EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT - What s the real influence of lobbying?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT What´s the real influence of lobbying? EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transparency International EU (TI-EU) is the Brussels office of the global EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT
non-governmental organisation leading the fight against corruption. What´s the real influence of lobbying? 4
The mission of TI-EU is to prevent corruption and promote integrity, THE ISSUE 5
transparency and accountability in EU institutions, policies and legislation.
Preventing undue influence and restoring trust
The TI-EU Office was established in 2008 and is registered in the EU’s
Transparency Register under: 5012229191-71. THE SOLUTION 6
Institute an EU legislative footprint
RECOMMENDATIONS 9
An effective EU legislative footprint
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 12
Authors:
Dr. Janina Berg, Senior EU Policy & Legal Officer and Daniel Freund, Policy Officer.
Funding:
This publication is part of a series published in the framework of TI’s pan-European project on ´Lifting the Lid on
Lobbying` conducted in 18 EU member states with financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against
Crime Programme of the European Commission Directorate-General for Home Affairs and the Adessium
Foundation. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and none of the aforementioned donors can be
held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Co-funded by:
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report.
All information was believed to be correct as of March 2015. Nevertheless, TI-EU cannot accept responsibility
for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
© 2015 TI-EU Office (AISBL). All rights reserved.EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT THE ISSUE
WHAT’S THE REAL INFLUENCE OF LOBBYING?
Lobbying is an integral part of a healthy EU-level lobbying happens at all stages of
democracy, closely related to universal values the legislative process: from the early stages
such as freedom of speech and the right to of policy formulation, to the moment the
petition of government. It allows for various European Commission considers proposing a
interest groups to present their views on public new legislative initiative, throughout the public
decisions that may come to affect them. It consultation and impact assessment phase, and
also has the potential to enhance the quality of finally during European Parliament readings and
decision-making by providing channels for the Council negotiations, whether at Committee/
input of expertise on increasingly technical issues Working Group level, in plenary or trilogue
to legislators and decision-makers. According to negotiations. Contributions by lobbyists to the
ensure that legislation has the public interest at its a 2013 survey of 600 European parliamentarians EU’s legislative process assist the development
DEFINITION: Legislative heart and that the risks of corruption, conflicts of and officials, 89 per cent agreed that, “ethical and and implementation of EU public policies, as
interest and regulatory capture are reduced. transparent lobbying helps policy development”1. they provide EU officials with essential technical
Footprint The aim of such disclosure is to document information, supporting data and good practice
Despite this, multiple scandals throughout Europe examples.
A legislative footprint is a comprehensive lobbyists’ influence on policies and legislation. demonstrate that without clear and enforceable
public record of lobbyists’ influence on a Whether annexed to legislative reports or rules, a select number of voices with better
piece of legislation. published in ‘real time’ on official websites, resourcing and contacts can come to dominate
such initiatives serve to inform the public which political decision-making. At the very least, this DEFINITION: Undue Influence
The increasing use of a legislative interests have shaped draft and final legislation.
footprint by Members of the European can skew individual decisions, and at the worst, it
can lead to regulatory and even state capture. Undue influence occurs when particular
Parliament (MEPs) and the upcoming Despite increasing calls for the introduction of
individuals or groups gain an unfair
Inter-Institutional Agreements between the ´legislative footprints` to better track and monitor Brussels is one of the lobbying capitals of the advantage by excessively influencing a
Parliament and European Commission on the real level of influence of lobbyists on the world. Estimates of the numbers of lobbyists (or decision-making process to their own
a mandatory Transparency Register and decisions that are taken by the democratically ‘interest representatives’) vary from 15,000 to ends, at the expense of the public interest.
on Better Regulation, as well as the next elected representatives and administrations, 30,0002, whose job is to influence regulations and
Transparency Register review, all present its use is still new to the European institutions. laws that shape Europe’s single market of more Undue influence can occur when decision-
opportunities to make EU decision-making Regulatory efforts and emerging good practice than 500 million citizens. making is opaque, when public officials
more transparent and responsive to EU can be found in the European Commission and
and/or lobbyists act unethically and when
citizens. the European Parliament. All these initiatives
access is skewed in favour of select
fail however to provide comprehensive data
that would inform EU citizens on who sought DEFINITION: Lobbying interests.
