Politicians clean up their act

Date: 11/01/1996

POLITICIANS are generally not held in high regard by the public. This scepticism is nothing new, but has been fuelled in recent years by a spate of scandals involving elected representatives in several European countries.

The most dramatic examples come from Italy, where a series of high-profile investigations have examined illegal links between the political and business communities.

In France, allegations that politicians and other well-placed individuals have been renting property owned by the city at well below market rates recently persuaded the Paris council to sell off its flats.

In the UK, a new word - 'sleaze' - has entered the language to describe dubious business dealings by politicians. In a bid to clear the air, the British parliament approved a comprehensive set of rules late last year designed to ensure there is a clear dividing line between members' political undertakings and other activities.

The overall mood in Europe was captured shortly before Christmas by Irish Minister Eithne Fitzgerald when she told her fellow deputies in the Dail: “Last week, I heard a radio show where a singer was asked who he'd least like to share a taxi with. His answer was 'any politician'.”

Fitzgerald's confession that she and her colleagues belonged to a discredited profession came as she introduced Ireland's new Ethics in Public Office Act, which sets out for the first time rules on the disclosure of members' interests. “It is important in strengthening trust in our democracy. It is important for confidence in our public service and the wider public sector. It sets out to put the facts, and not the myths, on the record. It establishes the principle of openness in addressing any potential conflicts of interest. It sets out a framework where the conduct of public business and the private interests of people in public positions are seen to be kept as separate,” she explained.

The same principles run through the latest attempts by the European Parliament to inject greater openness into its own activities. After several years of agonising, the proposals are due to be considered by MEPs at next week's Strasbourg plenary session.

No one would suggest any wrongdoing by MEPs, but there is a growing view that tighter rules are needed to avoid any misunderstandings or ambiguous behaviour and to demonstrate to the electorate at large that MEPs have nothing to hide.

Impetus for the changes comes partly from a general desire to banish the scepticism that hangs over the political world. But, unlike national legislatures, the European Parliament is increasing in size, taking on board members with different cultures on what are permissible outside interests.

It is also gaining power and becoming more of a focus for outside lobbyists, whether they represent business, governments, campaigning groups or non-governmental organisations. This has reinforced the drive for comprehensive and clear rules.

Few would argue the present arrangements are satisfactory. Currently, MEPs are asked to make a detailed declaration of their professional activities and any other paid functions. Most simply write 'None', or put a line through the two questions. A few, mainly British and Dutch, list various directorships.

Members must also disclose whether they have any direct financial interest in issues being debated. Declarations are occasionally made, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Finally, the register is almost totally inaccessible to the public. Only two copies of the loose-leaf files which house the one-page statements on individual financial interests exist. One is kept in Brussels and transported to Strasbourg for plenary sessions. The other is in Luxembourg.

Dutch Socialist MEP Alman Metten has taken a keen interest in MEPs' outside interests and the role of lobbyists. He believes one practical way of ensuring that the register is filled-in accurately and kept up to date is for MEPs themselves to police it.

“The information should be available on computer, then, when a member takes part in a debate, it would be possible to call up his or her details in the register,” he explains.

The unspoken hint is that MEPs with undeclared outside interests might be challenged more easily if the register were more accessible. The other gap spotted by critics of the present system is the absence of any responsibility on MEPs to detail any gifts or benefits in kind they receive. In particular, they point to trips paid for by foreign governments, many of which are extremely sensitive to critical resolutions passed by the Parliament.

“We do not want to stop people having outside interests and you cannot prevent them going on foreign trips. But at least we ought to know if they have such links,” says one MEP.

Efforts to tighten up the parliamentary register dovetail with attempts to establish, for the first time, a clear code of conduct for lobbyists who seek to inform and influence MEPs as they consider internal EU legislation and external agreements.

Previous efforts foundered as MEPs became entangled in trying to agree a definition of the term 'lobbyist'. British Socialist MEP Glyn Ford, preparing the proposals, has succeeded in avoiding this pitfall by suggesting the rules would apply to anyone wishing “to enter Parliament frequently with a view to supplying information to members”.

If it approves the proposals for a lobbyist register, code of conduct and annual declarations, the European Parliament would be one of the few in the Union to implement specific rules and provisions for interest groups. According to research carried out for MEPs, only the German Bundestag insists such groups be entered in a register, which is published annually. The Danish parliament gives de facto recognition to interest groups, which may be heard by parliamentary committees.

A recurring complaint from MEPs is that some lobbyists have occasionally been over-zealous, picking up documents and leaving none for the members themselves. Lobbyists and public affairs consultants, aware of some of the criticism, have already established their own voluntary code of conduct which has been endorsed by 29 of the main firms involved in the field in Brussels. For these, Ford's proposals present few difficulties.

Paul Adamson of Adamson Associates says: “I like the approach he has taken. It is not too bureaucratic. It helps to make things clear, but the code of conduct is no more than we are doing at the moment.”

For their part, though, lobbyists and other interest groups who converge on the Parliament are now looking to the institution to organise an efficient system for distributing parliamentary papers and documents which outside groups want to bring to MEPs' attention.

Not everyone supports the moves towards greater openness and there are suggestions that a number of MEPs want to put proposals for a register of interests on the back burner. They will try to do so next week by arguing that the proposals should be referred back to the rules committee for more work.

If they succeed, it would set back the Parliament's efforts to present a more demonstrably clean image to the public and undermine its campaign for a greater role in EU affairs after this year's Intergovernmental Conference.