The newly elected European Parliament had the opportunity to start afresh after the scandals of recent years, notably the massive corruption case in 2022 that tarnished its reputation.
Transparency International’s latest report, however, highlights significant gaps in addressing conflicts of interest, especially in the context of side jobs held by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
Although the Parliament marginally tightened its internal ethics rules following the 2022 scandal, the prevention and management of conflicts of interest remain largely unaddressed. This leaves open the possibility for members to engage in external income-generating activities, provided they declare these interests. Transparency International’s Integrity Watch EU database sheds light on the scope and nature of these activities, revealing a troubling picture.
Rising Side Activities Among MEPs
The analysis shows a marked increase in the number of MEPs declaring side activities compared to the previous Parliament. Currently, 74% of MEPs—nearly three in four—report engaging in some form of external work. More concerning is that close to one-third of MEPs hold income-generating roles, collectively earning an estimated €6.3 million annually from these activities.
By comparison, an MEP’s official salary is around €100,000 per year. Despite the significant earnings from their primary role, there are no caps on the additional income they can generate, as long as they are transparent about it. However, the types of external activities MEPs can engage in are theoretically limited by one key provision: they cannot perform “paid lobbying activities directly linked to the EU decision-making process.” Yet, this rule remains ambiguous, as the definition of lobbying in this context is not clearly outlined.
Activities Linked to Lobbying Entities
Transparency International’s analysis uncovered 159 declared activities involving entities listed in the EU’s transparency register, which tracks organisations lobbying to influence EU policies. While the exact nature of these roles requires closer examination, the association raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
For example:
- One MEP, a member of the Committee for Environment, earns an additional €5,000 annually as part of the sustainability advisory board for a leading European electricity company registered in the EU’s transparency register.
- Another MEP, who serves on both the Committee for Environment and the Committee on Agriculture, earns €51,240 per year as the president of the Bavarian Farmers’ Association.
- A third MEP is on the Supervisory Board of BayWa AG, a multinational company active in agriculture, construction, and energy, earning €75,000 annually.
- One MEP works as a freelance consultant in the automotive sector, with an estimated income of €120,000 per year, while simultaneously serving on three key committees: Environment, Industry, and Internal Market.
These examples illustrate the blurred lines between MEPs’ legislative responsibilities and external roles, raising questions about impartiality and the potential for undue influence.
Gaps in Transparency and Reporting
Although declarations of side activities have improved in recent years, Transparency International found inconsistencies in the reporting process. Some MEPs list vague descriptions such as “self-employed person” or “member of the supervisory board” without specifying the organisation involved.
Moreover, while best practices dictate full disclosure of income from external activities, 23 MEPs failed to provide this information.
Explanations ranged from “it is not possible to specify this at this stage” to “income from consultancy to be determined at the end of the year based on activities performed.” Such gaps undermine the purpose of the declarations, which aim to provide transparency and allow public scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest.
Key Challenges in Ethical Oversight
The lack of clarity and enforcement regarding conflicts of interest points to broader systemic issues within the Parliament’s ethics framework. The ambiguity surrounding lobbying restrictions, combined with the absence of clear definitions and enforcement mechanisms, leaves room for potential ethical breaches.
Additionally, the reliance on self-reporting for declarations of interest introduces further vulnerabilities. Without rigorous checks, discrepancies and omissions may go unnoticed. Public scrutiny is critical to holding MEPs accountable, yet incomplete or vague disclosures limit the effectiveness of this oversight.
The Need for Reform
Transparency International’s findings underline the urgency of reforming the European Parliament’s ethical framework.
Key recommendations include:
- Strengthening Rules on Side Activities: Clearer guidelines are needed to define acceptable side jobs and their potential conflicts with legislative responsibilities. Specific prohibitions on activities that could influence EU decision-making should be established and enforced.
- Introducing Income Caps: Setting reasonable limits on external earnings could help mitigate potential conflicts of interest while ensuring MEPs focus on their parliamentary duties.
- Enhancing Transparency Requirements: MEPs should be required to provide detailed descriptions of their side activities, including the type of work, organisational affiliations, and exact income figures.
- Independent Oversight: Establishing an independent body to review and verify declarations of interest could improve accountability and prevent ethical breaches. This body should also have the authority to investigate and sanction non-compliance.
- Addressing Lobbying Links: Activities involving entities in the EU’s transparency register should be subject to heightened scrutiny to ensure they do not compromise the integrity of legislative processes.
Public Confidence at Stake
The European Parliament’s handling of conflicts of interest has far-reaching implications for its credibility and effectiveness. As the EU’s legislative arm, the Parliament plays a critical role in shaping policies that impact millions of citizens. Perceptions of ethical lapses and undue influence risk eroding public trust in its ability to act in the best interests of constituents.
The 2024 Parliament’s high number of declared side activities signals a missed opportunity to rebuild trust after the 2022 corruption scandal. By failing to address these issues comprehensively, the Parliament risks perpetuating a culture where external interests take precedence over public service.
The European Parliament’s credibility hinges on its commitment to ethical governance. While incremental improvements have been made, Transparency International’s findings reveal persistent gaps in managing conflicts of interest. Addressing these challenges requires robust reforms, enhanced transparency, and independent oversight to ensure that MEPs prioritise their legislative responsibilities over private gain. The stakes are high, and the Parliament’s response will determine whether it can restore public trust and uphold its mandate to serve the people of Europe.
Main Image: Photographer: Denis LOMME Copyright: © European Union 2023 – Source : EP