to influence which legislative act, how and with
Lobbying of the European Union (EU) needs to Lobbying is any direct or indirect
which human and financial resources and through However, undue influence can result in policy and
become more transparent and open to public communication with public officials,
which channels. legislation serving private interests rather than the
scrutiny. EU policy-makers should therefore political decision-makers or
collect and disclose comprehensive information representatives for the purposes of public interest.
on who influences whom in the European Union influencing public decision-making, and This is a particular risk when well-resourced
EU decision-making process to ensure a level carried out by or on behalf of a client or global corporations are concerned3. More than
playing field for all interest representatives and any organised group. half of Europe’s citizens consider their country’s
thus balanced legislative outcomes. It will help to government is run to a large extent or entirely
4 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 5THE SOLUTION
INSTITUTE AN EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT
by a few big interests (TI Global Corruption Calls for enhanced lobbying transparency and the approach to require the publication of some must provide relevant ministries with declarations
Barometer, 2013)4. Businesses themselves are an effective ´legislative footprint` are increasing level of documentation, providing a light form of a describing the interest that they are planning
aware of the risks. 80% of European companies within and beyond the EU.8 Legislative footprints legislative footprint.10 to defend or promote during their work. Those
consider that the links between business and provide detailed information on who has declarations are also made public.
politics are too close in their country and lead to influenced a certain piece of legislation, how and In Latvia, any draft law that comes before the
corruption (EU Anti-Corruption Report, 2014). when. This information on lobby influence can Latvian parliament should enclose an explanatory A number of countries have taken a more
More generally, according to the 2014 OECD be derived from disclosed records of contacts note, in which, among other things, all piecemeal approach, requiring the publication of
report, 80% of legislators and 90% of lobbyists between elected or public officials and lobbyists, consultations that have been held while preparing some level of documentation, providing a mini-
think inappropriate influence-peddling takes of lobbyists’ written input but also of analyses of the draft law should be specified.11 In principle footprint related to decision-making by public
place, and one-third of legislators consider it a text passages and wording taken from lobbyists this explanatory note should also indicate the officials.13 In France, the authors of parliamentary
frequent problem. that have found entry into legislative texts (as lobbyist, with whom the submitter of the draft law reports in the National Assembly must annex
conducted, for example, by lobbyplag.eu). Only has consulted. The footprint does not function a list of persons consulted. However, this
The EU is not insulated from these risks. A 2014 a combination of all such exercises can lead to a as intended however, because institutions do obligation does not apply to other institutions that
survey found that 70% of citizens believe that comprehensive picture of lobbyists’ influence on not follow the rules and there is no oversight or participate in the decision-making process.
corruption is present in the EU institutions and legislation. verification system in place to compel them to do Therefore, while there are requirements for
recent high-profile corruption scandals have so.12 tracking the consulted interests groups at the
involved attempts to influence the legislative Legislative footprints can help improve the Assembly level, the potential of the tool is not
process. They include the recent tobacco outcomes of public policy-making and reduce the In Poland, the act on lobbying compels ministries used to the fullest since it fails to provide an
industry scandal involving the EU’s Commissioner risk of corruption. By making it clear who policy- to publish all documents related to the drafting of exhaustive list of all consulted interest groups at
for Health (also called the ´Dalligate affair`)5 as makers are speaking with, it can help to ensure particular legal acts. Those interested in a piece the final stage of legislation.
well as the “Cash-for-amendments” scandal6 that consultation with a wider, more representative of legislation, including professional lobbyists,
involved a number of Members of the European group of stakeholders and reduce the risk of
Parliament (MEPs). ‘groupthink’ in the decision-making process, Table: Legislative footprint
especially when the information is published
The ´LobbyPlag.eu` initiative has also detailed the immediately or shortly after the lobbying contact. Are legislators required by law to publish a legislative footprint including details of the time, person, and
extent to which legislative amendments to the They help to detect and prevent potential conflicts subject of contacts with stakeholders and do they do so in practice?
