MEP urges ‘intergroups’ to become more accountable

Date: 27/02/1997

By Rory Watson

THE dozens of all-party interest groups in the European Parliament have the capacity to stir up strong emotions.

To their critics, these so-called intergroups are shadowy bodies through which lobbyists and outside interests champion their causes with MEPs. To their supporters, they are valid democratic organisations which can play a useful informal role in policy development.

But there is no doubting the popularity of the groups, which enable MEPs to cross party divisions and meet to promote shared political interests. At the last count, 45 intergroups had been registered, although close Parliament watchers believe the true number is considerably higher.

The groups come in various shapes and sizes.

Some reflect MEPs' own personal interests: rugby league and golf. Others focus on particular parts of the world: Cuba, Tibet, East Timor and Morocco. A third set are concerned with specific themes: animal welfare, land-use and food policy. Yet more promote issues on the fringes of mainstream EU business: cycling, complementary medicine and minority languages.

An investigation launched by UK Socialist MEP Shaun Spiers is now aiming to end confusion over the role and activities of intergroups by tightening up the rules governing the way they are financed and operate.

Spiers is a firm believer in the usefulness of these cross-party groups, but accepts that greater transparency in their activities is required.

“Intergroups enable MEPs to debate areas of public concern which are not covered by official committees or are not serious enough to justify a debate in the hemi-cycle. The largest and most influential intergroups are attended by Commissioners, which gives an opportunity for members to raise issues and ask questions without the constraints of a formal parliamentary procedure,” he points out in a draft report now being examined by the rules committee.

The Socialist MEP is organising a hearing of those involved in mid-April before presenting draft rules aimed at ensuring particular outside interests do not use the intergroups to gain undue influence in the Parliament without MEPs and the public being able to monitor that influence.

“My main concern is that things should be transparent. At the moment, there is not even a definition of an intergroup. The minutes and attendance of intergroups' formal meetings should be made public and the rules on the declaration of financial support should be tightened up,” explains Spiers.

Some intergroups, such as those dealing with ageing, disability, land-use and the North Sea, confirm that they receive outside funding. But others do not and Spiers is determined to ensure that all groups which receive support in kind via secretarial assistance and so on should acknowledge this publicly.

“The wine intergroup says it does not receive any funding, but it has tastings. Who funds these and where does the wine come from?” he asks.

The move towards greater transparency is supported by many of those outside the Parliament involved in the intergroups.

“There has been a huge growth in these groups in recent years. We very much support moves to make them transparent. It is very important to know who is providing backing for them,” said a spokeswoman for the pan-European consumer organisation BEUC, which provides administrative support for the consumer forum intergroup.

This is not the first time the Parliament has moved to put some order into this largely unregulated area of MEPs' activity.

Just under two years ago, political group leaders laid down a number of general principles.

These stipulated that intergroups should implement parliamentary rules on declaration of financial interests and the behaviour of lobbyists, publish their office bearers and any sources of funding, and avoid sowing confusion between themselves and official parliamentary bodies such as committees and interparliamentary delegations.

Some MEPs feel the existing investigation does not go far enough. They believe it should also consider the heavy demands which intergroups make on the Parliament's resources, especially in their use of interpreters and meeting rooms.

Spiers acknowledges these burdens, but believes that if they are better handled, the intergroups could function more efficiently. “I have heard of one intergroup which has had to cancel three meetings in a row in Strasbourg because it could not get a room. Think of the unnecessary costs involved for those other than MEPs travelling to the city for those abortive meetings,” he says.

Intergroups are not merely a European Parliament phenomenon. But apart from the UK and France, national rules on such bodies are either non-existent or relatively undeveloped.