Last week this blog put in a complaint to the European Ombudsman, stating that OLAF was not providing adequate information to the public about its work on two cases.

One of these cases is an investigation into the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE), a development quango supporting projects in Africa. The former director (now expected to become prime minister of Mali) is alleged to have steered EU money into businesses in which he owned shares. The head of IT at the Centre, Terry Battersby, reported the conflict of interest in 2006 and in response the Commission partly blocked the EU’s contribution to the CDE’s budget.

By October 2007, Mr Battersby was presumably encountering problems in his work as a result of the claims. Labour MEP Brian Simpson tabled a question in Parliament to try to get the Commission to publicly clarify what was going on.

“What action are [the Commission] prepared to take in ensuring that any individual accused of maladministration is prosecuted, that the board which appears to have lost the confidence of our ACP partners is removed and that Mr Terry Battersby, the person who brought these alleged irregularities to light, is protected from harassment and retaliatory measures by CDE senior management?”

The Commission replied that it would “closely follow” procedures related to staff.

“The Commission, the Council Secretariat, the ACP Secretariat and the European Investment Bank (EIB) all have observer status at Board meetings. It is in the quality of observer at the meetings of the Executive Board, as well as via regular contacts with the Management and Staff Committee of the CDE that the Commission will closely follow that the procedures relating to staff are respected and has already received assurances from the Board that this will be the case.”

But whistleblowers rarely get an easy ride, and the Commission’s assurances appear to be smoke. The Times reports today that

A British whistleblower who exposed alleged corruption at a European aid agency faces the sack after he told EU fraud investigators that his boss was involved in the scam.

Terry Battersby, 53, from Manchester, has been removed from his job as head of information technology at the Brussels-based Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE) and placed on a short-term contract…

Brian Simpson, a Labour MEP, said Battersby had been the victim of a “witch-hunt” for having the courage to speak out. Battersby, who has worked at the CDE for 16 years, is now on a temporary six-month contract, after being denied a permanent job.

It’s well known that if you discover fraud in the EU and decide to blow the whistle, you run a serious risk of suffering for your efforts. On numerous occasions, the tables have been turned and the whistle-blower has become the subject of the investigation instead.

The EU has no adequate mechanism for protecting people who report fraud, and the Battersby case shows how much one is needed. MEPs shouldn’t have to be raising the matter in Parliament, the protection should already be in place and recognised.

UPDATE (28 April): Joy e-mails to say that the CDE isn’t an EU institution and that the Commission can’t control how it treats its staff. The money comes from the European Development Fund which is financed by the member states under the Cotonou Agreement. Hmm… I’m happy to change this post and stop accusing the Commission of involvement, but I’m pretty sure DG Development allocates the money.

I rarely let a day go past without e-mailing one or another of the EU institutions with a demand for information. I hope they enjoy receiving my frequent e-mails. But getting information out of OLAF (the EU’s anti-fraud office) is like getting blood out of a stone. After weeks of stonewalling, today I filled out the Ombudsman’s questionnaire:

What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it?

OLAF’s policy on informing the public about its work is desperately untransparent. I’m fully aware that much of its work is confidential and cannot be disclosed externally, but my enquiries for updates have met with little success.

Specifically, I wanted to find out about two cases mentioned in the press recently - the EP’s internal audit report 06/02, and OLAF’s investigation of the CDE. There was no reply from the primary e-mail address on the website, so I began a correspondence with the Press Officer in February.

Despite my numerous e-mails I have not been able to find out more than the basic details about either case. I’ve reminded OLAF that they have the option under the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour of passing me on to somebody who can help, but they have not done so.

What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

They have failed to keep the public adequately informed about their work via their website.

They have a staff of 300, but have published only 5 press releases on their website since the beginning of 2008. There is nothing at all about the most high profile case (the EP’s internal audit report 06/02).

The last Operational Activities report concerns activities carried out up to December 2006. We are now April 2008, and a new report should have been published.

OLAF’s Supervisory Committee might be meeting regularly, but it’s impossible to tell, as there is no information on the website. Furthermore, since the Supervisory Committee doesn’t issue its own information except for sporadic activity reports, it’s impossible to tell if it is doing a good job.

What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

OLAF should review and update its communications policy, particularly as regards presenting information on its website.

A revised policy should take into account that people have much greater access to the internet nowadays, and frequently want to know what the institutions are doing.

Information about specific investigations should be regularly updated. If the information is confidential, as it often will be, then we should be told why so that we can gain an accurate picture of whether the confidentiality is justified or not. This should be particularly true where cases are reported in the media, and then subject to lengthy investigations.

Information about the Supervisory Committee should be regularly updated on the website. Again, much of their work will be confidential, but there is plenty at the administrative level that should not be concealed: When do they meet? What do they discuss? What have they said OLAF could do to improve its service?

Finally, queries should be answered promptly and helpfully. I don’t think there’s a risk of OLAF being swamped by the public, but the provision of extensive information on the website would help avoid the contingency.