'Whistleblower' Robert Dougal Watt speaks out

To the Members of the European Parliament
 
Subject:  European Court of Auditors – my letter of 22 April 2002
 
Introduction
This letter identifies supporting evidence in respect of the allegations presented in my letter of 22 April. 
 
I understand that representatives of the Court of Auditors may have indicated that on 22 April I suddenly became insane.  I am happy to confirm that both my doctor in Luxembourg, and my doctor in Scotland, have assured me that the latter is not the case.  I believe any such news of my sudden insanity was given in good faith; I understand the Court itself was misled to this effect by a senior official. [On 20 September 2002 Mr Watt was officially informed that the Court of Auditors now considered him to be mentally sound. Ed.]
 
My letter of 22 April was also presented to the staff of the Court, just prior to the institution’s Staff Committee election, with a view to demonstrating to those beyond the Court the reliability and representativeness of the allegations presented.  In the subsequent secret ballot these allegations were endorsed by 205 staff of the institution.  I received the second highest number of votes among the twelve candidates elected to the Committee.   
 
My “personal case”
I should like to emphasise, in fairness to the Head of Division concerned, that  my dispute was not simply with my immediate superior, but with my institution.  Over a period of six months, the affair received the attention of three Directors, three Members of the Court, including its President, and the Secretary-General. 
 
My superior gave an instruction which I protested to be improper; it potentially risked the undermining of another Community body’s investigation into illegal activities.  My superior responded with a note which both reiterated his decision, and reprimanded me.  Following my further protest, his decision was overturned; but the reprimand remained effective. 
 
My pursuit of this case, derived from this fundamental hypocrisy of the institution:  it acted upon the basis that my protest was justified; yet it condemned me for submitting that protest.
 
Nepotism
The institution has publicly responded that there is no nepotism in the Court.  This has been interpreted as a denial of the allegation presented in my letter of 22 April.  However, in my letter of that date, I alleged that the sound running of the institution had been undermined over a period of many years by the practice of nepotism, engaged in by several Members, including current Members.  Specific details are given below.  The Court has simply been economical with the truth. 
 
Mr Fabra Valles (current President):  Mr A – former associate of Mr Fabra Valles, appointed as a temporary agent to tailor-made permanent staff post in External Relations Department.  The normal procedure for employment of an external candidate requires that :  a) a vacant post exists, b) the vacancy be advertised internally for a period, to confirm that no internal candidate is suitable, and c) external candidates are invited to express an interest.  In this case, a new post in External Relations was created by the Administration, and allocated to Mr Fabra Valles’ former associate, without delay – apparently the same day.
 
Mr Clemente (current Member):  Ms B – daughter of Mr Clemente’s former colleague in the Italian Court of Auditors.  Ms B was initially employed as an “A” grade temporary agent, on an audit division/permanent staff post, upon the basis of assurances given as to qualifications/experience.  However, post-appointment scrutiny of supporting evidence of qualifications/experience revealed that Ms B did not meet the objective criteria for “A” grade status.  After some time, Ms B received a new contract as a “B” grade temporary agent, for five years. 
 
Mrs Nikolaou (former Member):  Mr C – nephew of Mrs Nikolaou, appointed as initial second attache; no previous audit qualifications/experience.  Mrs D – friend of Mrs Nikolaou, appointed as replacement second attache; no previous audit qualifications/experience.  Mr E – son of Mrs D, employed as an “A” grade temporary agent, on an audit division/permanent staff post; no previous audit qualifications/experience. 
 
Recruitment of temporary staff
The unbalanced nature of the institution’s recruitment of temporary staff was recognised by the former Secretary General in his final year prior to retirement.  A circular was issued, which called on Members and staff to propose means of identifying suitable candidates for “temporary” vacancies: e.g., individuals/institutions for the Administration to contact in the event of a relevant vacancy arising.  It was understood that this initiative reflected widespread concern at senior levels, over the need for more non-francophone recruitment.  At the same time, the Secretary General introduced new rules in order to increase the transparency of the procedure for temporary staff recruitment.  I understand that the Administration has had some success in improving the diversity of recruitment; however, imbalance remains. 
 
I understand that the Head of Administration considers himself to have been defamed by my letter of 22 April.  I can only respond that my remarks were not intended as personal criticism of his conduct, but as criticism of the institution; the “questionable” practices identified in my letter of 22 April have been known to exist for many years, and are therefore implicitly approved by the Court.  The absence of strategic human resource guidance by the Court obliges managers to adopt ad hoc solutions. 
 
Allowances paid without entitlement
Permanent officials are entitled to receive a limited proportion of their salary in the currency of a Member State other than their country of residence, at a special exchange rate which is weighted to reflect the difference in cost of living between that state and the state of residence.  This provision reflects the normal reality that officials continue to have significant costs in their countries of origin.  The weighted nature of the special exchange rate can significantly increase the real value of some officials’ income.  I understand that Members of the Court are not eligible for this special provision.  I also understand that nevertheless, due to the action of the Administration, Members may have benefitted from this special provision.
 
