On Tuesday 12 September, Sven Giegold (Greens/EFA, Germany) criticised the EPP group for seeking to water down the European Parliament’s plan to enhance transparency, responsibility and integrity within the European institutions.
On 21 March last, the European Parliament constitutional affairs committee adopted the own-initiative report by Sven Giegold on this dossier (see EUROPE 11750). Parliament will be voting on the issue at the plenary on 14 September and a battle of amendments is looking likely.
The Greens/EFA and MEPs from other groups again submitted six amendments to obtain more transparency within the EU institutions. 30 new amendments, however, are expected to be put forward by the EPP group, which Mr Giegold claims would “weaken” the report as voted on in the constitutional affairs committee in Parliament in several different areas, particularly by reducing the degree of independence at the ethics committee (set up by the European Commission) and by refusing publication in Parliament of meetings with lobbyists, the public list of corrupt companies, a fast track policy for declassifying documents or publishing the minutes from Eurogroup meetings.
When asked about the subject, Manfred Weber explained that the EPP group he chairs had called for more transparency. He further explained that, “for the time being, it is not clear if we are going to vote for or against the report. This will also depend on the willingness of the Greens/EFA to reach a compromise”. Other groups such as the ALDE and S&D are divided on the issue.
Mr Giegold believes, “The report is almost empty when it comes to lobby transparency at the EU Parliament”. The right wing in Parliament is not in favour of creating transparency about meetings between MEPs and lobbyists. Certain German MEPs in the EPP find this question particularly irritating and according to one European source, see it as blatant distrust of the work they are undertaking.
During the plenary debate on Monday 11 September, Mr Giegold declared, “We have to sweep in front of our own door as we have noticed that some colleagues would like to support certain very influential lobbyists”.
The rapporteur particularly regrets the absence in the draft report of a cooling off period for MEPs, “who can therefore benefit from the ‘revolving door’ directly into lobbying jobs after they finish their mandate”. Mr Giegold proposed a three-year transition period, after which MEPs would be able to carry out activities representing different interest in areas where they exercised their parliamentary responsibilities. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur, Mathieu Bion and Marion Fontana)