15 European Transparency and Interest
Representatives
| (31092)
15298/09
COM(09) 612
| Commission Communication: The European Transparency Initiative — the Register of Interest Representatives, one year after
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 28 October 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 6 November 2009
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 23 November 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (29726) 10255/08: HC 16-xxvi (2007-08), chapter 9 (2 July 2008); also see (28492) 7793/07: HC 41-xviii (2006-07), chapter 15 (25 April 2007); (27508) 9412/06: HC 34-xxxii (2005-06) chapter 4 (21 June 2006); HC 34-xxxvi (2005-06) chapter 11 (19 July 2006); and HC 34-xxxviii (2005-06) chapter 12 (18 October 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | To be determined
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
15.1 In the introduction to its Green Paper, which we considered
on 21 June 2006, the Commission said 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 had launched a "Partnership for European Renewal".[41]
15.2 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 said "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". It
was against this background that the Commission had launched the
"European Transparency Initiative" (ETI) in November
2005.[42]
15.3 The Green Paper called 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.
15.4 The Green Paper defined lobbying as all activities
carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation
and decision-making processes of the EU institutions; lobbyists
were defined as persons carrying out such activities, working
in a variety of organisations such as public affairs consultancies,
law firms, NGOs, think tanks, corporate lobby units ("in
house representatives") or trade associations.
15.5 The Commission proposed:
— 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 proposed that they should be applied in all cases of
incorrect registration and/or breach of the code of conduct.
15.6 Our earlier reports contain the extended discussion
we had with the then Minister for Europe (Mr Geoffrey Hoon), concluding
in April 2007. He supported the Commission's proposals for taking
forward the three main components of the Green Paper and was pleased
that many of the UK's comments had been taken into account. However,
he said, there was still much implementation work to be done by
the Commission, and the UK would "look closely at the future
implementing proposals when they are published by the Commission,
which will be deposited for Parliamentary scrutiny". We looked
forward to this, and in the meantime cleared the Communication
with a Report to the House because of its inherent importance.[43]
15.7 From December 2007 to February 2008, stakeholders
were consulted on a draft "Code of Conduct for interest representatives"
through an internet-based public consultation. The outcome was
contained in Commission Communication 10255/08, "The European
Transparency Initiative — a framework for relations with
interest representatives (register and code of conduct)",
which the Commission introduced on 23 June 2008. It was helpfully
and fully explained by the then Minister for Europe at the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jim Murphy) in his 26 June Explanatory
Memorandum.
15.8 The then Minister said that the Register, "with
its web interface and database, offers interest representatives
easy access for their online registration and subsequent updates."
He described the Communication as providing further clarification
about the proposed measures and reporting on the progress made
towards their implementation, and said that the Code of Conduct
was based on public consultation that "showed wide support
for a concise and concrete Code as suggested in the consultation
document" .
15.9 The Code of Conduct established that interest
representatives shall always:
"(1) Identify themselves by name and by
the entity(ies) they work for or represent;
"(2) not misrepresent themselves as to the
effect of registration to mislead third parties and/or EU staff;
"(3) declare the interests, and where applicable
the clients or the members, which they represent;
"(4) ensure that, to the best of their knowledge,
information which they provide is unbiased, complete, up-to-date
and not misleading;
"(5) not obtain or try to obtain information,
or any decision, dishonestly;
"(6) not induce EU staff to contravene rules
and standards of behaviour applicable to them;
"(7) if employing former EU staff, respect
their obligation to abide by the rules and confidentiality requirements
which apply to them."
15.10 The then Minister noted that:
— registrants
would agree to comply with this Code, or with a professional code
that has comparable rules;
— the Commission would apply corrective
measures only if it can establish that one or more of these seven
specific rules have been violated;
— the Commission would have the options
of imposing temporary suspension from the Register for a set period,
during which all benefits of registration would also be suspended,
or excluding interest representatives from the Register in cases
of severe and persistent failure to comply with the Code;
— the register would be introduced for
a one-year experimental phase, with a review taking place in the
autumn of 2009, at the end of which the Commission would be able
to assess its usefulness.
15.11 The then Minister went on to say that the European
Parliament had suggested opening discussions on the future possibility
of a common register, but that, given the proposed evaluation
after 12 months, a number of Member States had indicated that
the EP's suggestion was "at best premature."
