Post-Qatargate Euro Chamber ethics reform: concerns remain

Brussels – A year ago, in a Strasbourg Chamber, stunned by reports coming from Belgian prosecutors about cases of alleged corruption within the Euro Chamber, President Roberta Metsola
promised a reform plan to avert a new Qatargate. In record time, on November 1,  changes to the rules of procedure in the European Parliament were put into effect. But even in the EU institutions, some still have doubts.

The alarm comes from Strasbourg, home of the European Ombudsman (Ombudsman), an independent figure investigating complaints about maladministration by EU institutions or other bodies. Emily O’Reilly, who has been closely following the reform process focused on the 14 points proposed by Metsola, said she is
“concerned about the implementation and enforcement” of the rules approved by the EU hemicycle on Sept. 13.

“A credible ethics framework requires adequate resources, rigorous implementation, and enforcement, but it is not yet clear that these elements are in place,” O’Reilly said. The main issue, the EU ombudswoman noted, is that “the basic framework for the regulation of ethical conduct by MEPs has remained unchanged.” That is, it still provides that the interpretation and application of the Code of Conduct remains the responsibility of the Members of the House themselves, as do any sanctions for violations of the Code, which are based on recommendations provided by an advisory committee composed entirely of MEPs.

Three issues that are of particular concern. O’Reilly highlights the risk of cosmetic reform: “It is unclear,” he points out, “how Parliament will monitor and enforce the new rules,” for example, the cooling off period planned for MEPs at the end of their term and the requirement to record meetings with lobbyists. Second, while underlining the more “proactive” role given to the internal committee that monitors compliance with the code of conduct, “some details remain unclear, including how in practice the committee will receive and act on reports regarding alleged wrongdoing.”

O’Reilly finally brings up a contradiction in the “inadequate transparency” of the reform process to ensure greater transparency. Focus on the decisions taken by the office of the Eurochamber presidency: “In the future, the public should be able to scrutinize internal decisions of significant public interest,” the EU Ombudswoman suggested.

EU Commission tightens the grip on third country interference

Meanwhile, the European Commission will add another brick to the wall the EU institutions are trying to erect against external interference and corruption. After the Interinstitutional Ethics Committee, criticized by several political groups over the lack of investigative and sanctioning powers, tomorrow (Dec. 12), the EU executive vice-president Vera Jourová will unveil a new legislative package on “Defending Democracy”: in addition to various measures to promote free and fair elections, intensify the fight against disinformation, and support media freedom and pluralism, the lion’s share is expected to be taken up by the chapter devoted to new rules to increasing the transparency of lobbying in EU decision-making processes. With an explicit reference to “activities carried out on behalf of third countries.”

The European institutions’ attempt to clean up their image, tarnished by the media coverage of Qatargate, is a race against time. Because in June, EU citizens are called to the polls to renew the EU Parliament. “The Qatargate scandal has undermined the reputation of the European Parliament in the eyes of many EU citizens. Ahead of next year’s European elections, the Parliament must show that it is doing everything in its power to protect its integrity and credibility,” Emily O’Reilly warned.