Misplaced indignation

Date: 08/10/1998

EUROPEAN Commission President Jacques Santer's pledge this week to draw up plans for a new independent office to investigate allegations of fraud by EU officials is welcome, but long overdue.

Santer expressed indignation during his speech to the European Parliament over MEPs' claims that the Commission had a tendency to cover up cases of corruption in its own ranks, saying: “I take this as a personal attack which I absolutely refute and which is not borne out by the facts.”

No doubt the Commission president personalised the issue deliberately in an attempt to fend off further criticism. But if he is truly offended, then he has only himself to blame - not because of any wrongdoing on his part but because it is self-evident that any institution which chooses to investigate allegations of misconduct involving its own staff internally is bound to face accusations of a cover-up.

No matter how free a reign the Commission's anti-fraud unit, UCLAF, is given to pursue its investigations, the fact that its staff are being asked to probe the activities of their colleagues - and sometimes superiors - means that their findings will always be greeted with scepticism. Handing over responsibility for such investigations to an outside body is the only way to avoid this in future, and restore public confidence in the system.

That is why Santer is wrong to be so indignant about the accusations levelled at his institution by the Parliament - not least because, without them, it is unlikely that the Commission would have taken the step it is now contemplating - and why he must move swiftly to turn his pledge into firm proposals for action.

The Commission president is, however, right to stress the need to avoid “blind, unsubstantiated witch-hunts”, and to underline the importance of protecting the rights of individuals who have not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

He is also right to appeal for the issue to be discussed in a “calmer climate” than has been the case in the past, and to stress the difference between financial mismanagement and deliberate fraud. It is a distinction which is often overlooked in media reports on the problem; an omission which gives a misleading impression of the extent of genuine misconduct.

But none of this can be used as an excuse for failing to respond to the Parliament's demands. MEPs made it clear this week that while they welcomed Santer's pledge, they wanted to see this translated into concrete action before lifting their threat to refuse to discharge the Commission's accounts for 1996, and set a 1 December deadline for the president to come forward with firm proposals.

They are right to do so. Any delay would only reinforce the impression that the Commission has something to hide.