Data Protection Directive were cut and pasted of interests, as the influence can be traced and
from the lobby documents of large corporations cross-checked with information on, for example, In law Pratice
and business associations - including one case MEPs’ declarations of financial interests and in
where an MEP had tabled 158 amendments the Transparency Register. Legislative footprints Yes Latvia, Poland
against data privacy, which appear to be heavily can also improve accountability by allowing
influenced by commercial lobbies.7 voters to monitor parliamentarians’ activities in Partially/piecemeal approach Austria, Estonia, European Cyprus, Estonia, European
Commission, France, Lithuania, the Commission, European Parliament,
These cases have contributed to a deep mistrust real-time9. They also allow institutions to have an
Netherlands, Slovenia France, Lithuania, the Netherlands,
of the integrity of the law-making process in overview of who is trying to influence them and Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the
Brussels. Creating a legislative footprint for EU how much time is spent engaging with lobbyists. United Kingdom
legislative files would help restore this trust, as However, the use of an effective legislative
well as mitigate risks of conflicts of interest and footprint as a tool to enhance transparency,
No Bulgaria, Council of the EU, Cyprus, Austria, Council of the EU, Germany,
corruption. the Czech Republic, European Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
integrity and accountability in public policy is Parliament, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Spain
still a new concept to the European region. A Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia,
number of EU member states have already taken Spain, the United Kingdom
6 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 7RECOMMENDATIONS
AN EFFECTIVE EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT
Some political parties and groups are also being otherwise influenced, the drafting process.20 Transparency International (TI) welcomes the • What: Disclose comprehensive and
proactive. In Spain, the UPyD Parliamentary latest regulatory efforts and emerging practice meaningful information on lobbying
Group publishes on a bi-weekly basis on their The recent adoption of the two European at the EU level as well as European Commission Any contribution that has had or sought to
website the list of meetings held with civil Commission Decisions21 to record and publish Vice-President Timmermans’ call for the Council have a tangible influence on the draft legislation
society and other lobbyists, and other parties data on meetings between high level public and European Parliament to follow suit with or the political process should be disclosed in
publish their agendas, including the Inicitiva per officials and interest representatives is a big step the practice of publishing lobby contacts, as a comprehensive manner - regardless whether
Catalunya Verds, EUiA and Compromís. in the right direction. Since 1 December 2014, introduced by the European Commission in this comes in form of a written contribution
senior European Commission staff, including December 2014. However, these initiatives or a personal meeting. For meetings the
At the EU level, Members of the European Commissioners, members of their Cabinets and fall short of the steps necessary to create a recorded data should include the date, name
Parliament (MEPs) have since 2008 endorsed the Directors-General, are required to disclose on legislative footprint for EU legislation. Therefore, TI of the person taking the meeting, the lobby
idea of a legislative footprint for the Commission their websites details of meetings with lobbyists, recommends to all three EU institutions to record organisation, including the Transparency
and Parliament, indicating however that this including the names of organisations and self- and disclose all input received from lobbyists/ Register ID (only registered lobbyists should be
should be done by “rapporteurs” (lead authors of employed participants, time, location and the interest representatives for draft policies, laws met), the client (if applicable – and including the
Parliamentary legislative reports) on a voluntary subject of the meeting.22 Similarly, in the U.S., the and amendments. In detail, TI suggests the Transparency Register ID), also the individual
basis only.14 In 2011, the European Parliament country’s Securities and Exchange Commission following disclosure guidelines: lobbyists’ name and, most importantly, the
also endorsed a proposal for a legislative footprint (SEC) publishes all public appearances by topic of discussion and the specific legislative
annex to reports drafted by MEPs, listing all the officials, public hearings in administrative The European Commission: file, if applicable.
