The proposal of the EU Commission brings improvements; however, it sees the need for action regarding more transparency to lie mainly with Council and Parliament. This means that the draft does not meet fuelled expectations.

 

On Wednesday, 28th September 2016, the EU Commission presented its proposal for an interinstitutional agreement regarding the Transparency Register. In respect of this agreement, all three EU institutions, Council, EU Parliament and EU Commission are to agree on common rules regarding access for lobbyists and special interest groups. However, the Transparency Register remains only de facto mandatory, a de jure approach, which means a corresponding legal act, was not contemplated. The principle proposes that the incentive to enrol in the register would be that only registered actors would gain access to decision makers in the EU institutions. However, this access would be limited to top-ranking members in the respective structures, such as MEPs or the ambassadors of the current and succeeding presidency.

Frans Timmermans, the responisble EU Commissioner, clearly sees the need for action lying with the two other institutions to adjust to the level of transparency of the EU Commission. He sees significant improvements with the sanction mechanisms. If registered parties violate the code of conduct, these sanctions may involve the suspension or the exclusion from the Transparency Register and corresponding privileges. Improved management structures shall ensure this. In addition, he made clear that no legal instrument will be applied for a de jure obligation for more transparency. The chosen approach is seen as a pragmatic solution, which would guarantee a fast implementation.

A major coup looks different

Hence, the major reform of the proposal is that the current rules of the EU Commission shall be extended to the two other institutions. This is an improvement compared to the status quo; however, (once again) an opportunity has been wasted to come up with a more courageous proposal to contribute to a more transparent Europe and to increase citizens' trust.

Untouched for example remained which levels of the EU Commission will be affected by the regulation only to meet registered lobbyists, which means that the majority of EU officials will be exempt from this regulation. It is also disappointing that for the other institutions not a more comprehensive proposal has been made, for example extending the no-meetings-without-registration rule for all the ambassadors of all permanent representations in the Council. The Chamber of Labour severely criticises that due to this failure significant loopholes will remain.

Sanction mechanisms are to be welcomed in general; however, without corresponding resources for constantly monitoring the entries, the effect is also limited. The proposal of the EU Commission only includes the vague promise to furnish the corresponding control unit with the necessary human resources, whereby their number remains open. Not mentioned at all was how many entries will be checked within a year or an obligation for lobbyists to update their data regularily. In the opinion of the AK, it is one of the demands for a better effect of the register that at least 20% of all entries are checked annually and that the data entered in the register has to be updated twice a year by the registered persons or organisations.

It is also disappointing that a clear decision was made against a binding legal act for implementing the Transparency Register. Only then it can become legally binding. If one would have wanted to improve the citizens’ trust in EU institutions, particular in the wake of the scandals surrounding Manuel Barroso and Nellie Kroes, one would have had to come up with a significantly more courageous proposal.

Further information

Lobbying in Brussels - Breaking the excessive power of corporations

Proposal of the EU Commission (available only in English)

Legal framework for a Mandatory EU Lobby Register and Regulations (available only in English)