THIS was to be the week that the European Parliament proved to its critics that political sleaze had no place in the ranks of its 626 members.
Instead, the praiseworthy efforts to clamp down on abuses ended up in mud slinging and a farcical hunt for those who got nine CDs from a Turkish government showing gratitude to the MEPs who voted Turkey into a customs union with the EU.
One felt sorry for the parliament. It is genuinely trying to bring transparency into the activities of an estimated 3.000 lobby groups called a phantom army
There is even a "school" for lobbyists in Brussels now.
There is nothing wrong with lobbying as such and the parliament believes this is part of the democratic process. But as one of the parliament's reports said "It is the obligation of parliament to evaluate this input and not to be `taken for a ride'."
The problem is when the lobbyists abuse their access to buy votes through generous gifts or paid trips for MEPs and spouses. How much abuse there is can only be guessed at. There are lots union approached, both journalists were also invited on trips.
Where is the line to be drawn, MEPs ask. Some pay their own expenses when asked to visit a country where they want to investigate human rights abuses.
Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) lobby all EU bodies but also offer trips so that politicians and journalists can see the problems of Third World countries first hand. In Ireland Trocaire and Concern do this and no one objects.
What the parliament tried to do this week was to regulate lobbyists by making them apply for a pass, pay an annual fee and declare gifts in excess of £800 in a year. There would be no distinction between "good" lobbyists like charities or NGOs and the tough commercial ones.
This plan blew up on the floor of the parliament on Wednesday when it came to voting on the rule that lobbyists would also have to complete a form each year "detailing any benefits, subsidies, gifts or services of any nature rendered to Members, officials or assistants with a value in excess of FCU 1000 (£800) per beneficiary
A British Labour MEP Mr Glyn Ford, who was guiding the proposal through the parliament claimed that, in committee, the Socialists wanted to keep the threshold for declaration as 19w as £200 but that the Christian Democrats or FPP group objected and it was raised to £800.
When the parliament was about to vote on this, the EPP declared virtuously that the £800 figure could imply that MEPs could take gifts up to that amount and that this was illegal in several EU countries.
The Socialists were furious, believing that they had been tricked by Christian Democrats who never wanted the proposal in the first place but pretended to go along. The confusion among all groups showed in the voting where even Fianna Fail and Fine Gael MEPs voted differently from party colleagues.
After the collapse of the proposal, the rapporteur of a linked proposal to make MEPs declare more details of their personal wealth a French Liberal, Mr Jean Thomas Nordmann thought it better to withdraw it.
Under existing rules, all MFPs have to make a "detailed declaration of his professional activities and must also "list any other paid functions or activities insofar as these are relevant". Nine out of 10 MEPs "effectively return nil declarations" said Mr Ford.
But Mr Nordmann was proposing in addition that MEPs declare "any gift or benefit in payment or in kind received in connection with his mandate above an annual amount laid down by the Quaestors," and also give the name of the donor. This was the mirror proposal that related to lobbyists so that the two registers could be compared. It is also similar to the register just introduced for TDs.
More controversially, Mr Nordmann also proposed that MEPs declare their " movable and immovable property". This means declaring virtually everything. As the register would be easily available to the public, many MEPs felt that this was too much of an intrusion into their privacy. Spanish MEPs said this would make them targets for terrorists.
Support grew for amendments which would remove this obligation or else impose strict confidentiality with use only in case of a judicial inquiry Fianna Fail was willing to support this.
In the event, the Nordmann proposals were sent back to committee without debate. They and the Ford proposals on lobbying will be revised and eventually brought back to the parliament for approval.
Next time any behind the scenes agreement reached between the two big groups the Socialists and the Christian Democrats will have to stick together when it comes to the voting.
Before this week's debacle Mr Ford predicted that if his proposal was not passed "it will be a new millennium before we return. Parliament will be wounded by such a vote and Europe will neither understand nor forgive". He said that "sleaze in this Parliament is small but not unknown. If it is not stamped out, it will grow."
He said it not the media.