Debate grows over register of interests

Date: 11/01/1996

By Rory Watson

LOBBYISTS are facing clear rules for the first time on their dealings with the European Parliament as MEPs themselves come under pressure to reveal all their outside financial interests.

The twin campaigns aim to inject a greater degree of accountability and transparency into the activities of an institution increasingly targeted by outside interest groups.

They will come to a head next week when MEPs will be urged to approve the two new sets of rules at their plenary session in Strasbourg.

But already a fierce debate is under way over moves to force MEPs to declare all their “movable and immovable property”.

Spanish members in particular fear the information on their private homes could make them vulnerable to terrorist attacks. With support from UK Conservatives and German Christian Democrats, they are insisting that if they must provide such details, then access to the register in which these will be recorded should be tightly controlled.

Many MEPs now believe the property provision will be thrown out at the Strasbourg session in order to ensure that the public is given access to the register.

Under the proposal now on the table, it would be available for scrutiny not just in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg (as now), but also in the European Parliament's various information offices in member states. Details of its contents could also be requested in writing by individuals and sent to them by post.

The draft rules, drawn up by French Liberal MEP Jean-Thomas Nordmann, go further than the existing requirement to declare professional activities and other functions. If approved, they would require each MEP to list above a certain value “any gift or benefit in payment or in kind received in connection with his mandate”. This would include the name of the donor.

Explaining the initiative to tighten up the existing register of interests, Nordmann said approval of the new set of rules “would protect the institution and its members from any suspicion by guaranteeing as much openness as possible about any personal interests which might interfere with the decision-making process”.

He also moved to reassure his colleagues that the changes were “designed to ensure that the performance of a member's duties should be as open as possible, rather than limiting or hindering it in any way”.

But with feelings running high, Nordmann does not rule out the possibility of last-minute attempts being made in Strasbourg to postpone debate on the proposals by sending his report back to the rules committee.

His proposals are complemented by others from British Socialist MEP Glyn Ford which aim to regulate for the first time the behaviour of the growing number of lobby groups seeking to influence MEPs and the shape of EU legislation.

“The total lack of any supervision of such activities means that they are being conducted in an almost clandestine manner, which is giving rise to rumours of a kind which might discredit Parliament and some of its members,” notes Ford.

Not only would people seeking frequent access to the Parliament to provide information to MEPs have to guarantee to respect a code of conduct and sign a register, but they would also have to supply details of any gifts, benefits or services worth over 1,000 ecu in any year provided to MEPs, officials or parliamentary assistants.

Ford attempts to introduce greater clarity into the status of assistants working for MEPs by insisting that those with privileged access to the inner workings of the Parliament should not represent or defend outside interests.

“If all these proposals are accepted, then we would have to delay their implementation since, in theory, they would come into force from the following plenary session. I would be quite happy if we could apply them from September,” he explains.

While some MEPs are unhappy at the proposed rules, others like Dutch Socialist Alman Metten believe they do not go far enough. But he will be supporting the initiatives.

“My main priority is to get something through the Parliament. If I have to choose between getting something through and then improving it, or having something ideal on the table and it not being accepted, then I will accept the first option,” he admits.

Both proposals will be subject to a roll-call vote, clearly identifying MEPs who support or oppose the changes to current parliamentary practice.