitation exercise under pressure from her colleagues, but it has added fuel to the more serious debate on what rules should apply to European Commissioners' activities.

The lead is already being taken by the European Parliament, which is preparing to adopt new, more stringent rules on the outside interests of its own members and on their contacts with lobbyists.

Dutch Socialist MEP Alman Metten said this week: “When we have done that, probably in December, we will be in a better position to ask the Commission to do at least what we do and make it transparent as well.”

This week MEPs in Strasbourg also demonstrated how their considerable budgetary powers can be used to shed light on Commissioners' behaviour.

They threatened to freeze the Commissioners' travel and subsistence funds for next year unless provided with full information by mid-December of any payments and expenses they received during 1995 for attending, in their official capacity, events held by outside organisations, institutions and bodies.

At the moment, the 19 Commissioners must inform President Santer of any outside interests they might have, to ensure these do not conflict with their obligation to be “completely independent in the performance of their duties”.

The existence of the register was only uncovered by Metten's British Socialist colleague Glyn Ford earlier this year. He was also told it could be seen by just two people: Santer himself and Commission Secretary-General David Williamson.

“If you cannot see it then it is not worth the paper it is written on. It should be available for consultation like the register of MEPs' interests,” insists Ford.

One recent Commissioner confirmed this week: “I do not remember seeing any guidelines about outside activities. But I think anyone with ministerial experience would understand that you should not accept gifts.

“The guidelines require that any gifts above a certain value should be reported to the secretary-general. I think it is obvious that if you accept money or gifts in kind from people trying to influence your decision on something or put you under some obligation then that should not be allowed. Basically, it is a question of ethics.”

But considerable confusion surrounds what Commissioners can and cannot do, in sharp contrast to the almost crystal clear rules which apply to officials and other Commission staff.

The furore which has surrounded two recent books - Bjerregaard's Brussels diary and suspended senior Commission official Bernard Connolly's critique of a single currency - demonstrates the dilemma.

Article 17 of the European Union's staff regulations clearly states that officials must receive the authorisation of their superior before publishing any text. This may only be refused if the publication would put the Union's interests at risk.

Irrespective of the contents of both books, Connolly has been suspended on the grounds that he failed to request that authorisation. This week Santer admitted he had not received any information about Bjerregaard's book before extracts appeared in the Danish media.

The Commission is now coming under pressure to introduce greater clarity into the outside activities of its members - a clarity which, supporters say, would set out what was permissible, remove grey areas and help avoid public embarrassment.

One staff union representative commented: “The Commission, especially Erkki Liikanen - is leading a call for rigour and transparency. The staff would like to see the same rules apply to those at the head.”

According to one of the institution's most senior officials: “I generally understand that these rules should apply to Commissioners as well. If an official gives a lecture or writes an article and payment is involved, he needs permission. This is to guarantee their integrity and so logically the same rules should apply to Commissioners.”

Over the years it has invariably taken outside pressure to clarify the regulations surrounding Commissioners' activities.

In the early 1980s, a highly critical report by the Court of Auditors led to a tightening up of Commissioners' expenses.

More recently Metten convinced the Commission to review the practice of former members becoming senior lobbyists once they vacated their positions at the institution.

“We were witnessing a revolving door whereby ex-Commissioners became head of certain lobby bureaus where they lobbied their former colleagues. I asked questions about this, but the official answer I received was that the Commission had rules and that these were satisfactory.”

A month later, however, Metten received a personal letter from Williamson informing him that the Commission had decided to examine the situation to see if the rules needed to be improved or better enforced.