The EU’s role in the fight against corruption
Address to Transparency International global conference, Brussels, 7 December 2017
I have been following the work of Transparency International for many years through my former role as Irish Ombudsman and Freedom of Information Commissioner, and now as European Ombudsman. I commend you for the vital work you do in shining the spotlight on corruption in Europe and around the world.
This conference is looking at a pervasive issue, which despite some undeniable progress, continues to be a major problem for our political systems and, ultimately, our societies.
In the current challenging context, with public confidence in our democratic institutions under pressure, there is an even greater responsibility on politicians and public officials to ensure that they are beyond reproach in how they conduct themselves in office.
At the same time, the public is being constantly confronted with new examples, which raise serious questions.
Recent revelations in relation to large scale tax avoidance have revealed examples not only of 1000s of private individuals and companies but also of some prominent politicians and public officials who have managed their finances in a manner that can be considered ethically questionable at best. In some of the cases, the perception of conflicts of interests appears unavoidable.
EU level action on corruption
Since the Commission presented its Anti-Corruption Communication in 2011, the EU’s report card has been mixed.
The EU Anti-Corruption Report, which emerged as a central action from that Communication, assessed the state of play in the Member States and made concrete recommendations on how to address issues identified. While somewhat undermined by the failure to assess the EU institutions themselves, the report was nonetheless an important concrete initiative on corruption at EU level.
Unfortunately, what was supposed to have been a biannual initiative has essentially been discontinued, to be replaced by some ad hoc reporting under the ‘European Semester’. This tends to undermine at least the perception of the EU’s commitment to such a crucial issue.
The Commission’s 2011 commitment to ensuring that the EU becomes a member of GRECO, the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption monitoring body is also not yet delivered on.
That said, there are encouraging recent developments. The proposals by the Commission to strengthen EU anti-money laundering rules, in the aftermath of the Panama Papers leak, were timely, particularly the provisions to make public, registers of the beneficial owners of companies.
Unfortunately, some of these proposals are reportedly being blocked at Council level.
My hope is that, by addressing the opaque nature of decision-making in the Council, my inquiry launched this year into Council transparency will help to encourage all EU governments to defend legislation in the public interest in the future or at least allow the public to see where responsibility actually lies for the failure to move on these matters. Indeed, we have just extended the timeline on our public consultation on this issue until the end of the year, which is available on my website to anyone who is concerned about or who has views on how the Council handles access to documents issues.
As European Ombudsman, my mission is, essentially, to serve democracy by working with the EU institutions to create a more effective, accountable, transparent and ethical administration.
There is a pervasive perception that the EU institutions are opaque and unaccountable. This narrative, which has been stoked in the current climate of Euro-scepticism, is misleading at best. Overall, the EU administration has higher ethical and transparency standards than most Member State administrations. The Juncker Commission has made real advances in several areas of good administration. Observe for example — at least in this phase of the Brexit talks — the contrasting levels of transparency as between the EU and the United Kingdom.
We have certainly come a long way since OLAF was set up in the aftermath of the corruption scandals that shook the Commission. The imminent creation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is intended to complement OLAF’s mission to tackle fraud and corruption at EU level.
The growing competences of EU agencies of Europol and Eurojust also bring EU added-value to the fight against corruption in the Member States, as Europol’s role in the investigation into the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder has made clear this week.
Nevertheless, in the current challenging context, it is all the more important to ensure the EU institutions and prominent public officials promote the highest standards of transparency and ethics in office.
As well as dealing with complaints, I can also conduct inquiries on my own initiative. When I was elected, I said that I would strategically use this power to investigate systemic problems in the EU administration. Today, I will touch upon some of the issues I have chosen to focus on, with a view to promoting integrity and ethical conduct within the EU institutions.
Strategic inquiry on Whistleblowing
One of the first strategic inquiries I launched concerned whistleblowing. While the word evokes political intrigue, the day-to-day reality is often far removed from the type of revelations in the Panama Papers or that brought down the Santer Commission.
