12 European Transparency
| (27508)
9412/06
COM(06) 194
| Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 14 September 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxii (2005-06), para 4 (21 June 2006) and HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06), para 11 (19 July 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Relevant to the debate on "A Citizen's Agenda — Delivering results for Europe (reported on 19 July). Cleared.
|
Background
12.1 In the introduction to the Green Paper, which we considered
on 21 June 2006, the Commission says that, with a commitment to
widen opportunities for stakeholders to participate actively in
EU policy-shaping as one of the "Strategic Objectives 2005-2009",
it launched a "Partnership for European Renewal".[35]
This emphasised that "inherent in the idea of partnership
is consultation and participation" and stressed the importance
of a "high level of transparency" to ensure that
the Union is "open to public scrutiny and accountable
for its work". The Commission says "high standards
of transparency are part of the legitimacy of any modern administration"
and that "the European public is entitled to expect efficient,
accountable and service-minded public institutions and that the
power and resources entrusted to political and public bodies are
handled with care and never abused for personal gain". Against
this background, the Commission launched the "European Transparency
Initiative" (ETI) in November 2005.[36]
The Green Paper
12.2 The report calls for a more structured framework for the
activities of "interest representatives" (i.e., lobbyists);
feedback on the Commission's minimum standards for consultation;
and the mandatory disclosure of information about the beneficiaries
of EU funds under shared management. The Commission proposes:
— a
voluntary registration system: run by the Commission, with clear
incentives for lobbyists to register; compulsory registration
not appropriate, though a review should be conducted to examine
whether self-regulation has worked;
— a common code of conduct: to be developed
by the lobbying profession; and
— a system of monitoring and sanctions:
The report proposes that they should be applied in all cases of
incorrect registration and/or breach of the code of conduct.
12.3 The report also outlined the need to raise awareness
of the use of EU money, notably by explaining better what Europe
does and why it matters. The CAP and fisheries policies, the Structural
and Cohesion Funds and the European Refugees Fund make up 75.7%
of the EU budget (€86.6 billion a year). The shared management
formula means that, when EU citizens ask the Commission for information
on the use of the EU budget, it either does not have the information
or does not have the right to hand it out without the prior agreement
of the Member State concerned. In order to promote transparency,
the report proposes a new EU legal framework, directly applicable
in all Member States, to ensure a consistent approach to all beneficiaries
of EU funds.
12.4 A consultation began on 6 May, and ended on
31 August.
12.5 When we considered the Minister for Europe's
15 June Explanatory Memorandum, we concluded that expressing support
for "the broad thrust of this Green Paper" was inadequate,
and asked him to say what he thought of the proposals, and what
reply the Government planned to offer.[37]
The Minister's first letter
12.6 In his 12 July letter, the Minister for Europe
(Mr Geoffrey Hoon) undertook to send the detailed Government response
as it was submitted to the Commission; but, conscious that this
would be during the Parliamentary recess, sought to provide some
information before the House rose. After caveats about these being
initial thoughts and the inappropriateness of further comment
before completing a formal consultation exercise involving other
Government Departments, the Devolved Administrations and relevant
stakeholders, the Minister said that he believed lobbying "should
be as transparent as circumstances allow". Setting up a publicly
available register of lobbyists would be likely to result in a
more transparent system, which he supported. Consolidating the
existing codes of conduct would clarify lobbying procedures for
both EU citizens and lobbyists, and was therefore a sensible suggestion.
Further discussion was required on the composition of a new external
watchdog to monitor compliance; he would want to avoid creating
another agency requiring extensive funding; however, this body
would be needed. He would need to consider the details of any
proposed scheme regarding sanctions for breaches of a voluntary
code of conduct before reaching a view. He supported mandatory
disclosure of information about the beneficiaries of EU funding,
but would have to take into account the financial and administrative
implications of gathering this information.
12.7 We looked forward to hearing the Minister's
considered views, once the consultation to which he referred had
been concluded, and continued to keep the document under scrutiny.[38]
The Minister's further letter
12.8 Under cover of his further letter of 14 September
the Minister has now provided the Government's detailed response,
which is annexed to this Report. It covers:
— "Minimum
Standards for Consultation: a review of the current situation
and detailed comments on suggested reforms under the headings
of:
- "Raising Awareness";
- "Clarifying scope of applicability of minimum
standards";
- "Duration of consultation exercises";
- "When and how often to consult"; and
- "Hearing a diverse range of views and, in
particular, engaging with SMEs".
— A
voluntary registration system for lobbyists (which the Government
support)
— A common code of conduct (ditto)
— A system of monitoring and sanctions
(a danger that a mandatory system may mean that organisations
with a legitimate interest are excluded from taking part in the
decision-making process)
— Compulsory Disclosure of Beneficiaries
of EU Funding under Shared Management (which the Government continues
to welcome, it being "important that EU citizens are aware
who receives their tax money"
— Review of the "access to documents"
legislation (a reasonably sensible compromise).
Conclusion
12.9 We continue to consider the Green Paper relevant
to the debate we have already recommended on the Commission Communication
on "A Citizens' Agenda — delivering results for Europe",
which will take place on 26 October and which should now be better
informed by having the Minister's considered views on this major
Commission initiative on participation and transparency.
12.10 We now clear the document.
35 COM(2005) 12. Back
36
SEC(2005) 1300. Back
37
HC 34-xxxii (2005-06), para 4 (21 June 2006). Back
38
HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06), para 11 (19 July 2006). Back
| 
