Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-08-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080508.3.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the background is as follows. With the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament's powers will substantially increase again, and in view of this increase in powers, it is particularly important for us to carry out a precise analysis of the legislative process once more. As we do so, we see that interest representatives – or lobbyists, as they are often called – also play a very significant role in Brussels. We estimate that there are as many as 15 000 interest representatives working in Brussels, of which 5 000 are already registered with the European Parliament.
Our task, then, is to establish a framework in which lobbying activities can be conducted in a fair and acceptable way. Parliament has maintained its own quasi-obligatory register of lobbyists from as long ago as 1996, as well as a very precise code of conduct. The task now is to see whether a similar arrangement can be achieved for all the European institutions. The contents of the report to be voted on today therefore represent an important step towards more transparency: in other words, towards the provision of accurate information about who has participated as a lobbyist – an interest representative – in the development of European legislation, how they have done so, and in which areas.
Secondly, we wish to establish ethical and moral standards governing these lobbying activities. Thirdly, there must be proper safeguards in place to ensure the independence of the political decision-making process in Parliament and the Commission. Lobbying activities must be removed from the grey area, as it were, so that we have a clear and factual picture of where influence is genuinely being brought to bear. We have therefore introduced the following elements into the report, which are new features compared with the previous situation: firstly, a relatively wide-ranging definition of what lobbying means, or what it is, namely 'activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the EU institutions'.
The second new feature is the introduction of a 'legislative footprint'. This would mean that when a new directive is deliberated and adopted in a parliamentary committee, the committee secretariat would annex a page to the document listing which associations had participated in the debate and whether they did so in the framework of a public hearing or other type of meeting. This list should also help the interest groups themselves to see who was involved in the process, and who did not wish, or was unable, to participate.
Thirdly, our aim is to establish a common register for interest representatives in the EU institutions. It remains to be seen whether this really will happen with the Commission and Parliament. We intend to set up a working group to look at this issue. It would of course be easier for all lobbyists if we could get a kind of 'one-stop shop' where they could register and sign up to indicate that they intend to comply with the rules. That is the aim, but as the rapporteur, I must say that I am not certain at this stage whether we really will get a common register. At any rate, the registers need to be linked up so that it is a straightforward process, in terms of the bureaucracy involved, to set up this common register. Paragraph 21 also talks about the requirement of financial disclosure, which would be an entirely new element. We also talk about the option of sanctions which should apply to lobbyists who breach the code of conduct. Here, we have to consider what kind of sanctions we want. The Greens' idea is to have a black list, but in my view, this is reminiscent of a pillory in the Middle Ages. Black lists are really not appropriate in a democracy. What we would want instead is for inclusion in the register to confer such a high degree of prestige that serious-minded associations will want their name to appear in the European institutions' official register. It must be a prestigious and desirable aspiration, not only because they are then issued with a pass to grant access to the institutions' premises, but also because inclusion in the register would be sought-after in its own right, signifying that the association concerned is recognised as an important and useful interlocutor which is taken seriously enough by the institutions to warrant inclusion in the register. In the event of misconduct, the association would be struck from the register and the pass would be withdrawn: that would be the sanction.
Yes, I will be as brief as possible. It is important that church organisations should not be defined as lobbyists. I am very disappointed by Amendment 3. Mrs in 't Veld from the Liberal Group has said that churches should be lobbyists. That really would run counter to everything we have agreed in Parliament to date. According to the Treaties, the churches are partners for our institutions, but they are not lobbyists.
Overall, my assessment is that this is a major step forward towards a situation which is more transparent, correct and fair. I hope that we will thus set an example that can be followed around the world, showing how lobbying can and should be taken seriously."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples