Integrity in the New Parliament

The new register will not deter the unscrupulous

“Common sense and courtesy”, these were the guiding principles given to me when I first started out in the business of lobbying. And though there is more to it that that, those principles have stood me in good stead, even if the object of my lobby has not necessarily reflected these principles.

For some reason there is much mysticism surrounding the concept of lobbying, and all the more so when dealing with the European Parliament and its members. If one bears in mind that there are 736 individual members, few of which are experts in a given field (all the more so since the advent of professional politicians), with a multitude of issues before them and limited resources available (especially true when comparing the European Parliament to National parliaments), there you have your starting point.

Few MEPs will thank you for unsolicited 20 page position papers, no matter how long it took for these papers to be drawn up and approved. Nor will a ‘one pager’ randomly stuffed into an MEPs pigeonhole serve much purpose except to fill waste paper baskets. Truth be told there are rarely more than a handful of MEPs implicitly involved in a given issue at any one point who will have a role in successfully amending a proposal. Yes there are some more controversial issues that will see a greater number of European parliamentarians throwing in their lot, but it is still only a handful that will sift through the debris and put together Parliament’s position. The key lies in identifying these players and successfully contacting them at the right time (please note that turning up in Strasbourg shortly before the vote in Plenary is due to take place is not the right time). New obstacles however are being put in our way.

When approached to write this article I was also asked to mention the new lobbyist register and give my take on this. There is little to say in principle: for those of us who play by the rules, this is an added layer of bureaucracy; for those who operate unscrupulously, no amount of rules will change this. One does, however, have to question one element of the register and that is the financial reporting requirement. Aside from the less than clear rules on what constitutes money attributed to lobbying within a given company/organisation, what is the European Commission hoping to conclude from this information, and how will it act upon it?

As the proposal made its way through the European institutions, it became evident that its origin was inspired from the US reporting system on lobbying. The system was put in place in the US because you are allowed to contribute to a politician’s own re-election campaign coffer and consequently transparency became a requirement. To pay an individual politician money in Europe is to bribe him/her, and is illegal. With this in mind, the financial reporting requirement under the lobbyist register in Europe is redundant, unless the Commission is looking to put a cap on how much a lobbyist is paid (maybe they have a point!), or on how much a company/organisation can attribute to lobbying practices. Or will the Commission look to how much they fund certain organisations that use these resources to lobby them in turn? Either way, I would opt for the current accreditation system in place in the European Parliament that has come about after years of practice and experience based on it being a public and open institution.

But we are now faced with a new European Parliament, and if the figures are correct, it has experienced a turnover of approximately 50%. For us lobbyists this is a result with mixed blessings: we may have lost a number of our friends/contacts, but we now have a degree of unpredictability, and new acquaintances to be made. We hope that our clients/company/organisation needs us all the more! The initial take on the results of the European Parliamentary elections is that the Right has progressed, whereas the Left has taken a step back. However, with the right fractured and the left weakened, where will the majority lie, and is this not ultimately to the benefit of the Council of Ministers, especially when it comes to a second reading in Parliament?

FROM THE JULY 2009 PRINT EDITION