A year into the new Parliament’s term, only 37% of MEPs have reported lobby meetings. While publication remains an individual responsibility, Parliament’s leadership could task administration e.g. in committee secretariats to remind those MEPs co-authoring EU decisions as rapporteurs, shadows and chairs to fulfill their duty. Connecting the online tool for reporting MEPs lobby meetings and the EU Transparency Register can lead to meaningful data, e.g. allowing the public to see the footprint of individual lobby organisations.

Many MEPs reject a ban on meetings with unregistered lobbyists, citing legal arguments. Yet, Parliament’s legal service clarifies that staff working for the institution or in MEP offices can be obliged to only meet with registered lobbyists. Parliament’s transparency resolution of 14 September 2017 already “asks Members and their staff to check whether the interest representatives they intend to meet are registered and, if not, ask them to do so as soon as possible prior to the meeting” (§2). Parliament already aks for meetings with EU officials from the level of Head of Unit to Secretaries General to be made conditional upon registration of lobbyists. Yet staff below Head of Unit level, working in committees, for political groups and for MEPs is heavily targeted by lobbying efforts. Also in the Commission, staff below Head of Unit level contributes intensely to drafting EU laws and is intensely targeted by lobbying. The EU Transparency Register and its Code of Conduct for Lobbyists establish a standard for transparent lobbying. A clear rule for all staff in all EU institutions only to interact with registered lobbyists protects the staff from undue influence and the good name of the European Parliament and the EU Commission.

Commissioners introduced their rule only to meet registered lobbyists together with the rule to publish those meetings yet Commission’s proposal for the inter-institutional agreement on the EU Transparency Register does not mention publication of meetings at all. Publication of meetings makes transparent how much different sides in a debate had the chance to make their case before the EU institutions decide. The rule to publish meetings does not limit who one can meet. Parliament’s transparency resolution of 2017 already asked the “Commission to publish meetings of all relevant Commission staff involved in the EU’s policy-making process” (§7). The same rule could apply for all staff in Parliament and Council. To take data protection into account when extending publication of meetings below Members or managerial staff, “reference to the unit or service should be published” (EP transparency resolution §7). Upon request, the Permanent Representations of the Netherlands and Romania already provided lists of lobby meetings of all policy related staff to the NGO Corporate Europe Observatory. Exceptions for the publication can apply in line with the Commission’s decision of 2014 on publication of meetings with lobbyists.

The scope of the present inter-institutional agreement includes both direct and indirect lobbying. Indirect lobbying, the collection of information, drafting of legislative text and amendments, compilation of legal arguments is more effort in time and finances than direct lobbying, the act of meeting Members or officials of EU institutions. In the present draft for a new inter-institutional agreement, the Commission proposed to delete indirect lobbying for simplification and since then faced criticism from Civil Society and even the professional associations of corporate lobbyists themselves. Indirect lobbying and finances used for it must remain in the scope of a new register. Parliament already demands this. The Commission should correct this mistake.

Third countries such as Russia or China do not need to register as lobbyists. This separation between public and private actors is useful and should be maintained. Yet when private lobby firms are paid by third countries, this needs to be transparent, since then sources of money and influence would otherwise be disguised. Scandals around lobbying on behalf of governments like Azerbaijan should not be repeated. Yet so far, the Code of Conduct for lobbyists of neither the present nor the Commission proposed new inter-institutional agreement includes an obligation for registered lobbyists to disclose third countries as clients. Commission’s redrafting should take this on board.

E.g. Gerhard Sabathil and Bruno Desthomas took the revolving door from the EU External Action Service to EUTOP and G+, private lobby firms employed by China and Russia. It harms the EU’s credibility if high ranking officials and all their knowledge can be bought out directly from their official positions by opposing parties. Against too direct changes, former Commissioners, MEPs and EU officials are already obliged to report their new jobs. Registered lobby firms are obliged not to subvert EU internal integrity rules. Yet a lack of reporting weakens these rules. The Comission’s update of the draft inter-institutional agreement could upgrade the passive rule not to subvert to a rule of actively report revolving door cases to support transparency.

Analysis of NGOs found too many entries in the EU Transparency Register meaningless or outdated. Already the Transparency resolution of 2017 stated Parliament “Believes it to be necessary, as a matter of urgency, to introduce a proper monitoring system for submissions in order to ensure that the information that registrants provide is meaningful, accurate, up-to-date and comprehensive; calls in this regard for a substantial increase in the resources of the Transparency Unit within the European Parliament and the Joint Transparency Register Secretariat” (§24). Parliament should also “oblige registrants in the Transparency Register to produce documents to demonstrate that the information submitted is accurate” (§2).

In the present EU rules, registrants only declare once per year their lobbying expenses. For transparency to serve the public understanding where the power of money influences current debates, transparency should be up to date. Therefore, Commission’s update should include “mandatory updates in the register on expenditure for activities falling within the remit of the register by its registrants when this expenditure exceeds the level set for the category in question” (Transparency resolution §12).

The European Parliament in its transparency resolution of 2017 “Recalls its decision of 13 December 2016 to withdraw privileges from those who are unwilling to cooperate with inquiries or hearings and committee meetings which have a fact-finding mission; calls on the Commission to further amend the code of conduct for registered entities to incentivise them not to provide, in utmost good faith, insufficient or misleading information during such hearings or committees; considers that entities registered in the Transparency Register should be prohibited under the code of conduct from employing individuals or organisations disguising the interests or the parties they serve” (§16).

“transparency resolution” refers to European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions drafted by Greens/EFA MEP Sven Giegold

Sassolis Versprechen, die Infrastruktur für Lobbytreffen der Europaabgeordneten und das EU-Transparenzregister zu verbinden: