Corruption still Europe's bęte noire
15 June 2011
Corruption and bribery are not just problems in southern or eastern states like Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and Slovakia - claims Sarah Ludford MEP
Corruption is a major problem in the European Union. It costs us a whopping €120bn a year, according to a recent estimate from the European Commission. This is not just from the money siphoned off, which adds costs for customers and taxpayers, but also from the strangling of competition that would otherwise have driven prices down.
Along with its twin threat organised crime, corruption most certainly does not stop at national borders. It is an octopus whose many tentacles reach far and wide. That is why there needs to be a pan-European effort to combat it. Corruption and bribery are not just problems in southern or eastern states like Bulgaria, Romania, Italy or Slovakia. While these are indeed the four most corrupt EU countries - according to Transparency International's corruption perceptions index - in fact, there is huge variation among the 27 member states.
On the one hand, three of the five "cleanest" countries in the world are EU countries. Denmark is top of the global class, while Finland and Sweden are not far behind. But, on the other hand, eight EU states fall below the halfway mark of five out of 10 - 10 is best - in the TI index. Even the UK only merits 20th ranking, with a not very impressive 7.6 - a sobering thought. Thankfully, the coalition government is bringing into force on July 1 the new Bribery Act - the biggest overhaul of British legislation in a century.
The union has its own corruption scandals, the most famous being the one centred on Commissioner Edith Cresson - which culminated after pressure, especially from the Liberal group, in the European Parliament with the resignation en masse of the commission in 1999. That led to the creation of OLAF, the independent European anti-fraud office. The EP is not immune and, just recently, three MEPs were allegedly ready to accept money from journalists posing as lobbyists. They have since resigned or been expelled from their parties. Most of the problems though, which lead to European auditors refusing to sign off the accounts, arise in the spending of EU farm and regional subsidies in member states.
The issue of corruption is currently figuring strongly in the debate on future of the Schengen zone, which most member states and some non-EU countries - not the UK or Ireland - take part in. This zone removes internal passport checks, relying instead on sound external border management and internal security cooperation to keep us safe. In addition - law enforcement measures applying to the whole union, like the European Arrest Warrant, rely on mutual confidence in justice and policing. But if people-traffickers, drug-runners or arms-smugglers can bribe border guards, police or judges, that completely undermines the necessary trust.
I have called corruption in Europe "the elephant in the room" because everyone is aware of it, but everybody is coy about talking about it and nobody does enough to get rid of it. The level of implementation of European and international conventions is poor. That is why the package of strengthened anti-corruption measures put forward by the commission recently is both welcome and overdue. The most important is the proposal for a monitoring mechanism, with a union report on the level of corruption in each EU country and what they are doing about it to be published every two years. Such naming and shaming is an effective tool to give governments an incentive to pull their socks up.
I am also calling for the fight against corruption and mafia crime, and the level of judicial independence - not only to be added to the "entrance exam" for countries who want to join Schengen, but also to feature in a continuing review process for states already in the club. And MEPs are currently considering a proposed new "Schengen evaluation mechanism" - I have tabled amendments to this effect.
I am not suggesting that these enlarged tests should be applied to current Schengen candidates Romania and Bulgaria, since they have met all the existing technical requirements to enter the border-free zone. The fact that their accession has been put on hold by some EU governments, supposedly because of the corruption problem - but probably more to do with migration fears, is an unfair and retrospective moving of the goalposts. They have worked hard to meet the current criteria related to border management.
Governments should be – indeed, perhaps they are - keener on fighting corruption in this era of austerity and big budget deficits. But public confidence is low. A recent poll showed that that 34 per cent of European citizens do not trust anyone in their country to actively fight corruption and only 13 per cent trust their political leaders to do so. We need to prove them wrong, and soon.
Sarah Ludford is a Liberal Democrat MEP for London, in the UK
Corruption is a major problem in the European Union. It costs us a whopping €120bn a year, according to a recent estimate from the European Commission. This is not just from the money siphoned off, which adds costs for customers and taxpayers, but also from the strangling of competition that would otherwise have driven prices down.
Along with its twin threat organised crime, corruption most certainly does not stop at national borders. It is an octopus whose many tentacles reach far and wide. That is why there needs to be a pan-European effort to combat it. Corruption and bribery are not just problems in southern or eastern states like Bulgaria, Romania, Italy or Slovakia. While these are indeed the four most corrupt EU countries - according to Transparency International's corruption perceptions index - in fact, there is huge variation among the 27 member states.
On the one hand, three of the five "cleanest" countries in the world are EU countries. Denmark is top of the global class, while Finland and Sweden are not far behind. But, on the other hand, eight EU states fall below the halfway mark of five out of 10 - 10 is best - in the TI index. Even the UK only merits 20th ranking, with a not very impressive 7.6 - a sobering thought. Thankfully, the coalition government is bringing into force on July 1 the new Bribery Act - the biggest overhaul of British legislation in a century.
The union has its own corruption scandals, the most famous being the one centred on Commissioner Edith Cresson - which culminated after pressure, especially from the Liberal group, in the European Parliament with the resignation en masse of the commission in 1999. That led to the creation of OLAF, the independent European anti-fraud office. The EP is not immune and, just recently, three MEPs were allegedly ready to accept money from journalists posing as lobbyists. They have since resigned or been expelled from their parties. Most of the problems though, which lead to European auditors refusing to sign off the accounts, arise in the spending of EU farm and regional subsidies in member states.
The issue of corruption is currently figuring strongly in the debate on future of the Schengen zone, which most member states and some non-EU countries - not the UK or Ireland - take part in. This zone removes internal passport checks, relying instead on sound external border management and internal security cooperation to keep us safe. In addition - law enforcement measures applying to the whole union, like the European Arrest Warrant, rely on mutual confidence in justice and policing. But if people-traffickers, drug-runners or arms-smugglers can bribe border guards, police or judges, that completely undermines the necessary trust.
I have called corruption in Europe "the elephant in the room" because everyone is aware of it, but everybody is coy about talking about it and nobody does enough to get rid of it. The level of implementation of European and international conventions is poor. That is why the package of strengthened anti-corruption measures put forward by the commission recently is both welcome and overdue. The most important is the proposal for a monitoring mechanism, with a union report on the level of corruption in each EU country and what they are doing about it to be published every two years. Such naming and shaming is an effective tool to give governments an incentive to pull their socks up.
I am also calling for the fight against corruption and mafia crime, and the level of judicial independence - not only to be added to the "entrance exam" for countries who want to join Schengen, but also to feature in a continuing review process for states already in the club. And MEPs are currently considering a proposed new "Schengen evaluation mechanism" - I have tabled amendments to this effect.
I am not suggesting that these enlarged tests should be applied to current Schengen candidates Romania and Bulgaria, since they have met all the existing technical requirements to enter the border-free zone. The fact that their accession has been put on hold by some EU governments, supposedly because of the corruption problem - but probably more to do with migration fears, is an unfair and retrospective moving of the goalposts. They have worked hard to meet the current criteria related to border management.
Governments should be – indeed, perhaps they are - keener on fighting corruption in this era of austerity and big budget deficits. But public confidence is low. A recent poll showed that that 34 per cent of European citizens do not trust anyone in their country to actively fight corruption and only 13 per cent trust their political leaders to do so. We need to prove them wrong, and soon.
Sarah Ludford is a Liberal Democrat MEP for London, in the UK
COMMENTS
RELATED CONTENT
Poland's anti-corruption efforts 'lifeless'
There is a lack of interest in taking on corruption in Poland among both government and wider society, according to a study
There is a lack of interest in taking on corruption in Poland among both government and wider society, according to a study
