The European Parliament took the view in Strasbourg on Tuesday 14 February that the European Commission should “make progress towards a more balanced composition of the expert groups” which advise it on a range of issues.
In adopting (by 663 votes to 16, with 13 abstentions) the report by Dennis de Jong (GUE/NGL, Netherlands) on the Commission’s expert groups, Parliament expressed unhappiness that, as yet, no express distinction is drawn between those representing economic and non-economic interests.
In the debate the previous day, de Jong pointed out that, in “Dieselgate”, the CARS21 group was made up principally of representatives of the automotive industry. It is difficult for environmental NGOs to make their voices heard by the Commission in these expert groups, he said. “Lobbies mustn’t be over-represented on these bodies”, he argued.
A report, commissioned by Parliament before changes were made by the European executive, highlighted “the lack of transparency and clear imbalances: minority positions were not reflected”. De Jong regretted that Parliament had not been consulted on the changes made by the Commission. “In the new rules, very few of our comments have been taken into account – hence our report”, he stated.
In summary, Parliament called for: - clear criteria on the know-how the Commission is seeking; - definition of the kinds of interests which, in the view of the Commission, should be represented in the relevant expert group and a clearer definition of the balance that has to be found between the various interests; - assessment of the need for a new complaints mechanism if the definition of balanced composition is contested by stakeholders; - consideration of how to facilitate and encourage the participation of under-represented organisations or social groups in expert groups, by assessing, inter alia, its provisions for reimbursement of expenses in an efficient and equitable manner (and including “alternative costs”); - European non-governmental organisations to be allowed to be represented on expert groups by officials of their national member organisations; - a body to be set up to monitor compliance with the rules of the game; - agendas, background documents, minutes of meetings and deliberations of expert groups to be made public, unless a qualified majority decides that a specific meeting or part of a meeting needs to be secret. Parliament regrets that the Commission has persisted in a system in which “the meetings remain secret unless a simple majority of the members of EGs decides that the deliberations should be made public”. It is crucial, MEPs say, to implement the greatest possible transparency and they call on the Commission to provide for the meetings and minutes being made public.
The Commission has already carried out the work. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, replying on behalf of the Commission, said that stricter rules had been put in place so that these groups can carry out their tasks successfully, in full compliance with transparency rules. She pointed out that the recommendations of the expert groups were purely consultative for the Commission.
After four years of work, the Commission adopted new rules last year (EUROPE 11561). These are designed to improve the balance and transparency of the expert groups.
The commissioner argued that the new rules took account of the suggestions made by MEPs: - balanced representation within the groups (not necessarily arithmetic but in terms of expertise, geographical origin, gender, etc.); - a new, fuller register which is open to the public has been put in place for expert groups (containing, for example, the various calls for tender); - selection procedures have been made more transparent. “There will be total transparency on the interests of the various people on these expert groups”, she promised. Documents published by the expert groups will be put on the registers, as will minutes of meetings. In addition, groups will have the option of opening their meetings to the public and measures have been taken to avoid conflicts of interest, Vestager stated.
Problems remain, according to Corporate Europe Observatory. A preliminary study carried out by Corporate Europe Observatory that was published on 14 February reveals that problems persist with regard to corporate dominance and conflicts of interest in expert groups, despite the new rules of May 2016. Ten expert groups were sampled, including automotive industry, climate change, finance, security and defence, and taxation. “Half the groups examined remain dominated by corporate interests. … 70 per cent represent corporate interests compared to less than 15 per cent for NGOs and just over 2 per cent for trade unions”, the study says. It highlights that fewer than half of experts appointed in a personal capacity – i.e. to act independently – were free of conflicts. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)