Dispute over Taiwan trips

Date: 28/03/1996

By Rory Watson

THE decision by a small handful of MEPs to travel to Taiwan to monitor last weekend's elections is prompting calls for the first serious review of the way parliamentarians handle travel invitations from external organisations and third country governments.

The visit by a number of MEPs, including British and Dutch Socialists, has been strongly criticised by several senior members of the Socialist group, including its leader Pauline Green.

The Parliament's Christian Democrat group also questioned the wisdom of accepting the Taiwanese invitation and stipulated that any members who went should not accept expenses paid for by Taipei.

“The problem with trips such as these is that they involve MEPs in their personal capacity. They have no official parliamentary backing or approval, and yet are sometimes presented as if they have. And if they involve no budgetary costs to either the Parliament or the political group, you often do not know about them,” argued one senior source.

Critics accept that it would be unrealistic to ban the practice. However, they insist greater openness and transparency in parliamentary business is needed and will argue in the coming months that the trips should be logged in a new MEPs' register.

Such visits can sometimes cut across official parliamentary policy. But what many Euro MPs consider more dangerous is the possibility that members may vote on an issue of direct relevance to their hosts without indicating to their colleagues or the public whether they have received any hospitality from them.

“It is very difficult when you have several hundred MEPs and the world is wide open. After all, you cannot stop people doing things in their free time, but if that impinges on their political judgement, then that is a different story,” said one senior official.

The issue was last raised before the December parliamentary vote on a customs union with Turkey as scores of MEPs visited the country. Other governments, ranging from Canadian to Indonesian, also issue such invitations, as do various non-governmental organisations, particularly environmental ones.

“We think it can help open people's eyes and we like to encourage constructive areas of cooperation,” said a senior Canadian diplomat, explaining the invitation accepted by MEPs last July to examine his country's forestry and trapping policies.

Neither the Parliament nor individual political groups have a clearly-defined policy for handling invitations.

British Labour MEP Glyn Ford, who has been leading moves to establish clear rules for lobbyists, explains what would have happened if MEPs had not rejected plans tabled earlier this year. “It is quite clear that if the new register had been in place, the trip to Taiwan would not have been illegal, but it would have had to be recorded,” he said.

Gijs de Vries, the Dutch leader of the Liberal group, is a strong advocate of tighter rules. He was one of the many MEPs who travelled to Turkey last year, but stresses the visit was financed from the 3,000-ecu annual allowance MEPs are entitled to claim for information trips.

“I paid for my own travel. That is what it is for. It is a very good mechanism as it enables you to engage in fact-finding across frontiers inside or outside the Union. I absolutely refuse, on grounds of principle, to accept paid invitations from foreign governments. I am going to Israel soon and will pay my own way,” said De Vries.

The Liberal leader wants to use negotiations on tightening up the existing MEPs' register of outside interests to ensure that all members declare any travel hospitality they have received.

Many Christian Democrats also admit to a sense of unease when faced with such invitations.

“This is a very grey area, especially if the trip influences your attitude. A big majority of the group feels it is unwise to accept a government invitation when it offers to pay for the trip,” said one senior group official.