The challenge for the EU institutions, and equally for national administrations, is to develop structures not only to protect people who, in good faith, speak up about serious irregularities, but also to ensure that the substance of their complaint is fully investigated and that the whistleblowers are kept informed of what action will be taken to rectify the situation.
In the context of a review of the EU Staff Regulations, all EU institutions and agencies were supposed to adopt internal rules on whistleblowing. As part of my inquiry, I asked nine EU institutions what they were doing to this end. To lead by example, my office drew up our own internal whistleblowing rules and invited interested parties to comment.
I am pleased to report that all nine institutions covered by my inquiry have now adopted or updated their whistleblowing rules.
Revolving doors / Commissioners’ Code of Conduct
Another complex challenge concerns the rules and procedures the Commission has in place to prevent conflicts of interest regarding current Commissioners, as well as the activities of ex-Commissioners after they have left office. This includes the “revolving doors” phenomenon, when they leave the EU institutions for the private sector (or vice versa) creating a possible conflict of interest.
Public trust can be undermined by perceptions that Commissioners or senior public officials are influenced by potential future jobs or use inside information and networks to benefit the private interests of a new employer.
Following a number of complaints, I conducted an inquiry about a paid position held by a former EU Commissioner. I concluded that the Barroso Commission had failed adequately to deal with the former Commissioner’s breach of the Code of Conduct despite concerns having been raised by the Ad Hoc Ethical Committee, the body that deals with these matters. I proposed that the Commission revise the Commissioners’ Code of Conduct to include sanctions for any breach of obligations by a serving or former Commissioner.
I also dealt with former Commission President Barroso’s appointment to Goldman Sachs, a move that generated significant public concern at a very challenging time for the EU. I wrote to President Juncker asking him to explain what measures the Commission had taken to check whether Mr Barroso’s actions conform to the ethics obligations in place.
In September this year, the Commission announced plans for a much more detailed Code of Conduct for Commissioners, including the some of the suggestions I had made. Crucially, the Commission has proposed to extend the cooling off period for Commissioners from 18 months to 2 years for former Commissioners and 3 years for former Commission Presidents. This was a welcome development.
However we will, of course, assess the effectiveness of these proposals once they are fully operational. We will also continue to draw attention to some of the outstanding issues, most significantly the need to enforce the treaty obligations of integrity and discretion, and for a more independent ethics committee.
Lobbying transparency
Lobbying transparency is another important issue that we are following of course, notably as regards the ‘EU Transparency Register’ for lobbyists. It is essential that this register, which the Commission has agreed to revise, becomes really mandatory in the future for all interest representatives, and this includes having full transparency on the funding of interest groups. It is also important I feel that the wide scope of the Register is retained, and not narrowed to only direct interactions between the EU institutions and lobbyists. This is something I know the Parliament is also concnered about in the upcoming talks.
Negotiations between the three main institutions are about to start and I understand the Council has recently adopted its mandate to enter those talks. I wish the three institutions well, and hope a revised Transparency Register can be agreed before 2019.
Other relevant issues we are looking into, or have looked into include:
- wider issues of conflicts of interests with various EU institutions and agencies;
- problems with the Commission’s expert groups;
- the role of so-called ‘special advisers’ who provide advice to Commissioners on specific policy areas;
While my role is typically to focus on what is wrong, it is important to point out again that the standards set by the EU administration often go beyond those of many EU Member States. And in my experience, EU officials are determined to act with integrity and in the public interest.
For example, it was a group of motivated EU staff that was among the most prominent voices leading the calls for action on the Barroso affair. They did so as they recognised that, at a time when the EU is facing so many challenges, notably as regards its credibility in the eyes of the public, it is imperative that those in positions of leadership demonstrate that their primary obligation is to the public interest.
This should give cause for encouragement that the overwhelming majority of EU public officials are concerned with serving the public interest and calling out those who are perceived not to be doing so.
