WRITTEN QUESTION E-0111/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Whistle-blowers (1): their socially useful function in solving problems in large and small organisations

1. Does the Commission agree that transparency and public discussion have always proved the most effective means of focusing attention on suspected abuse within organisations and that such attention can help prevent the problems remaining unresolved for a long time?

2. What is the Commission's view of the idea that it is defensible for persons with knowledge of abuse to delay the transparency approach referred to in question 1 only, and for as long as, it is certain that the problems in question are limited in scope and/or that they can be rapidly and effectively resolved within the organisation itself?

3. Does the Commission acknowledge that it is a predictable, and virtually inevitable, desire on the part of managers of all types of organisations to keep instances of abuse that come to light concealed from the public, to deny the problems or to delay resolving them, and that as a result it often happens that criticism and information which do not fit in with this approach are not appreciated?

4. Does the Commission also acknowledge that because of the desire referred to in question 3 serious conflict may arise between, on the one hand, the management's desire for peace and quiet in the organisation in question and, on the other, the socially useful role of whistle-blowers?

5. What is the Commission's view of the consequences of the conflict referred to in question 4 for whistle-blowers whose livelihood depends on the organisation within which they work and who accordingly may be afraid of being punished with dismissal or demotion as bringers of bad news?

6. Does the Commission agree that its civil service apparatus should not be an exception to the rule that society as a whole benefits from encouraging the speedy application of solutions to problems, from the ending of undesirable developments and from public discussion of the best way of working?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

The Commission considers transparency to be an essential quality of modern public administration. It gives high priority to providing information to citizens on its activities and remains committed to the principle of giving citizens the greatest possible access to information and documents.

In relation to the public disclosure of concerns about maladministration and potential wrongdoings, the Commission shares the view of the Committee of Independent Experts that an effective balance between the public interests of confidentiality and loyalty of public servants and those of transparency and accountability must be achieved. Indeed, the principal aim of whistleblowing provisions is to provide an incentive for staff to report concerns internally, and for their employer to investigate those concerns effectively. The Commission believes that this applies with equal force to the EU Institutions.

On 29 November 2000, the Commission adopted a consultative document entitled Raising concerns about serious wrongdoings (SEC(2000) 2078/6). It sets out proposals that are currently the subject of consultation with its staff and their representatives. At the end of the consultation period, the Commission will formulate a conclusive proposal to be put to the Inter-Institutional Staff Regulations Committee for the amendment of the Staff Regulations. The document proposes to include in the Staff Regulations the duty for all staff introduced in 1999 with the creation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to report wrongdoings either within their Institution or direct to OLAF, with the assurances that they will face no adverse treatment for making such disclosures. The document also considers the circumstances in which such concerns may justifiably be disclosed more widely, and concludes that raising concerns about serious wrongdoing outside the employing Institution or OLAF should be an option of last resort, to be exercised legitimately only in the unlikely situation in which neither has addressed the concern in an appropriate way. In this extreme case the Commission considers it appropriate that the concern may be raised with the highest authorities of other European Institutions without fear of negative consequences for whistleblowers who act in good faith.

In the Commission's opinion the most effective way to encourage staff to report concerns within the organisation is to provide clearly defined and secure internal reporting channels. As a further guarantee of serious attention, however, it is sensible to provide for safe and specified routes through which staff may raise legitimate concerns outside the organisation as an option of last resort.

The Commission is confident that by ensuring acceptable, safe and serious ways in which staff can raise a concern about wrongdoing, an open and self-disciplined culture is encouraged with consequent effect of deterring wrong or unacceptable conduct. A culture in which staff has confidence to raise such concerns ensures that it is more likely in those rare cases where wrongdoing actually occurs, that it can be detected at an early stage and addressed responsibly and effectively. Equally where a concern is based on mistaken information or there is an innocent explanation, such a culture allows such misunderstandings to be swiftly corrected.

Far from seeking to be an exception from good practice, the Commission is seeking to strengthen existing provisions for civil servants to discharge their duty of reporting suspected wrongdoing. Implementation of arrangements of the kind proposed will give the Commission and its staff rules which are comparable with the best in any Member States in the Union.

The principles which would be made operational would facilitate reporting in good faith, serious and thorough treatment of reports, the conduct of investigations in ways that would not compromise civil rights (including the presumption of innocence), the career security of an official exercising the reporting duty, or the effective disciplinary or prosecution of any persons found to be guilty of wrongdoing.

A basic purpose of having good whistleblowing arrangements is to deter potential wrongdoers and to apprehend actual wrongdoers and deal with them in a just way. A system which did not have the characteristics of the proposals set out by the Commission could give the appearance of being transparent, but in practice could also be rendered ineffectual by untimely disclosure or faults in procedure.