lobbyists who lead MEPs (such as rapporteurs) proceedings and SEC meetings, including the
met while a legislative report was being drafted.15 minutes of the respective meeting.23 The European Commission should expand and
In 2014, a total of 182 members of the new improve its existing initiative as laid out in its • How: Centralise, standardise and interlink
European Parliament signed the Transparency recent Decision of 25 November 2014 on the already existing lobbying information
International Anti-Corruption Pledge16 launched publication of information on meetings held The information on lobby influence should be
ahead of the European Parliament election. MEPs between Members of the Commission and made available to the public in one centralised
committed themselves “to uphold both the letter organisations or self-employed individuals. online database. Lobby contacts are currently
and spirit of the Code of Conduct for MEPs and published on a total of 89 different websites,
to publish a ‘legislative footprint’ that will be including on the 28 individual websites of
attached to any report drafted in their office.”17 In detail: Commissioners, on the 28 websites of their
• Who: Expand reporting to everyone cabinets and 33 websites of the Directorates-
A number of voluntary good practice examples General. The European Commission should
by MEPs and delegations have also emerged involved in the EU policy-making process
The recording of meeting data should strive to simplify the access to information by
and appear - despite widespread concerns making it available in one centralised database
regarding the administrative burden - to be be expanded to everyone involved in the
equipped with solid search functions, and in
feasible and manageable.18 Some MEPs publicly EU’s policy-making process. Apart from
a consistent format. A necessary next step to
record meetings with stakeholders – not on their Commissioners, Cabinet members, and
enhance transparency and accountability of
respective websites of the European Parliament, Directors-General, all EU public officials that are
the EU institutions is also to link the disclosed
but only on their own websites – while others directly involved in the policy-making process
data on lobby meetings with information from
have added invitations for speaking engagements should record data on their lobby contacts.
the already existing Transparency Register,
to the list.19 Promisingly, examples also exist of which should become the one-stop-shop for
rapporteurs annexing lists to reports of all those all lobbying activity, detailing real-time lobby
lobbyists who have submitted contributions to, or meeting information in combination with human
8 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 9and financial capacity invested by lobbyists to should be required for all lead MEPs, including How: Centralise and standardise standard practice by all to track the influence
shape the EU’s legislation and information on rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and chairs. disclosure of lobby information of lobbyists on parliamentary documents as
the beneficiaries of EU funds. Also written input At a minimum, rapporteurs should annex a In order to ensure that recorded and disclosed well. This would facilitate citizens’ access to
by stakeholders to consultations that is found list of all relevant lobby contacts during the information is as useful as possible to the information and allow for a broader overview of
to be influencing the decision of the policy- drafting process to Committee Reports due to public, the information on lobby contacts who is contributing to which legislative initiative.
maker should be made publicly available in a their particularly influential role in the legislative should be published in a standardised online
more systematic and easily searchable manner, process. In any case, only lobbyists that are format on the MEPs websites and collated
for example on the Your Voice in Europe registered in the EU’s Transparency Register in one central European Parliament online • When: Disclose lobby information in a
website, which could also be linked with the should be met with. database that is easily accessible and timely manner
Transparency Register. searchable by all. This way, Parliamentary European Parliament staff should be required
Committees rapporteurs and shadow to file information on lobby contacts online as
• What: Disclose comprehensive and rapporteurs can immediately and in a less close to real time as possible, latest within the
• When: Disclose lobby information in a meaningful information on lobbying two week period that applies to senior staff in
burdensome way extract the lobby information
timely manner Any contribution that has had or sought to the European Commission.
necessary for the annex to parliamentary
Commission staff should be required to file have a tangible influence on the draft legislation reports. Such recording should become
information on lobby contacts online as close or the political process should be disclosed in
to real time as possible, at the latest within a comprehensive manner. This should include
the two week period foreseen for EU senior contacts, including scheduled meetings THE MAJORITY OF MEP RESPONDENTS TO TI-EU’S SURVEY24 ON THE LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT REPLIED THAT:
officials. with lobbyists, participations in briefings or • In-person meetings, written submissions, phone/skype calls and the attendance of MEPs at events should be
conferences and written input. Exceptions disclosed to the public. It was also suggested that the recording depends on whether this ´contact` with lobbyists
should take account of the European influenced a draft legislation.
The European Parliament:
Commission guidelines. Where contacts
• With a view to information on lobbyists, his job title, the date and form of the contact (see above) as well as whether
The European Parliament should make it are not aimed at influencing legislation (e.g. he is registered in the EU’s Transparency Register was found to be the most relevant information.
obligatory for rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs constituent inquiries or personal contacts);
or where publication would endanger the life, • Less so for the administrative level, the legislative footprint should be the rule for the political level in all three EU
and committee chairs to publish a legislative
institutions, with all respondents being in favour for the European Parliament, followed by 96% for the European
footprint. MEPs, their offices and political groups integrity or privacy of the individual, interfere
Commission.
should publish detailed information on lobby with court proceedings or administrative
contacts as a matter of best practice. procedures, the information should be • As a general guideline, the timeframe for the recording of lobby contacts should be from within a week up to a month
adapted or withheld from publication. Along after the contact.
the lines of the recently introduced practice • Reporting and disclosure was found to be best manageable through a standardised, electronic form provided by the
• Who: Extend reporting to everyone of the European Commission, the recorded EU institutions’ administration and managed directly by the MEP offices.
involved in the EU policy-making process data should however include: the date;
• A specially appointed ethics committee was seen to be best suited to monitor compliance.
