Europe's World: Regulating Brussels’ legion of lobbyists
Published 1.1.2008
Alexander Stubb is a member of the European Parliament and the rapporteur on lobbying in the EU
Back in the 1970s, most members of the European Parliament were only too pleased when a lobbyist dropped in for a chat. In those days, MEPs had little power and plenty of time. Now that the Parliament has real legislative clout, its corridors are packed with professionals trying to win MEPs over to their way of thinking. Today,
For some people, the term “lobby” still has negative connotations. They think it’s a shady activity carried out in smoke-filled rooms. This image is unfair and outdated. Today, most lobbyists are experts in their field and represent their clients’ interests in a professional manner. They are part of our modern pluralistic democracy, keeping MEPs informed on subjects they might otherwise lack adequate knowledge about. Unlike Commissioners, with their army of officials, or government ministers who have national civil servants to brief them, MEPs have to get by with the help of only a couple of assistants. Lobbyists provide vital information and expertise. It is up to
In the majority of Member States there are no detailed rules on lobbying at the parliamentary or governmental level. On the other hand, in the US a lobbyist needs to read a 577 page manual to get everything right. The EU is somewhere in between. The European Parliament, for example, has a voluntary register of lobbyists, mainly for security purposes, and the Commission is due to publish one this spring. The Commission wants the two institutions to share a common register in future and most stakeholders would prefer such a one-stop-shop. It also makes sense from the point of view of the public, who tend to blur the distinction between the European Parliament and the Commission. However, as the rapporteur on EU lobbying for the European Parliament, I need to keep in mind the fundamental differences between the two institutions. So, in a forthcoming report, I am going to propose a joint working group to consider the administrative implications of a common register.
There is also a debate on whether registration should become mandatory. This has implications for the types of penalty that could be imposed on transgressors. In the current voluntary system, the highest possible sanction is expulsion; anything else – fines, for example – would require a legal base to enforce. For the lobbyist, expulsion even from a voluntary register damages their credibility and therefore is an effective deterrent. While there is scope to improve the way that regulations are supervised, from my perspective the argument between voluntary and mandatory registration is rather academic. Credible lobbyists register anyway and the Parliament’s present scheme is therefore, de facto, obligatory.
The Commission’s new register will also introduce rules on disclosing financial data. Professional consultancies and law firms, for example, will be required to declare the turnover linked to lobbying EU institutions, plus the relative weight of major clients. "In-house" lobbyists and trade associations will have to estimate the costs associated direct lobbying of EU institutions. NGOs and think-tanks will need to disclose their overall budgets and a breakdown of their main sources of funding.
The Commission believes that this sort of financial disclosure will indicate the level of influence that a lobby group can be expected to have. This might be true, but we should avoid the misconception that money equals influence. NGOs with limited resources can be as effective as rich multinational companies. Over the REACH chemicals regulation and software patents, for example, public sector lobby groups were more influential than the private sector.
I believe that for most politicians, it is the strength of an argument that counts, not how much money is spent on promoting it. Certainly, European decision-makers need information about the sort of organisations that are backing different interest groups. When lobbyists visit the offices of an MEP, they are already expected to disclose who and what interests they represent. But we still need to clarify exactly what financial information is really useful to help us balance our judgements. No doubt MEPs will have plenty to say on this subject in forthcoming debates.
How detailed should the register in the end be? Should voluntary working hours, relevant especially concerning the NGOs, be disclosed? These questions lead easily to accusations of bureaucracy. We want to avoid the
Personally, I feel that transparency is a two-way street: if we require greater transparency from lobbyists, then we - as legislators - should be more transparent as well. That is why I have proposed that each piece of EU legislation could include a footnote naming all the organisations whom the parliamentary rapporteur has listened to when preparing that law. I think that such a “legislative footprint” would help interested parties to cross-check the information which fed into the law-making process. Critics of the idea say it would be difficult, if not impossible, to decide which lobbyist had actually been heard, which would expose rapporteurs to accusations that they were giving false information or had conducted an unbalanced enquiry. Some feel that this jeopardises the independence of a parliamentarian. In addition sometimes valuable information is provided confidentially. And again, critics are afraid of unnecessary bureaucracy. These, too, are all subjects for discussion.
However, debate over practical questions should not mask the underlying principle that whatever method of regulation we adopt, it must apply equally to all. It does not matter if someone comes from Greenpeace or McDonald’s, a trade union or employers’ federation, a think-tank or a firm of lawyers; when they are trying to influence an MEP’s position on a piece of legislation, they are all lobbyists. And if we don’t treat them as equals, we are on a slippery slope towards controlling free speech.
Equality, therefore, requires us to agree upon a definition of “lobbying”. The Commission defines lobbying as “activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the European institutions.” Rule 9(4) in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament says lobbyists are "persons who wish to enter Parliament's premises frequently with a view to supplying information to Members within the framework of their parliamentary mandate in their own interests or those of third parties". Both definitions are broad and both have the benefit of treating all lobbyists as equals.
Lobby groups can be seen as equals in another sense too: not one of them can take political responsibility away from parliamentarians. It is we who have the democratic mandate to decide whose information will influence our decisions; it is a responsibility that cannot be out-sourced. Lobbying, when done properly, is an essential part of the parliamentary process in
alexander.stubb@europarl.europa.eu
END
