On Thursday 14 September in Strasbourg, the European Parliament approved a legislative blueprint for governing meetings with lobbyists. It also supported the proposal for a mandatory transparency register for the three EU institutions.
Parliament adopted the report by Sven Giegold (Greens, Germany) with 368 votes in favour, 161 against and 60 abstentions on the importance of stricter and clearer transparency.
A substantial majority of the EPP group voted against this report, which was supported by the Greens/EFA, S&D, ALDE, GUE/NGL and by the Italian ‘5 Star Movement’.
One source explained that the EPP amendments sought to water down the report or include within it shocking allegations about NGOs, which were rejected during the plenary. Sources close to Mr Giegold said that this was a, “complete defeat for the EPP”.
Legislative blueprint. MEPs strengthened some of the elements in the report voted on at the parliamentary committee (see EUROPE 11750). They adopted an amendment on a legislative blueprint submitted by the Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL, ECR and Italians from the EFDD group. The rapporteurs will therefore be able to publish a list of all lobbyists met during a specific legislative procedure. Parliament's amendment also calls for, “rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and committee chairs to declare their meetings with interest groups representatives for the dossiers which they are in charge of, as part of a transparency register and that any exception should be made to protect the life and freedom of those providing information in good faith”.
The European Parliament also called on its Bureau to make the necessary resources available so that MEPs who so wish can publish their profiles on Parliament's website, as well as their meetings with different interest group representatives.
The Bureau is also called on to register access granted to Parliament's premises for organisations or individuals who are not registered and make sure that their activities are included in the transparency register. Parliament believes, however, the groups of visitors should be exempt from this requirement.
Parliament would also have to introduce these changes (contents in this own-initiative report) through an amendment to its internal regulation.
Protecting integrity against conflict-of-interest. Parliament also sent messages to the European Commission. It explained that in order to avoid further scandals involving “revolving doors”, restrictions applicable to former Commissioners should be strengthened by extending the cooling off period to three years, as opposed to the current 18 months and by making it compulsory, “at least for the activities included in the transparency register’s scope of application”.
Some MEPs have often criticised the lack of integrity at the ad hoc ethics committee in charge of advising the Commission on nominations in the private sector of former Commissioners. By adopting the report by Mr Giegold, Parliament is stating that decisions involving new functions assumed by senior officials and former Commissioners should be taken by “an authority that is as independent as possible from the people affected by these decisions”. The EPP group failed to have this paragraph removed.
The Commission is called on to: - publish on its website all reports available of expert group meetings and take into account the wide variety of opinions represented; publish all meetings held by members involved in the personnel participating in the process used to draw up policies with external organisations, whilst taking into account appropriate data protection rules (for the other members of the personnel participating in these kinds of meetings, it would be necessary to mention the unit or the service involved, Parliament explains).
NGOs. The EPP counter attacked by criticising the Greens and left wing at the European Parliament for having changed the EPP amendments seeking to, “oppose all financing of organisations for which it has transpired that they have propagated misinformation and/or whose objectives are contrary to the fundamental values and/or strategic objectives of the Union”. The EPP also unsuccessfully called on Parliament to examine the possibility of introducing a Union wide code of conduct for NGOs requesting Union funding. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)