Members of the European Parliament, their the name of the person taking the meeting
Accredited Parliamentary Assistants, Political (MEP, APA, etc.); the lobby organisation,
Group staff and relevant administrators in including the Transparency Register ID (only This EU Policy Paper was produced by Dr. Janina Berg and Daniel can be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
the Committee Secretariat and research registered lobbyists should be met); the client Freund (Transparency International EU, TI-EU). It is part of series information contained therein. For more information on the regional
departments should record and disclose (if applicable – and including the Transparency published in the framework of TI’s pan-European project on ´Lifting and national studies, visit:
the Lid on Lobbying` conducted in 18 EU member states with
information on who has sought to influence Register ID); the individual lobbyists’ name; financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/veiled_in_secrecy_
them, when and how, as they are also the topic of discussion (in bullet points or Programme of the European Commission Directorate-General for lobbying_in_europe
regularly approached by lobbyists. This keywords); and the concrete legislative file, if Home Affairs and the Adessium Foundation. This publication reflects
© 2015 Transparency International. All rights reserved.
the views only of the author, and none of the aforementioned donors
applicable.
10 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 11FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
EU LEGISLATIVE FOOTPRINT
What about the EU Council? What if I meet a whistleblower or human What if I meet a lobbyist at a reception? How detailed should the information on the
rights defender? Particularly if I don’t even know who they meeting be?
Transparency International believes that legislative are?
transparency can only work if it involves the entire Along the lines of the European Commission The information provided under “topic of
legislative process from start to finish and all guidelines, Transparency international Such unforeseen encounters that do not aim discussion” should provide an idea of what this
institutions that take part in it, including the EU recommends that contacts not aimed at to influence legislation would not have to be meeting was about in a few bullets or keywords.
Council Making lobby influence on the Council – influencing legislation (e.g. constituent inquiries declared. And if you do not know who you If a specific legislative process or file was
and therefore on national governments – visible or personal contacts) or where publication would spoke to or were unaware that it was a lobbyist, discussed, that should be mentioned here. As an
is however more difficult than for the European endanger the life, integrity or privacy of the publication is simply impossible. Once again, example, to simply list “Transparency” as meeting
Parliament and the European Commission. A individual, interfere with court proceedings or we leave this to an official or MEP’s judgement topic is probably too general. “Mandatory Lobby
meaningful recording of lobby contacts for the administrative procedures, the information should to determine which contacts sought to have a Register + EP Code of Conduct reform” would
Council must include the Council secretariat be adapted or withheld from publication. tangible influence and which contacts should be allow everyone to have a clearer idea on what
and the Permanent Representations of member declared. Sometimes a short meeting can have a that specific meeting was about.
states in Brussels, but also lobby contacts that significant impact or be followed-up by an email
take place in the 28 national capitals. Since the What if I meet with a diplomat or other with concrete proposals – in which case the
latter falls under the competence of member person/ organisation not falling under the meeting should be declared. Does the publication of lobby meetings give
states we have decided not to focus on this scope of the transparency register? an incentive for a multiplication of useless
aspect in this paper. meetings?
