I. The Commission's nineteenth-century attitude to transparency
Sometimes it's clear MEPs are totally clueless about how the EU works.
For example the Commission gives out hundreds of millions of euros every
year in grants to NGOs. These are sometimes famous organisations like
Oxfam,
and sometimes ****d federalist campaigners like the European Movement.
Some
do excellent work, others are just a parasitic drain on the taxpayer.
You'd think Parliament would have a strong grip of the issues - carefully
monitoring how taxpayers' money is spent, holding people accountable,
their
eagle eyes watching out for irregularities.
But despite the colossal amounts involved, MEPs regularly bleat "can the
Commission please tell me which NGOs it is funding?" And the Commission
replies "No, we can't. We can't account simply and comprehensively for the
money we give out. Please check the website of individual DGs where you
may
or may not be able to find some peremptory and meaningless list of
grants".
They then send you to this page (http://ec.europa.eu/grants/index_en.htm)
from which you can sometimes gather some outdated and amateurishly
presented
lists that tell you nothing. A typical example is
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/tenders/grants_contractors/grants2006_en.pdf,
a
one-page PDF from the DG for Economic and Financial Affairs. It lists
grants
awarded for 2006 and seems to represent the most recent information
available.
So when MEPs ask the same question over and over again do they not appear
dimwitted?
II. Just ask again. And again.
On 18 September last year, Chris Heaton-Harris asked "Have any of the
following organisations ever received money from the European Commission,
and if so how much and over what period of time?" He then listed hundreds
of
obscure NGOs like Eurodad and OBESSU, as well as better known euro
fan-boys
like the Federalists.
The day before, Kilroy-Silk had asked for a rundown of EU funded
organisations, to be met with waffle and hand-waving from Commissioner
Grybauskaité.
On 20 November 2007, Daniel Hannan asked which of the hundreds of NGOs
attending the Agora took EU money. In February this year he wanted to know
about a hundred more.
The Commission always provides an answer, but that answer is rarely
designed
to provide enlightenment. Furthermore, it frequently sends the salient
details in the form of an attachment which disappears into the bowels of
Parliament's secretariat.
On 25 February, MEP Georgiou asked the Commission which Greek cultural
NGOs
it was funding. Recently, Bart Staes asked about the ?800 million (yes,
eight hundred million) paid to the International Organisation for
Migration.
MEPs Muscardini and Angelilli have asked which NGOs are getting funds in
Afghanistan. Roger Helmer has asked about funding for the Church of
England.
Amazingly, this week Ingeborg Graessle went back to square one, acting as
if
nobody had ever raised the question before: "How many NGOs currently
receive
financial sup****t from the Commission, broken down by policy field and
area
of operation?"
This isn't simply an insult to the people who provide the money. It's
cretinous.
III. The damage they do
Moreover, unpleasant facts about EU funding of NGOs in Palestine have
started emerging which can be directly attributable to the Commission's
lack
of transparency. Steinberg's extraordinary re****t "Europe's Hidden Hand"
(http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_releases_groundbreaking_re****t_on_eu_funding_of_ngos)
attempts, despite energetic EU obfuscation, to expose how money is
reaching
extremist propaganda organisations dedicated to verbally attacking Israel.
EU-funded Miftah is just one example:
".despite claiming to be non-partisan, in other areas of its work Miftah
has
described Israel as an apartheid state and reflects an immoral equivalence
in equating terrorist attacks and IDF operations against terrorists which
accidentally harm civilians. In addition, Miftah has referred to suicide
bombers as "resistance fighters".
More details of the re****t are beyond the scope of this article, but it's
well worth a read to understand that nobody really knows where our money
is
going in the middle east and what it's being used for.
IV. What is to be done?
The situation is intolerable. It's nothing less than a refusal by the
Commission to accept responsibility for spending our money accountably.
It also represents a dismal failure by MEPs to keep an eye on the
executive.
Something must be done. The answer is obvious and comes in three parts:
1) Currently, the Financial Regulation obliges each DG to provide a
minimum
of information about grants they hand out. They often meet this legal
obligation by publi****ng a meaningless and poorly-presented XL sheet at
the
end of the financial year, listing names and amounts. But nothing about
what
the money is for.
We should force the Commission to provide full details of grant
recipients,
and to disclose what the money was intended for. They should do this
within
a month of the grant being awarded.
2) The Commission should force NGOs to disclose in general terms that
they're funded by our money, and publish specific details of what they're
spending it on. This openness should be a basic condition for receiving a
grant.
Within the limits of commercial confidentiality, this requirement should
extend to third party organisations commissioned by or working in
partner****p with, the main grant recipient.
3) MEPs should make an effort to avoid repeating the same questions over
and
over again. The Commission is highly practised at swatting them away.
Instead, MEPs should cooperate to pool their knowledge, perhaps by setting
up an independent website with the help of one of the political groups.
This site would provide a clearing house in which MEPs would explain to
the
public what they know about the hundreds of millions of euros the
Commission
distributes to its clients.
V. The stakes are rising
Grasping the breathtaking extent of Commission funding for NGOs ain't
easy.
But as NGOs become more im****tant, the stakes rise. We already fund dozens
of politically-motivated organisations, and the chances of our money
funding
extremists are rising. A revolution in the Commission's nineteenth-century
attitude to transparency is the only way to ensure our money is spent well
and wisely.
|
