Following fierce negotiations, the main political groups in the European Parliament have reached agreement on measures to strengthen the integrity of the MEP mandate. These measures are identified in the draft report by Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, German) published on Friday 7 July. They remain subject to change during the process of adopting the reform of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure through new amendments that the political groups can still table.
This draft report is the common denominator on which the groups have agreed. The S&D, Greens/EFA and The Left Groups are calling for more ambitious measures to respond to ‘Qatarargate’, the scandal of alleged corruption of MEPs by third countries, before the European elections in June 2024.
Transparency. The main political groups have agreed to increase the transparency of MEPs’ activities. MEPs “should” only meet representatives of interest groups listed in the European transparency register.
Nevertheless, an MEP as well as parliamentary assistants acting on his or her behalf will be obliged (‘shall’) to publish online all meetings held with representatives of lobbies entered in the European register and with representatives of third countries, as part of parliamentary activities in which the MEP plays “an active role”.
‘Active role’ means: - the functions of rapporteur, shadow rapporteur and coordinator of a political group within a parliamentary committee; - speeches at plenary sessions; - tabling amendments; - any efforts to influence other MEPs through written communications. However, when the security or freedom of an individual is at stake or when there are “other compelling reasons”, the confidentiality of a meeting may prevail, in which case the President of Parliament must be kept informed.
On the left of the Chamber, the notion of an ‘active role’ is considered impossible to define and a source of legal uncertainty.
Conflicts of interest. The draft ‘Bischof’ report broadens the definition of conflict of interest by mentioning in particular that such a situation may arise for reasons involving an MEP’s family.
If they have been elected Vice-President of Parliament, Quaestor, (Vice-)Chair of a parliamentary committee or member of a parliamentary delegation, MEPs will have to declare the existence of a conflict of interest linked to their position.
In this specific case, they will have to abstain from holding this position, unless the body concerned decides otherwise. However, the parliamentary committee may, by a simple majority of votes, confirm the appointment of a MEP as rapporteur. As regards the functions of shadow rapporteur or member of a parliamentary delegation, the political group in which the MEP concerned sits may decide to maintain him or her in these functions, unless the body in question rejects the group’s decision by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.
MEPs may continue to be invited – free of charge – to events organised by third parties. In this case, they must inform the President of Parliament.
The political groups retain the possibility of creating ‘unofficial groupings’ around individual MEPs to facilitate informal exchanges on specific issues. To avoid mixing genres, these groups, like Parliament’s official intergroups, will no longer be able to use Parliament’s name or logo. And they should not organise events in third countries that coincide with an official Parliament mission, including an election observation mission. In addition, all support, whether financial or in kind, must be declared.
Financial interests. The political groups make minor changes to MEPs’ obligations to declare their financial interests.
For any remunerated activity carried out in parallel with parliamentary activity, where it exceeds €5,000 gross per year, an MEP must identify the entity remunerating him or her, the nature of the activity carried out, the exact amount of the remuneration and the frequency with which it is paid. The nature of any other benefits received should also be explained.
Sanctions. The draft report does not change the nature of the “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” sanctions to which MEPs would be exposed in the event of a proven breach of the code of conduct.
Some sanctions have been doubled, notably the amount of a financial penalty (60 days flat-rate pay instead of the current 30 days) and the duration of the temporary suspension (60 days instead of the current 30 days) from exercising parliamentary activities, excluding voting in plenary, which can already be imposed by the President of Parliament on an MEP.
As powerful as ever when it comes to internal sanctions, the President of Parliament will decide on the duration of publication (up to three years for serious offences) of these penalties, which remain cumulative.
Finally, the functioning of Parliament’s internal advisory committee has not been reviewed in depth. In future, the committee will have to play a more proactive role with MEPs to raise their awareness and train them in the rules of the code of conduct and to report possible breaches to the President of Parliament.
On Tuesday 18 July, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs will discuss the draft ‘Bischoff’ report, with a view to a vote in the first week of September. Adoption of the reform by Parliament plenary session should follow.
See the draft ‘Bischoff’ report: https://aeur.eu/f/7zz (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)