Opinion: Europe must restore our trust

Earlier this year there was a press feeding-frenzy over MEPs and their expenses. When the head of the Conservatives in Europe, Giles Chichester, had to resign after admitting paying hundreds of thousands of pounds of allowances through a family firm, it led the news.

As Chichester fell on his sword, a number of senior Tories were once again accused of being on the Brussels-gravy train. But as the column inches were filled with "snouts in the trough" stories, you could argue that the press completely missed the bigger and more compelling picture.

An increasing number of political commentators and even MEPs themselves believe that the current elephant in the room in Brussels is not fiddling expense accounts but their sometimes lucrative commercial links. Chris Davies, the Lib Dem MEP from the North West of England says the European Parliamentary rules are twenty years behind those of Westminster and the register of members interests are a "scandal waiting to happen".

If you look through that register you will find examples of where there are clear potential conflicts of interest. We found that there are cases of MEPs with financial interests in their parliamentary areas of expertise; MEPs who are receiving funding from industries they promote through their parliamentary work; and MEPs in prominent legislative positions – for example, chairing certain parliamentary committees –who are also closely involved with industry lobby groups.

Finally there are cases of MEPs accepting wages, gifts and hospitality from businesses that have a vested interest in their work as legislators. This is despite the fact that the parliamentary rules state that MEPs should "refrain from accepting any other gift or benefit in the performance of their duties".

Our report examines twelve cases where there could be a conflict of interest between an MEP and their outside activities. The examples we found were chosen because they are meant to be illustrative not because the cases are extraordinary. Once again Giles Chichester features on the list. He was chair of the parliamentary committee with responsibility for key nuclear issues at the same time as he was president of a pro-nuclear industry lobby group. He has also accepted numerous trips and freebies from the nuclear industry.

Another Tory MEP who was investigated, but cleared over expenses also makes our list. John Purvis' extensive financial interests include being a partner in a firm that invests in the biotechnology sector. At the same time Purvis has been regarded as the leading Conservative MEP promoting pro-biotech in the European parliament.

These are just two of our twelve. We believe that the twelve may be the tip of the ice-berg. The way things are disclosed in Brussels makes any kind of oversight difficult. For example, MEPs declare their financial interests in their host language. So to check what Romanian MEPs are doing you have to read Romanian and so on. Although the latest year's declaration is posted on the parliament's website, previous years are only stored in a room in Brussels. So to get a comprehensive overview of MEPs and their outside commercial interests you would have to speak all the languages of the EU and be in a room in Brussels. And even then you cannot photocopy the declarations.

What's interesting is that outside the Brussels-bubble, you might think these kind of examples are potentially scandalous, whereas many MEPs think its just fine. The very act of disclosure makes the conflict go away, they believe. But this is a hollow argument. If you walked in to a sweet shop and nicked a load of sweets and then admitted to it, it doesn't make stealing the sweets in the first instance OK.

Over the last few years one of the buzz-words around Brussels has been transparency as the commission has tried to come to terms with the influence that some 30,000 lobbyists have on the democratic system. In June, the Commission finally published a voluntary lobby register that had been so watered down you could have drunk it without even noticing. Meanwhile the conduct of MEPs has gone untouched, beyond reforming their expenses allocations.

What many MEPs seem to not understand is that the electorate are not fools. Part of the reason that the Irish said no recently in their referendum is the feeling that MEPs are on the take. The only way to restore trust in the European project is for much greater transparency and honesty from MEPs, including tightening up the rules on their commercial interests. Otherwise the next scandal is just waiting to happen.

Tamasin Cave

Tamasin Cave of SpinWatch is coordinator for the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, a coalition of civil society groups campaigning for the introduction of lobbying transparency regulations in the UK.

Comments on politics.co.uk's opinion pages do not necesarily reflect the views of the website or its owners.