Transparency International recommends to How am I supposed to handle the
publish all contacts with persons or organisations administrative burden? Lobbyists will always seek meetings that are
Would I have to register every email or that have had or sought to have a tangible relevant for the area of their work. MEPs and
phone call? influence on policy-making. As a general rule The additional administrative burden of publishing officials will have to continue to make the call on
this should include every person or organisation lobby contacts should be as little as possible. which meetings they take and which ones they
No, only those that have had or sought to have that falls under the scope of the Transparency Smart IT solutions can greatly facilitate this decline – as is the case without the publication
a tangible influence on the draft legislation or Register. For persons or organisations that do process, for example by allowing the export of lobby contacts. One intended consequence
the political process should be registered. We not fall under the scope of the register – such of information from Outlook calendars where of the legislative footprint is however to level
leave this to the good judgment of MEPs and as diplomats, European Commission or Council meeting information has already been inserted. the playing field for the representatives of all
officials to determine which contacts sought to officials, EU member state governments – we Once this is properly integrated into the normal interests and to ensure a fair, open and balanced
have a tangible influence. Sometimes a brief leave the decision up to the good judgment of workflow of office management and scheduling policy-making process. If the publication of
unscheduled phone call can have significant MEPs and officials. If they feel that the publication the additional burden should be minimal. The lobby contacts allows all lobbyists to track
impact – and then it should be declared. But of a contact would provide useful information to administration of each institution should be able their counterparts and potentially counter
emails often have no informative contact and we the public a contact can be published – but this is to help. For example, the European Parliament their arguments this will ultimately yield better
also see that MEPs receive an enormous amount not generally expected. administration could facilitate this by providing legislation. The final call – and vote – will of
of emails and calls targeting them collectively as appropriate online tools and software to MEPs. course always remain with the members of the
MEPs – these general contacts that often have European Parliament.
very little, or no, effect would not have to be
declared.
12 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 13NOTES:
1. Burson-Marsteller, A Guide to Effective Lobbying in http://blog.brusselssunshine.eu/2011/03/cash-for- 11. Latvian Saeima Rules of Procedure, Article 79.3 and recorded:
Europe – The View of Policy-Makers (2013), p. 6, amendments-scandal-just-tip-of.html; 85.5.6. https://juliareda.eu/2015/01/report-eu-copyright-rules-
available online at Transparency International-EU Office, Lessons learned maladapted-to-the-web/ ;
http://lobbyingsurvey.burson-marsteller.com/ from the EU’s cash-for-amendments scandal? 12. TI Latvia, Lifting the Lid on Lobbying: Latvia National also see the recording of the UK Tories:
wp-content/uploads/2013/05/european_lobbying_ http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/2013/01/ Report (Riga, TI Latvia: 2015). http://conservativeeurope.com/transparency
survey_2013.pdf strasser-verdict-shows-more-to-do-for-eu-anti-
corruption/; 13. These include Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, 19. See footnote above.
2. See the OECD website on Fighting corruption in the EurActiv, ´Ex-MEP to serve prison in ´cash-for-laws` Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia.
public sector, available online at scandal` (3 February 2014): 20. See, for example, report by MEP Avril Doyle, A6-
14. See European Parliament resolution of 8 May 2008 406/2008 - page 70:
http://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/lobbying.htm http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/ex-mep-serve- on the development of the framework for the activities http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
or Corporate Europe Obervatory’s (CEO) Lobby Planet: prison-cash-laws-sc-news-533205 of interest representatives (lobbyists) in the European do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2008-
Brussels – The EU quarter (2011), available online at
7. http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/22/lobbies-switch-from- institutions (2007/2115(INI), 0406+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. ;
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/
influencing-to-directly-writing-european-laws/ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. MEP Chris Davies’ explanatory note in the report ´A
publications/ceolobbylow.pdf
do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008- Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon
3. Concerns over privileged access to EU policy-makers 8. OECD, Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust, 0197+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN ; economy in 2050`, see p.22:
for large corporations dominating the stakeholder Volume 3 – Implementing the OECD Principles see also the Parliamentary Question of MEP Anneli http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
input process have, for example, been raised most for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying Jäätteenmäki of 2009, available online at do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-
