Pressure on MEPs to change their way of working

MEPs have launched a reform programme for internal organisation of the European Parliament and its rules and procedures. But they are facing external pressures to change how they run their affairs.

The Parliament has had its own code of conduct for lobbyists since 1996. Lobbyists obtain a pass giving them access to the Parliament’s buildings, in return for providing information about the organisation for which they work.

But the European Transparency Initiative launched in 2005 by Siim Kallas, the European commissioner for administrative affairs, has increased the chances that the Parliament will toughen up its rules and move one step closer to a common code for the Brussels institutions. Initially, Kallas was planning to forge ahead and introduce a code of conduct for lobbyists who sought access to the Commission. He feared that an attempt to devise a code for all institutions would run into the sand.

But the intense debate sparked by Kallas’s initiative about the best way to bring lobbying into the open has prompted MEPs to consider revising their own rules.

Finnish centre-right MEP Alexander Stubb, who is drafting the Parliament’s report on lobbying, says that he will call for the Parliament to toughen up its rules. While initially opposed to the idea of US-style regulation, Stubb says that he has come round to the idea of "some degree of financial disclosure". He is even sympathetic to the view that legally binding rules may be needed to ensure a level playing-field so that professional lobbyists and non-governmental organisations reveal their sources of funding.

The move towards greater transparency about interest representation also follows a dramatic increase in the amount of lobbying activity. Lobbying has also become professionalised, it is no longer based on cosy lunches between industry representatives and senior officials. Recent pieces of legislation have been accompanied by some of the most intense lobbying campaigns ever seen. The REACH regulation on chemicals pitted conservationists against the ranks of the chemical industry. The software patents directive was also keenly fought over. Supporters and opponents could not even agree on the name of the legislation and MEPs complained of being bombarded by a proliferation of obscure industry groups whose membership and sources of funding were unclear even if their views of the directive were not.

There is another Kallas initiative that could have its effects on Parliament: this time over the ethical behaviour of MEPs themselves. He has commissioned a report comparing the rules for members of national parliaments from all 27 member states, looking at issues like gifts, possible conflicts of interests and disclosure rules. Kallas has frequently challenged MEPs, who love nothing more than to accuse commissioners of venal behaviour, to sign up to a common set of standards in public life. He argues that the public does not distinguish between the different EU institutions. If the reputation of one is tarnished, then all suffer. While there are clear rules for commissioners and senior officials, MEPs still retain a choice over whether to disclose any outside employment or earnings. Some of these issues could feature in the campaign for the 2009 European elections, together with the question of transparency over expenses.

MEPs have launched a reform programme for internal organisation of the European Parliament and its rules and procedures. But they are facing external pressures to change how they run their affairs.