Harrassment of temporary staff
All members of the institution’s Staff Committee present were informed by the President and Vice-President of the Committee of the events described, in the course of a plenary meeting in Spring 2000.  The President and Vice-President had been briefed on the topic by the Secretary General.  The disclosure to the Committee was not recorded in the agenda or the minutes.  At the time of the meeting, the specific identity of the official involved was not given to members; only the fact that he worked in the Administration.  The Committee was informed that the official involved had admitted impropriety.  The Committee was also informed of the sanction imposed by the (former) Secretary General; henceforth, the official involved must leave open his office door in the event of being alone in the company of female “C” grade temporary staff.   
 
A week or two following the Committee’s meeting, a rumour circulated among Court staff, identifying the official involved as the Head of Personnel.  I asked the President of the Committee to confirm if the Head of Personnel was the official involved.  The President of the Committee confirmed this. 
 
Again, my remarks were not intended as personal criticism of the Head of Personnel, who when confronted on the occasion of the second allegation, fully informed the (former) Secretary General as to his conduct.  My remarks were intended as criticism of the institution, which simply swept this matter under the carpet.
 
The institution has publicly responded that in the cases referred to, the allegations were found “not proven”.  In order for any allegation to be deemed “proven” in a formal sense, it needs to be tested and confirmed by a formal procedure.  As noted in my letter of 22 April, in respect of this matter the formal procedure was not applied; indeed, this failure to apply due procedure constituted the essence of my observation. 
 
I understand the Court has also disputed my allegation that the victims of harassment subsequently left the institution.  Since I was not provided in 2000 with the names of those suffering harrassment – nor did I seek this information – I am consequently unable to comment on whether the two victims now identified by the Court as currently employed, are the same individuals as those featuring in the events described to the Staff Committee.     
 
My PC records e-mail evidence in corroboration of the above.
 
Hedgerows
I was the official responsible for dealing with this enquiry.  The consultancy agency involved is the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Buckingham Palace Road, London.  The practical impact of the Court’s ruling – which was significant – was also recorded in the magazine, “Private Eye”, which identified the European Court of Auditors as the source of the ruling.
 
Awareness of Member States
Fifteen “Principal Auditor” posts are reserved for occupation on a temporary basis (normally for a period of two years, renewable) by suitably qualified auditors, one from each of the National Audit Institutions of Europe.  Each of the National Audit Institutions of Europe therefore has a direct corporate knowledge of the situation in the Court. 
 
It is perhaps noteworthy that the same day on which “The Sunday Times” published an article on the contents of my letter, an article appeared in “The Observer”.  This reported that the UK National Audit Office would publish a report praising the Court’s performance – in some months’ time.  The article reported the National Audit Office’s findings in some detail.  I find the coincidental timing of the National Audit Office’s release of this information to be remarkable.
 
Employment practices in the Commission
I was quickly made aware by colleagues of such concerns, upon my arrival in the Court in 1995.  The indicative reliability of this allegation, and others of a general nature, has been endorsed by 205 of my colleagues.  Clearly, such support does not constitute a proof; but I believe it does strongly suggest that serious problems exist in the Court.  Furthermore, the entirely negative public response of the institution to the allegations presented may suggest that external review is needed, with a view to rectifying current abuses and preventing their repetition.
 
Unorthodox method of communicating allegations
I recognise that in several respects, my method of communicating allegations has been non-compliant with established procedures.  I have provided an explanation for my actions to the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors.  Essentially, my correspondence to MEP’s has been very much a last resort.
 
In particular, the Decision cited in the title of my letter of 22 April requires that an official with allegations of wrong-doing against the supreme hierarchy of his institution should submit these to the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF.  I did not do so.  Upon the basis of evidence examined in the course of my audit work over the period 1999-2001, I have no confidence in OLAF investigations which concern the conduct of highly-placed individuals within the Community institutions. 
 
Since 22 April, certain developments in my own case have given me cause for personal concern.  In particular, I have reason to believe that delivery to MEP’s of my earlier letter (c.20 copies on morning of 22 April direct to the Parliament’s internal mail depot, Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg; and c.480 letters on morning of 23 April direct to the Parliament’s internal mail depot, off Rue Wiertz, Brussels) was deliberately delayed until 29 April.  I further believe that a common factor is present, which may link the implicit criticism of OLAF contained in my letter of 22 April, with that delay.  The implicit criticism of OLAF made in my letter of 22 April, related to follow-up by the agency of a case concerning the death in suspicious circumstances of a Commission official.  The connection which I perceive may exist between OLAF’s investigation, and events in my own case post-22 April, is freemasonry.
 
I regret being unable to submit sooner the evidence which is presented here regarding my original allegations.  Since 22 April I have been, and remain, on sick leave, due to the stress and anxiety attendant upon the matters discussed in the paragraph above.  In respect of these matters, I have presented a submission to the Secretary General of the European Court of Auditors.  I hope to return to work as soon as possible.
 
R Dougal WATT
Auditor
Staff Number 43062
18 June 2002
(on sick leave)

Note: This report was published for the first time by JUST Response on September 24 2002.

Return to top

Return to opening page