recently regarding the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and (2014), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. 2012-0033+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. Of the 154 lobbyists-governments-and-public-trust-volume- do?type=WQ&reference=P-2009-1552&language=EN ; as well as MEP Linda McAvan’s annexed, detailed
meetings that the European Commission’s DG Trade 3_9789264214224-en ; and more recently, the European Parliament’S Gualtieri legislative footprint to her report, see p.81:
held with external stakeholders on TTIP, 113 were with see also the WHO guidelines on implementation of art. Report on the modification of the Inter-Institutional http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
industry, 19 with public interest groups, 19 others and 5(3) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Agreement on the Transparency Register of 31 April do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2013-
three unknown, see Control: 2014, available online at 0276+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
http://ttip2014.eu/blog-detail/blog/lobbying%20TTIP. http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf ; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
html or the Lobbying Disclosure Guidelines of the Sunlight do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2014- 21. See European Commission Decisions of 25 November
Foundation (2014): 0258+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 2014 on the publication of information on meetings
4. See TI 2013 Global Corruption Barometer, p. 15, http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/09/in- held between Members of the Commission and
available online at honor-of-international-anti-corruption-day-new-tools-for- 15. European Parliament Press Release, MEPs back joint organisations or self-employed individuals, C(2014)
http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013 transparency/ Parliament-Commission register for lobbyists (May 9051 final,
2011), available online at http://ec.europa.eu/news/2014/docs/c_2014_9051_
5. Additional information on the Dalligate affair is available 9. Transparency International Anti-Corruption Helpdesk http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/ en.pdf , and between Director-Generals of the
online, see for example EuropeanVoice, ´John Dalli Query on Legislative Footprint, prepared by Martini/ content/20110429FCS18372/12/html/MEPs-back-joint- Commission and organisations or self-employed
resigns` (16 October 2012), Chene/ Hodess (2013), available online at Parliament-Commission-register-of-lobbyists individuals C(2014) 9048 final,
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/john-dalli- http://www.transparency.org/files/content/ http://ec.europa.eu/news/2014/docs/c_2014_9048_
resigns/ ; corruptionqas/legislative_footprint.pdf 16. See http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/2014/10/
en.pdf
or EUobserver, EU anti-fraud office accused over cover- european-parliament-elections-2014-the-anti-
up in Dalli affair (22 March 2013), 10. According to Transparency International research corruption-pledge/ 22. Jean-Claude Juncker, A New Start for Europe: My
https://euobserver.com/institutional/119529 (publication is expected in Feb. 2015), these include Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic
the following EU member states: Austria, Cyprus, 17. See http://anticorruptionpledge.eu/
Change – Political Guidelines for the next European
6. The Cash-for-amendments scandal refers to one Estonia, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland Commission (15 July 2014), p.11, available online at
18. Cf., for example, MEP Rivasi’s website:
of the biggest lobbying scandals in the history of and Slovenia. In Germany, the results emerging http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/pg_en.pdf
http://www.michele-rivasi.eu/agenda/agenda-
the EU. In 2011, Sunday Times journalists posed from consultations with associations, and in %E2%80%93-semaine-du-13-au-18-octobre-paris-
as lobbyists secretly filming four Members of the particular their main suggestions, need to be listed 23. http://www.sec.gov/about/upcoming-events.
lyon-bruxelles-douai-et-valence/;
European Parliament while negotiating a deal to table in the covering letter of written cabinet decisions that htm#meetings
with MEP Bütikofer’s: http://reinhardbuetikofer.eu/meine-
amendments in the European Parliament in exchange prepare federal government decisions, see OECD, lobbyistenliste-von-april-bis-ende-juli-2014/; or MEP 24. In autumn 2014, TI-EU has conducted a survey
for money. For more information, see for example Lobbyists, Governments and Public Trust, Volume 3 – Hautala’s: among all Members of the European Parliament on the
EUobserver, ´Confusion reigns over MEP cash-for- Implementing the OECD Principles for Transparency and http://heidihautala.com/en/parlamentti/lobbarilista/; feasibility and the practicalities of a legislative footprint.
amendments probe` (28 March 2011): Integrity in Lobbying (2014), p. 29, available online at MEP Corbett’s The feedback received from twenty-six offices has
https://euobserver.com/news/32082; http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/lobbyists-governments- http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/about-me/legislative- contributed and helped to inform TI’s recommendations.
Brussels Sunshine Blog, ´Cash-for-amendments scandal and-public-trust-volume-3-9789264214224-en.htm transparency/;
just the tip of the iceberg` (30 March 2011):
and MEP Reda’s additional analysis of the lobby data
14 Transparency International EU EU POLICY PAPER – LIFTING THE LID ON LOBBYING PROJECT 15TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL EU Rue de l’Industrie 10,1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 893 24 55 Fax: +32 893 24 69 Email: brussels@transparency.org Website: www.transparencyinternational.eu Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Transparency-International-EU/125166944231729 Twitter: @TI_EU 16 Transparency International EU
You can also read
