Enlarge image
Green leader Baerbock, SPD politician Lauterbach
Photo: photothek / imago images
SPIEGEL:
Annalena Baerbock received a total of around 25,000 euros from her party from 2018 to 2020 - special payments for Christmas because of Corona for successful election campaigns.
She only reported this additional income to the Bundestag this year.
How serious is this failure?
Briand:
There are MPs with much more problematic jobs for which they also get money, for example from lobby organizations. Annalena Baerbock has received money from her party, so initially no conflict of interest can be identified. The fact is, however, that it was possible for her not to report her additional income for years, although it was her duty. This is due to the fact that the corresponding reporting obligation is simply not checked. There are rules and clear sanctions, but they are worthless because there are often no consequences if they are violated. If a member of parliament does not report their part-time jobs or the associated additional income, or if they report it too late, nothing actually happens. This is not a special "Baerbock case," it has a system.
SPIEGEL:
According to his own statements, the SPD politician Karl Lauterbach also made a "huge mistake": He had to post an advance payment for bookings and various lecture fees. Is that also part of the system?
Briand:
The system consists in the fact that everyone has settled in well with the status quo: MEPs can handle the transparency regulations carelessly because compliance with them is not properly monitored.
Now, however, the MPs have noticed that their secondary employment and income are being debated in public and are probably looking to see whether they have reported everything correctly.
The fact that some have not yet done so is, in most cases, probably not malicious, but rather because they have nothing to fear from the President of the Bundestag, who is responsible for compliance with the rules.
SPIEGEL:
What is the current legal situation?
Briand:
There are three different types of sanctions: firstly, an internal warning, secondly, the publication of a violation, which can also be understood as a public reprimand, and thirdly, a fine of up to half a year diet, i.e. around 60,000 euros.
That is basically okay.
The problem is that many violations are not made public because there is usually only an internal admonition.
If MPs do not have to expect that their breach of duty will become public, which can cost them votes or damage their reputation, the deterrent effect is small.
As far as we know, a fine has only been imposed until now.
So the big problem is not that the sanctions are too lax, but whether and when they are actually applied.
more on the subject
After mask scandals and corruption scandals: Union presents key points for future code of conduct
SPIEGEL:
The coalition wants to tighten the transparency rules by reforming the law on parliament.
Is that enough?
Briand:
The bill does indeed provide for a tightening of the transparency regulations for members of the Bundestag.
Among other things, they will have to provide more information about their ancillary income in the future and publish all income over 3,000 euros per year to the nearest euro and cents.
We welcome that.
But: There should still be no real controls and no clear consequences in the event of violations.
The control is carried out by the Bundestag administration - and who is their boss?
The President of the Bundestag, in this case Wolfgang Schäuble.
SPIEGEL:
And you don't trust that you can adequately monitor the MPs?
Briand:
It's not about Schäuble as a person, but about his various roles: On the one hand, he is a member of parliament himself, who incidentally has reported additional income from lecturing. At the same time, he is the head of administration and thus responsible for compliance with the rules - and that in turn clings to his self-image as the highest representative of the interests of the MPs vis-à-vis the public. How should he control his parliamentary colleagues at the same time, represent their interests and control himself? It is obvious that there is a conflict of interest here and that the roles are unclear. We are now seeing the consequences: the President of the Bundestag and his administration cannot ensure compliance with the transparency regulations.
SPIEGEL:
What do you suggest?
Briand:
We are calling for an independent commission to check that all information is provided on time.
And it should recommend deterrent, that is, publicly visible sanctions.
The enforcement of the penalties should remain with the Bundestag Presidium.
There should also be clear rules within the political groups.
Parties could exert influence on their MPs and say, for example: If you are Parliamentary Managing Director and repeatedly violate guidelines, then we will take your position and the corresponding remuneration from you.
A law without possible sanctions is of course becoming less important.
SPIEGEL:
Do you think it is credible that Ms. Baerbock's non-reporting of earnings for years was an oversight, as the party claims?
Briand:
We cannot evaluate that.
I can well imagine that it was a mixture of a mistake and "It's not that important because nobody was looking".
We all know something like that, and MPs are normal people too.
However, they must adhere to their duties as representatives of the people.
That is precisely why clear rules are needed, and non-compliance with them also has consequences.
At the moment it depends on the willingness of the MPs whether the rules are respected.
If MPs forget the rules or deliberately fail to adhere to them, nothing happens.
