Ms Emily O'Reilly:

When Qatargate happened there were many elements involved in it. Of course, the Belgian authorities are still looking into it, as the committee will know. I think it will be a pretty long process. Basically, it was found that a number of European Parliament personnel, including a former MEP, a serving MEP and an assistant, had been involved in what looked like an attempt by the Qatari and other governments to influence the European Parliament in respect of certain matters favourable to Qatar and other countries. Obviously, there was a lot of shock at this because those members who will have seen pictures of it will have seen literal bags of cash and suitcases, which gave a very graphic image of what appeared to be corruption.

Immediately, as soon as that happened, the European Parliament started examining its own rules to see whether its ethical rules were strong enough to withstand this, what was described by President Metsola, attack on European democracy. A number of the findings related to cooling-off periods for MEPs, the easy way in which MEPs can lobby their former colleagues once they have left Parliament and the ways in which informal friendship groups can be set up by MEPs who start liaising with countries outside the bloc on a friendship basis. That is very positive but can lead to perhaps inappropriate influencing of the EU by those countries, and the MEPs are sort of dragged into that, whether willingly or otherwise. It is not something that is controlled by the European Parliament itself. When such groups go abroad they do not really have the imprimatur of the European Parliament, but many countries that are looking for the approval of the EU or that want to burnish their credentials can say, "Look: we have been visited by a delegation from the European Parliament, and that is good for our image."

The findings also related not only to the transparency of the work MEPs do but also to the fact that the committee that looks into breaches of the rules is not terribly independent. It is made up of six MEPs from the different groupings. It cannot independently investigate anything. It has to be asked by the Parliament - indeed, by the Parliament President - to investigate something. Then, while they can make a recommendation if a breach of the rules has been found to have happened, those recommendations are generally not made public, and then it is up to the President as to whether or not she accepts them. These were some of the areas that were felt to be leading to a weakening of the structure that should support the ethical framework of the Parliament. Now President Metsola has made a series of, I think, 14 different proposals but, of course, they have to be agreed to by all the groups. At the start of this drama there was a great rush to implement or to support these rules, but now that the drama has died down a little, splits are emerging between the groups as to how far they want to go. It is sort of a work in progress.

The Parliament knows very well that this has been damaging not just to the image of the Parliament but to the image of the EU itself because, as the committee will know, not everybody distinguishes between the Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the various other institutions. It is also noteworthy that this story was a global story. It was covered not just in Brussels or the EU but all over the world. That is a testament to or shows just how powerful the Parliament is and that what it does as co-legislator with the Council has an enormous impact not just within the EU but globally. Therefore, when a scandal like this emerges, it will get global notice and, therefore, the EU knows that it has to rebuild its image and rebuild the trust of its citizens in the Parliament by implementing rules that people see are solid and will do the job.