Lobbying: EU-Institutionen uneins über Transparenz

José Lalloum of the European Public Affairs Consultancy Organisation (EPACA) said that the best way forward is "a common, voluntary code of conduct". 

However, he said that a mandatory system would be necessary if the register was to include financial disclosure, to which EPACA is "not opposed".  

But he called for a full impact assessment and proper consultation on the implications of financial disclosure to be carried out before this is introduced on a mandatory basis. 

Jim Murray of the consumer organisation BEUC strongly supported Kallas’ proposal, saying that "financial disclosure and mandatory reporting are essential in public discourse". BEUC would have preferred a mandatory system but will accept a voluntary one providing there are "clear incentives and advantages in registering", he added. 

He said that disclosure of funding sources was essential, "otherwise NGOs may be sent up as fronts for industrial interests", while excluding the lobbying activities of law firms would be an "abuse of the lawyer-client privelege", he warned. 

Murray called for a code of conduct and a system to resolve disputes to be introduced, and said that those lobbyists who refuse to register voluntarily should be "refused access to the Parliament". 

Thomas Tindemans of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) warned against creating different categories of access to public institutions such as those of the EU, and expressed concern that a public register could conflict with national confidentiality laws, saying "it is important not to create conflicting jurisdictions". 

He said that public disclosure of a lawyer's clients would have to be subject to client approval, and cited Commission state aid cases as a situation in which confidentiality would be required. 

Lyn Trytsman-Gray of the Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP) said that her organisation was "comfortable" with voluntary registration, and called for all groups, such as regional representations, to be included. The issue of financial disclosure remains "problematic", she added. 

SEAP, which counts individual lobbyists among its members rather than companies themselves, supports the introduction of a common register for all institutions and the creation of a public register of documents. 

Erik Wesselius of Corporate Europe Observatory said that a voluntary register is "a good first step towards transparency, but it is way too small". 

He nevertheless recommended that Parliament endorse it for now and called it to be reviewed in a year's time, when a mandatory register could be introduced. 

On financial disclosure, he said that "annual figures on lobbying expenses and income" would be enough, but that "precise consultancy fees" were not needed.  

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Washington, DC, said that a voluntary register will not work, because "those who do not want to register will be the ones you need to do so". He insisted that a mandatory register is "not a bureaucratic nightmare". 

He pointed out that in the US, a lobbyist is defined according to receipt of financial backing, saying that this definition does not include private individuals exercising their freedom of speech. 

Paul de Clerck of ALTER-EU said that "a lobbying database with financial disclosure is essential", and thinks that "only a mandatory system will work". He recommended that Parliament call on the Commission to "define criteria for its voluntary system". 

He described Kallas' proposal as "very light compared to the US system", adding that compliance should be "no problem". 

Philippe de Buck of BusinessEurope said that any Commission action should be under the 'Better Regulation' framework, and asked it to explain the implications of registering on the likelihood of being consulted by EU institutions. He warned that the register would create issues of business confidentiality, and asked for clarification of the sanctions to be introduced for non-compliance.