Thursday

28th Mar 2024

Opinion

Will the parliament end lobbying secrecy?

  • MEPs should give priority to EU citizens and their democratic right to scrutinise the role of lobbying in EU decision-making (Photo: CE)

With the Commission disappointingly choosing for a very limited, voluntary lobbyists' register, the European Parliament now must show the way and develop strong and effective transparency rules. This requires learning the bitter lessons from the last time these important issues were on the Parliament's agenda, more than a decade ago.

The good news is that many MEPs are determined to act introduce effective transparency obligations for the estimated 15,000 - 20,000 lobbyists operating in Brussels. Currently, far too little is known about who they are, whom they represent and how much money is being spent to influence EU decision-making.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Get the EU news that really matters

Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Already last autumn the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted in favour of a mandatory register with financial disclosure for all lobbyists as well as for a monitoring mechanism and sanctions for lobbyists filing unsatisfactory and false information.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety also supported a mandatory registration and reporting system for lobbyists and called for stricter rules around intergroups and measures to prevent conflicts of interests of MEPs.

The draft report by rapporteur Alexander Stubb (Finnish conservative MEP), however, is far less ambitious. Contrary to many other MEPs, Stubb has consistently advocated voluntary instead of mandatory rules on lobbying. In his report, he indicates that financial disclosure might be acceptable, as long as it is "not too detailed", mentioning bandwidths of €50,000 - €100,000 as a possibility.

It is hard to imagine any convincing argument for watering down the requirements to such imprecise estimates. This would dramatically reduce the value of financial disclosure and please only those who are against transparency obligations in the first place.

Regrettably, Mr. Stubb is responsible for a problematic myth that has entered the Parliament's discussions: that the US system of mandatory lobbying disclosure and rule-making against conflicts of interests is excessively bureaucratic and burdensome to comply with. In his draft Report, Alexander Stubb writes that "in the US a lobbyist needs to read through almost 600 pages of explanations to get everything right." The reality is that the US Lobbying Disclosure Law fits on no more than 19 pages. A brochure of 25 pages on the requirements of the law was published by the Secretary of the Senate. The House of Representatives has an extensive manual for parliamentarians and lengthy guidebooks for lobbyists are published in the US, but this is something entirely different.

The ‘600 pages of rules' is a myth that should be put to rest as soon as possible. This would allow for an unprejudiced assessment of the US experiences with regulating lobbying, which includes many valuable positive lessons. It would be tragic if this myth makes MEPs shy away from choosing for rules that can effectively secure transparency around lobbying and limit conflicts of interests.

In the months leading up to the plenary vote (expected in May), MEPs should reflect upon the lessons from the last time the Parliament had an in-depth debate about strengthening rules on lobbying, over a decade ago. Political scientist Didier Chabanet has written a sobering exposé of the discussions that took place between 1991 and 1996. In 1992, MEP Marc Galle's report included a compulsory public register of lobbyists, including reporting on budgets. The report was rejected by a majority of MEPs, even before it ever reached the plenary. In 1994, MEP Glyn Ford was given responsibility for drafting proposals on the same issues, but even though his proposals were far more limited than Galle's, the report was rejected in the plenary. Only after further watering down of the report's proposal for improving transparency and ethics, it got the approval.

Lobbying by commercial lobbyists played a major role in this outcome. In the mid-1990s they established several interest groups to prevent regulation. Equipped with their own voluntary codes of conducts, their lobbying efforts were instrumental in the Parliament's failure to introduce meaningful transparency and ethics rules around lobbying.

Similarly, MEPs are now exposed to a lobbying offensive from Brussels-based lobbying consultants, law firms and other vested interests hoping to preserve the status quo, especially the absence of financial disclosure obligations. The lesson from the debacle of the mid-1990's is that political will is needed to defend the public interest, including ensuring a transparent political process and preventing capture of decision-making by specific interests.

When deciding the shape of improved EU rules on lobbying, MEPs should give absolute priority to EU citizens and their democratic right to scrutinise the role of lobbying in EU decision-making. This can be only achieved through a mandatory lobbying register, with regular reporting obligations, including about sources of funding, clients and lobbying budgets. As the only elected EU institution, the Parliament must go beyond the voluntary and limited rules that the Commission has opted for.

The author is an analyst at the Amsterdam-based research and campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

EU Modernisation Fund: an open door for fossil gas in Romania

Among the largest sources of financing for energy transition of central and eastern European countries, the €60bn Modernisation Fund remains far from the public eye. And perhaps that's one reason it is often used for financing fossil gas projects.

Why UK-EU defence and security deal may be difficult

Rather than assuming a pro-European Labour government in London will automatically open doors in Brussels, the Labour party needs to consider what it may be able to offer to incentivise EU leaders to factor the UK into their defence thinking.

Column

EU's Gaza policy: boon for dictators, bad for democrats

While they woo dictators and autocrats, EU policymakers are becoming ever more estranged from the world's democrats. The real tragedy is the erosion of one of Europe's key assets: its huge reserves of soft power, writes Shada Islam.

Why UK-EU defence and security deal may be difficult

Rather than assuming a pro-European Labour government in London will automatically open doors in Brussels, the Labour party needs to consider what it may be able to offer to incentivise EU leaders to factor the UK into their defence thinking.

Column

EU's Gaza policy: boon for dictators, bad for democrats

While they woo dictators and autocrats, EU policymakers are becoming ever more estranged from the world's democrats. The real tragedy is the erosion of one of Europe's key assets: its huge reserves of soft power, writes Shada Islam.

Latest News

  1. German bank freezes account of Jewish peace group
  2. EU Modernisation Fund: an open door for fossil gas in Romania
  3. 'Swiftly dial back' interest rates, ECB told
  4. Moscow's terror attack, security and Gaza
  5. Why UK-EU defence and security deal may be difficult
  6. EU unveils plan to create a European cross-border degree
  7. How migrants risk becoming drug addicts along Balkan route
  8. 2024: A Space Odyssey — why the galaxy needs regulating

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersJoin the Nordic Food Systems Takeover at COP28
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersHow women and men are affected differently by climate policy
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersArtist Jessie Kleemann at Nordic pavilion during UN climate summit COP28
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCOP28: Gathering Nordic and global experts to put food and health on the agenda
  5. Friedrich Naumann FoundationPoems of Liberty – Call for Submission “Human Rights in Inhume War”: 250€ honorary fee for selected poems
  6. World BankWorld Bank report: How to create a future where the rewards of technology benefit all levels of society?

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Georgia Ministry of Foreign AffairsThis autumn Europalia arts festival is all about GEORGIA!
  2. UNOPSFostering health system resilience in fragile and conflict-affected countries
  3. European Citizen's InitiativeThe European Commission launches the ‘ImagineEU’ competition for secondary school students in the EU.
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic Region is stepping up its efforts to reduce food waste
  5. UNOPSUNOPS begins works under EU-funded project to repair schools in Ukraine
  6. Georgia Ministry of Foreign AffairsGeorgia effectively prevents sanctions evasion against Russia – confirm EU, UK, USA

Join EUobserver

EU news that matters

Join us