15.12 He also noted that this initiative was at least
in part "about shining a light on the activities of the proliferation
of lobbyists and special interest group who regularly seek to
influence the Commission", saying that the Commission estimated
that there were currently around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants,
lawyers, trade associations, corporations and NGOs) seeking to
influence EU officials and MEPs in Brussels and some 2,600 special
interest groups with permanent offices, with such lobbying activities
in Brussels generating an estimated €60-€90 million
a year.
15.13 The then Minister went on to explain that that
the Code applied only to those interest representatives registered
with the Commission, that it in no way affected the workings of
the Council (nor the individual Member States) and that UK officials
were of course bound by the civil service code — so, it
would not affect the manner in which the UK, as a Member State,
dealt with UK interest representatives in Brussels who wanted
to know more about the UK's position on particular issues or to
talk through their reactions to, for example, a Commission proposal.
15.14 He concluded by expressing his keenness in
seeing the outcome of the Commission's evaluation process.
Our assessment
15.15 Echoing this sentiment, we reported this development
to the House because of the widespread interest in lobbyists'
activities.[44]
The Commission Communication
15.16 The Commission's report finds that the results
so far support the basic choices made for the system — that
it is voluntary (NGOs in particular had pressed for it to be compulsory),
with "a reasonable level of financial disclosure", and
with declarations on an organisational rather than individual
basis.
15.17 The Commission also reports that on several
occasions where entities did not fulfil the requirements of the
Register to declare the names of all clients, they were suspended;
and says that "over time, compliance has been achieved".
15.18 Registrations have passed the 2,000 mark with
the number still rising. But law firms (only 9) and think-tanks
(51 out of 551 in the NGO/Think Tank category) remain, for the
most part, outside the Register. To encourage registration of
such organisations in the future, the Commission will:
- provide more a detailed definition
of the activities falling within the scope of the Register in
the case of lawyers and law firms — they argue that client
confidentiality is the issue; the Commission says this is so when
dealing on behalf of clients on legal issues, but that they also
do a lot of straightforward lobbying, and use this as one of the
unique selling points when seeking to attract clients;
- reiterate its view of the activities of think-tanks
— the Commission acknowledges that some do pure research
(which is why they are a subset of the NGO category), but note
that many also seek to sell themselves in the same way as do law
firms; and
- continue to encourage them to register —
the Commission notes that Directors General have been authorised,
when choosing whom to consult, "to introduce a minimum level
of transparency towards the public, such as signing up to the
Register".
15.19 The Commission also:
— discusses
measures to deal with problems associated with: the "double-counting"
of costs (where costs are counted twice by different registrants);
providing a level playing field for registrants with a smaller
turnover; facilitating the registration of think-tanks; estimating
the number of individuals represented by registered bodies; and
clarification of the monitoring and enforcement mechanism; and
— outlines
the stage reached in its work with the European Parliament in
trying to devise a common Register and, thereby, a "one-stop
shop" covering both institutions: a set of guidelines has
been agreed to this end and a common web-page launched.
The Government's view
15.20 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 23 November
2009, the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office (Chris Bryant) welcomes this report as "a broadly
positive sign that the Register is serving the purpose for which
it was established, and that the Commission is taking steps in
those areas of weakness the report identities", and says
(though there is no mention of how and when this will materialise)
that he will be interested to see the progress made in the coming
months to address these problems further.
15.21 In the meantime, he remains satisfied that
a voluntary Register is appropriate, and welcomes the collaborative
efforts of the Commission and the European Parliament.
Conclusion
15.22 Given that, in preparing the Register and
Code, the Commission estimated that there were currently around
15000 lobbyists seeking to influence EU officials and MEPs in
Brussels and some 2600 special interest groups with permanent
offices, there is plainly still some way to go before this process
will truly be able to claim (as the then Minister for Europe put
it) fully to be "shining a light on the activities of the
proliferation of lobbyists and special interest group who regularly
seek to influence the Commission".
15.23 Though the Minister makes no mention of
how and when indications of the progress made in the coming months
will materialise, we presume that if it emerges in the shape of
a further Commission Communication or Commission Staff Working
Document, he will deposit it with an Explanatory Memorandum containing
his further thoughts.
15.24 In the meantime, although no questions arise
beyond those identified by the Report relating to the present
arrangements and how to improve them, we are drawing this Communication
to the attention of the House because of the widespread interest
in the issues it discusses.
15.25 We also now clear the document.
41 COM(2005) 12 Back
42
SEC(2005) 1300 Back
43
See headnote: HC 41-xviii (2006-07), chapter 15 (25 April 2007). Back
44
See headnote: (29726) 10255/08: HC16-xxvi (2007-08), chapter 9
(2 July 2008) Back
| 
