News
BackIn its everyday work, the European Commission regularly receives support from external advisors in so-called groups of experts. However, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of these advisors represent corporate interests. In the past, both AK and ÖGB have repeatedly pointed out this unsatisfactory situation. The European Parliament and the newly appointed European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly are also very critical of this development. O’Reilly, for example, recently launched a public consultation on her own initiative to get the problem under control at last. AK and ÖGB participated in this consultation, as did the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and many civil society organisations.
Great interest in the event
Against this background, AK and ÖGB in Brussels invited to a panel discussion on the almightiness of Big Business in Commission’s groups of experts. More than 200 participants reflected the strong interest in this subject matter. Participating in the discussion were Patrick Itschert, Deputy General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation; Rosita Agnew, coordinator of the European Ombudsman; Ska Keller, Member of the European Parliament for the Greens and Pascoe Sabido, campaigner for the lobby transparency network Corporate Europe Observatory.
High level of participation in the consultation
To begin with, Rosita Agnew explained the role of the European Ombudsman, who is appointed by the European Parliament. Agnew remarked that about 56 contributions had been submitted; of these ca. 15 came from trade unions, 5 from businesses and 21 from civil society. The results would now be forwarded to the (new) Commission. The Commission would then have three months to reply. One could therefore expect its reply to be available in the first months of 2015.
Lack of special knowledge in Commission and Parliament
Apart from that Ska Keller also criticised the lack of transparency in the groups of experts. However, it was in reach to take appropriate measures in order to get the most serious problems under control. According to Keller, the cause for the imbalance in the groups would be the lack of necessary special knowledge. The European Parliament would have similar problems. The recent freezing of the budget for the groups of experts was only a short-term measure; however, it would be better to make the Commission to see reason.
Praise for initiative, which raised public awareness
The trade union representative Patrick Itschert made a point of praising the initiative of the European Ombudsman. Initiating a procedure had to be rated as a success already, as it would maintain the pressure on the European Commission and made clear the influence by lobby groups. Itschert held the institutional culture within the European Commission, which would privilege corporate interests, responsible as the main reason for this unsatisfactory situation. The lack of expert knowledge and of diversity in respect of professional backgrounds of the staff would also foster the formation of “business-oriented” groups of experts.
Questioning the mode of operation of groups of experts
Apart from well-founded criticism, Pascoe Sabido of Corporate Europe Observatory also had concrete suggestions for improvement. According to Sabido, groups of experts should be drastically down-sized. Apart from that, these groups should seek the expertise of independent experts and subsequently discuss necessary consequences and suggested strategies. These committees must be strictly equally represented in order to guarantee a balanced opinion.
Against this background, AK and ÖGB in Brussels invited to a panel discussion on the almightiness of Big Business in Commission’s groups of experts. More than 200 participants reflected the strong interest in this subject matter. Participating in the discussion were Patrick Itschert, Deputy General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation; Rosita Agnew, coordinator of the European Ombudsman; Ska Keller, Member of the European Parliament for the Greens and Pascoe Sabido, campaigner for the lobby transparency network Corporate Europe Observatory.
High level of participation in the consultation
To begin with, Rosita Agnew explained the role of the European Ombudsman, who is appointed by the European Parliament. Agnew remarked that about 56 contributions had been submitted; of these ca. 15 came from trade unions, 5 from businesses and 21 from civil society. The results would now be forwarded to the (new) Commission. The Commission would then have three months to reply. One could therefore expect its reply to be available in the first months of 2015.
Lack of special knowledge in Commission and Parliament
Apart from that Ska Keller also criticised the lack of transparency in the groups of experts. However, it was in reach to take appropriate measures in order to get the most serious problems under control. According to Keller, the cause for the imbalance in the groups would be the lack of necessary special knowledge. The European Parliament would have similar problems. The recent freezing of the budget for the groups of experts was only a short-term measure; however, it would be better to make the Commission to see reason.
Praise for initiative, which raised public awareness
The trade union representative Patrick Itschert made a point of praising the initiative of the European Ombudsman. Initiating a procedure had to be rated as a success already, as it would maintain the pressure on the European Commission and made clear the influence by lobby groups. Itschert held the institutional culture within the European Commission, which would privilege corporate interests, responsible as the main reason for this unsatisfactory situation. The lack of expert knowledge and of diversity in respect of professional backgrounds of the staff would also foster the formation of “business-oriented” groups of experts.
Questioning the mode of operation of groups of experts
Apart from well-founded criticism, Pascoe Sabido of Corporate Europe Observatory also had concrete suggestions for improvement. According to Sabido, groups of experts should be drastically down-sized. Apart from that, these groups should seek the expertise of independent experts and subsequently discuss necessary consequences and suggested strategies. These committees must be strictly equally represented in order to guarantee a balanced opinion.