The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, will propose to the political groups that MEPs should be banned from taking ‘revolving doors’ at the end of their mandate, this measure being the first of fourteen proposals she will submit to the Conference of Presidents (CoP) on Thursday 12 January (see EUROPE 13096/7).
Ms Metsola suggests using the example of the European Commission, which has set a 24-month waiting period for former European Commissioners (see EUROPE 11951/14).
Not all political groups may want to go that far, so another option under consideration is to set a minimum waiting period - for example, one year - to which would be added the number of months corresponding to the duration of the financial allowance (one month’s salary for each year of mandate) that the European institution pays to a former MEP who applies for it, while he or she finds another job.
On Thursday, the aim will be to establish a principle, a step that would already represent “a big shift”, because during this waiting period, a former MEP will not be able to act as a lobbyist in the European transparency register, a parliamentary source told some journalists on Wednesday 11 January.
Faced with an alleged corruption scandal, the Parliament has pledged to reform itself to regain the trust of European citizens by making it more difficult for them to do so, while preserving the principles of openness to the public and the freedom of mandate of MEPs. Among the proposals we are making, some are not new and will be resisted, but there is a “new dynamic” within the political groups, especially among those MEPs who work hard and have nothing to reproach themselves for, the source said.
Ms Metsola will also call for more light to be shed on the side activities of MEPs. The aim would be to centralise on the Parliament’s website all information related to the integrity of MEPs, such as possible legal proceedings against them, gifts they receive and their trips to third countries not paid for by the European Parliament.
In addition, the current obligation to declare meetings with private interest groups, which is incumbent on committee chairpersons and (shadow) rapporteurs on a file, would be extended to all MEPs and their assistants and staff.
And the participation of associations and lobbies in European Parliament events would only be allowed for organisations that are listed in the European transparency register. This could be the subject of legislative reform to include representatives of third countries.
The European Parliament President also wants to tidy up the informal friendship groups with third countries that MEPs can set up. Her aim is to ban groups that interfere with the official activities of the European Parliament, sometimes with speeches that differ from the official position of the institution.
The details of the ban have yet to be decided, the source said, acknowledging the difficulty of knowing the exact number of such friendship groups. However, the groups that remain will no longer be able to use the European Parliament logo in order to avoid confusion, as has been decided for unofficial election observation missions.
Another measure advocated for is to increase control over access to European Parliament premises, a measure that could be taken very quickly. Anyone wishing to enter the Parliament will have to register, except for journalists. Former MEPs, such as the Italian Pier Antonio Panzeri accused of corruption for the benefit of Morocco and Qatar, will no longer have permanent access badges or be able to bring in anyone they want to the European Parliament. They will have access to a fast-track procedure for daily access.
In order to combat potential conflicts of interest, MEPs could be obliged to make a declaration to this effect before they are entrusted with steering negotiations on a legislative proposal.
There will also be greater transparency on the remuneration that MEPs receive in addition to their mandate, but without going so far as to ban it. An MEP would thus be required to explain in more detail the activities he or she performs in exchange for such remuneration.
For example, in agriculture or fisheries, having financial interests in farms should not prevent one from sitting, but things need to be more transparent, the source said.
Ms Metsola will also propose to strengthen training activities for MEPs and their teams on their rights and obligations, including the possibility of raising alarms when witnessing illegal practices.
Before a European ethics committee is set up (see EUROPE 12925/19, 12792/9), the European Parliament President considers it necessary to strengthen the role of the ad hoc committee in charge of applying the code of conduct for Members.
In addition, the way in which the Parliament’s urgent resolutions on human rights are drafted and adopted will also need to be changed. These should be limited to a specific case and may have to be discussed in advance in the relevant parliamentary committee.
Finally, cooperation between the Parliament and the police and judiciary of the Member States should be strengthened. In case of non-compliance with the new obligations, MEPs can now be sanctioned at a level not exceeding one month’s salary. The nature and application of sanctions could be reviewed in the light of the measures to be taken.
Not included in these proposals are the ones to create a vice-presidency for the fight against corruption and the proposal to set up a special committee to investigate loopholes in the Parliament’s ethical rules, both of which were included in the specific resolution adopted by the European Parliament last December (see EUROPE 13085/20).
Ms Metsola’s aim is to move as quickly as possible, including proposals as well from political groups. Some of the suggested measures will either have to be taken by internal bodies or be subject to a political process leading to a reform of the European Parliament’s rules of procedure. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)