The methods
employed by the European Parliament's inquiry committee into the role of
Europe's governments in the Dieselgate scandal will not be seen as
revolutionary outside Brussels.
But the way witnesses are questioned in the EMIS inquiry committee (Emissions
Measurements in the Automotive Sector) was apparently so novel that it deserved
its own name.
“As a general rule, upon introduction by the
Chair, the witnesses or experts open their hearing with a brief oral statement,
which is followed by questions from EMIS Members in accordance with the
‘ping-pong’ principle (answer immediately following each question),” MEPs Pablo
Zalba Bidegain and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy wrote last week in the
draft interim report.
In many parliaments, the ping-pong principle is nothing new. But in the EP,
it is a refreshing change of procedure.
Questioning in the EP is known informally as an exchange of views, and
usually takes the following format: one member of each of the eight political
groups takes the floor and crams as many questions and comments into a strictly
allotted time slot. Sometimes one of the non-affiliated members also gets a
turn.
After so many interventions, as spoken contributions are often called, the
questioned guest usually has only three minutes or so to try and answer them.
Alternatively, if the guest is politically savvy, they will pick the answers
that are easiest to address.
Not so in the EMIS committee, where the ping-pong principle has actually
resulted in the hearings being interesting to watch, at least to those who have
taken some time to catch up on technical terms like “exhaust gas recirculation
of nitrogen oxide”.
The hearings have so far involved mostly technical witnesses. But when
former commissioners and national authorities in charge of checking if car
companies are cheating take the stand later this year, a well-executed
ping-pong principle works much better than the marathon of questions.
Panama Papers
It is to be hoped that the new inquiry committee into the Panama Papers,
which the plenary of the parliament formally requested on Wednesday (8 June),
will take a similar work method.
The Panama Papers were a trove of documents, leaked last April, that showed
how the rich and powerful use offshore firms to avoid paying taxes.
MEPs voted to set up a committee to “investigate alleged contraventions and
maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money
laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, its powers, numerical strength and
term of office”.
The outcome of the vote in Strasbourg was no surprise. At last Friday's
pre-plenary press conference this website asked all political groups if any of
them would vote against.
None spoke up, although it should be noted there was no representative
present of the seventh-largest group, the eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and
Direct Democracy (EFDD).
The constitutive vote for the Panama Papers inquiry was therefore somewhat
less exciting than the one for the Dieselgate inquiry, which was supported by
354 MEPs and opposed by 229.
Centre-right are game, this time
The big difference this time around is that centre-right MEPs back the plan
this time.
“Our preference usually is to deal with these issues in the committees that
exist in the parliament, within their mandate,” said Antti Timonen, spokesman
for the largest group, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP). Most of
the EPP members voted against setting up the Dieselgate committee.
“We felt it would be better to see [diesel-related] proposals for the
future, to see what can be done. For us it was very important not to harm the
European car industry, which is a big employer,” said Timonen.
“However, for the Panama Papers, we have seen that they have created a lot
of interest but also exposed many problems, so perhaps this inquiry committee
gives a better opportunities for us to see what we could have done
differently.”
His colleague from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), also
centre-right but much less federalist group, had similar reasoning.
The Panama Papers constitute a “slightly more cross-cutting issue”, said
ECR spokesman James Holtum, noting that the group felt the normal environment
committee could have dealt with Dieselgate.
Closing the trilogy
The inquiry committee on the Panama Papers will be an informal successor to
two so-called special committees, which were set up after the 2014 Luxleaks
scandal that revealed how companies were getting sweetheart tax deals in
Luxembourg.
After the mandate of the first Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in
Nature or Effect committee ended on 30 November 2015, the parliament decided to
install a sequel, known by its acronym TAXE 2, which will run until 2 August
2016.
Although they were called special committees, the Luxleaks committees were
much less powerful than an inquiry committee and they had trouble getting
access to documents and persuading witnesses to appear.
The Panama Papers will therefore be a platform to take care of “some of the
unfinished business” of TAXE 2, said Richard More O'Ferrall of the Greens, the
sixth-largest group, traditionally a pro-inquiry group.
“We are certainly happy that there was a lot less resistance this time,” he
said about setting up the Panama Papers inquiry.
After Wednesday's vote, there will be two active inquiry committees
(Dieselgate and Panama Papers) and one special committee (LuxLeaks II). The
Panama Papers committee will have 65 members, the other two committees have 45
members each.
MEPs as investigators
There are only two MEPs serving on both the Dieselgate and Luxleaks
committees, so for a number of months this year 153 MEPs could be taking part
in investigative committees. That's not counting the substitute members. If
those are counted, and the Panama Papers committee acquires only members not
currently in the two other committees, 40 percent of MEPs would be a
(substitute) member of an investigative group.
