B Explanatory memorandum by Ms Marietta
Karamanli, rapporteur for opinion
1. As rapporteur for opinion I
would like to thank Mr Sergiy Vlasenko for his work. I support the
general thrust of the report's conclusions and proposals and wish
to make the following comments, in light of my experience as a French
politician, I would like to make a couple of points that I hope
will help to provide input for discussions on this subject
1 A time which
is conducive for large-scale corruption
2. Corruption, including political
corruption, is an extremely serious societal phenomenon that undermines democracy.
3. However, the global pandemic of Covid-19 has created a situation
where governments may have been exposed to corruption to a greater
extent than usual. Procurement of scarce medical equipment and commodities
was necessary; the emergency created exceptions to the usual rules
and provided an opportunity to sell defective goods and services
to the highest bidders against payment of individuals and intermediaries, to
bypass normal bidding procedures, to award contracts to individuals
close to decision-makers, to voluntarily deliver late, etc.
4. More recently, the “Pandora Papers” have served as a further
reminder that large-scale money laundering and abuse of public office
for personal gain are not a thing of the past but continue to take
place, despite the angry reactions they provoke. These revelations
also reflect a period in which financial globalisation, the still
recent lack of co-operation by States to regulate it, and the creation
of a tax optimisation consulting industry play into this corruption
and the resulting tax injustice.
5. These phenomena are systemic in nature, have a direct impact
on the state of public finances and the quality of public services,
and undermine the trust that citizens place in democratic institutions.
They require an urgent response from our societies.
6. It is now essential for policymakers to address this issue
and take the necessary dissuasive measures to prevent corruption,
to combat it, to detect it and to sanction it effectively and thus
ensure the greatest possible transparency in public life, in particular
in high-risk areas such as lobbying, public procurement and political
financing. This includes the full implementation of the recommendations
of the relevant Council of Europe bodies, such as GRECO and MONEYVAL.
2 Promoting a culture
of “public” individual responsibility
7. I believe it is useful to draw
a distinction between, on the one hand, the individual political
responsibility of the person who stands accused and, on the other
hand, collective political responsibility, which must enable an ex post facto response to be made
to failings identified.
8. Firstly, with regard to individual political accountability,
it is imperative that pressure continues to be exerted to introduce
more ethical conduct in political circles. The practice should be
to allow politicians against whom the justice system has gathered
serious and consistent evidence to withdraw from political life
and public action while a judicial decision is made.
9. Secondly, with regard to collective political responsibility,
we must draw conclusions from every corruption scandal after the
event and take the necessary steps to put an end to the failings
identified.
10. For example, ensuring the transparency of politicians’ tax
affairs and assets is one of the most effective ways of identifying
not only the risks of tax avoidance and evasion but also aggressive
tax optimisation practices through offshore companies.
11. Transparency is a means of ensuring the traceability of a
decision and of the use of public funds, especially in areas that
may be subject to intense lobbying or in the context of the award
of public contracts. In short, it is a crucial step in restoring
confidence in our institutions.
3 Put into place
authorities responsible for transparency
12. The promotion of this form
of public integrity should be a public policy in its own right.
In my view, it should be entrusted to a fully independent and properly
resourced authority that is able to exercise greater public control
and strengthen accountability in the event of non-compliance.
13. In France, this work has been carried out since January 2014
by the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (Haute Autorité pour la transparence de la vie
publique – HATVP), an independent administrative body
responsible for promoting the probity and exemplary conduct of public
officials. It has broad statutory powers and its independence is
also guaranteed by the way it operates and by its administrative
and financial autonomy.
14. It was set up after the French Parliament’s adoption of the
laws on transparency in public life in 2013, in response to the
Cahuzac Affair, named after the former French budget minister who
has since been convicted of tax evasion and money laundering.
15. Fortunately, the HATVP is not unique, and several European
countries have set up institutions that cover its area of responsibility,
in accordance with the Assembly
Resolution 2170 (2017).
16. Such authorities must be able to control the declarations
of assets and interests, not only of elected officials, executive
authorities and civil servants in charge, but also of all private
persons responsible for delegating public service missions.
17. Some of these institutions now hold discussions and meetings
to compare their positions, share good practices and measure the
progress that has been and still needs to be made. This co-operation
sometimes takes place through networks, such as the Integrity Network
and the European Lobbying Registrars’ Network. In many countries,
however, the responsibilities of monitoring and promoting public
integrity are still shared between different government departments.
18. In this connection, the Assembly should invite those member
States that have not set up such authorities to begin considering
this possibility. The Assembly should invite the relevant national
bodies to intensify their exchanges to promote, develop and strengthen
a new culture of integrity.
19. The Assembly should urge member States to fully implement
the recommendations of the relevant Council of Europe bodies, especially
GRECO and MONEYVAL.
20. I would also like to refer to the Guidelines of the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe on public ethics adopted on
11 March 2020. The guidelines aim to help Council of Europe member
States to establish a comprehensive and effective public ethics
framework, in order to promote an ethical culture in public organisations
and sustain the confidence and trust of citizens in the public officials
and institutions. The guidelines have a broad personal and substantive
scope, covering all categories of public officials – whether elected,
appointed or employed – and address pressing challenges such as
whistleblower protection, the use of social media and the prevention
of sexism, hate speech and discrimination.
4 Ensuring the
protection of whistleblowers
21. In the same vein, our Assembly
must call on States to guarantee the protection of whistleblowers
insofar as their words and their work are likely to identify risky
situations or those that have already given rise to acts of corruption,
without them having any reason to fear for themselves or their loved
ones.
22. I would like to draw your attention to one point: sometimes
this protection is limited by the fact that whistleblowing itself
constitutes an offence, for example, the disclosure of business
secrets. We must therefore find the right balance.
5 Develop education,
partnership action against corruption, evaluate the sectors and
mechanisms most at risk
23. Education, or rather the information
given to citizens on what corruption represents in terms of prejudice, on
its mechanisms, on the unacceptable situations they have to deal
with, on the need to speak out responsibly and to be punished in
case of bad faith, must be reinforced and developed.
24. Non-governmental organisations already offer online training
and workshops on such topics, which should be promoted.
25. At the same time, the place and role of collective action
must be promoted. Partnerships could be envisaged between the authorities
and civil society to identify sensitive sectors, illegal or problematic
practices, and financial issues, and to determine through experimentation
the most effective transparency and prevention practices.
