TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEPs

ALTER-EU has just published a guide to transparency and ethics for MEPs “Navigating the lobby labyrinth: A guide to transparency and ethics for MEPs.

The views and opinions expressed here below are those of ALTER-EU and do not necessarily reflect the views of AALEP. The original text has been edited to solely concentrate on the issues being raised and keeping a neutral tone.

1. Complying fully with the current Code of Conduct for MEPs

The current MEP Code of Conduct should be adhered to at all times by MEPs and used as a minimum standard for ethical and transparent behaviour. MEPs should submit updated declarations of interest within 30 days if there are any major material changes in their outside interests. It is also good practice for MEPs to review and submit an updated declaration every three to six months, so that citizens can be confident that the declarations remain an accurate reflection of all MEPs’ current declarable interests.

In particular, MEPs should submit declarations of interest that are detailed, complete and disclose:

• All remunerated occupations held by Members, and all non-remunerated directorships, board positions, trustee and advisory roles
• All sources of additional income, even if it does not exceed the €5 000 threshold set out in the code
• Shareholdings
• Assets (property, investments, life insurance policies, business assets)

2. Tackling conflicts of interest

The Code of Conduct Article 3.2 says that "Any Member who finds that he or she has a conflict of interest shall immediately take the necessary steps to address it, in accordance with the principles and provisions of this Code of Conduct. If the Member is unable to resolve the conflict of interest, he or she shall report this to the President in writing. In cases of ambiguity, the Member may seek advice in confidence from the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members, established under Article 7.”

3. Ending second jobs and/ or shareholdings that risk causing conflicts of interest

MEPs are banned from being paid to influence or vote on European parliamentary activities, under Article 2 of the Code of Conduct. Providing paid or otherwise rewarded advice to someone involved in lobbying the Parliament is therefore a direct breach of this rule. Until the Code is revised,  MEPs  should  not undertake roles such as sitting on advisory boards, providing lobby advice, or acting as a lawyer for clients, if these are involved in influencing policy-making at the EU level. MEPs should not own share­holdings that could provoke a conflict of interest with their work as an MEP, for example if these enterprises are involved in EU lobbying. New MEPs should divest themselves of such shareholdings when taking office. Many MEPs earn additional income from writing, giving occasional lectures, or even from small family businesses such as farms. MEPs should not be banned from second jobs that are not related to EU policy-mak­ing. However, all additional income should be declared and time-consuming second jobs should be avoided, so that voters are assured that MEPs devote the maximum amount of time to their important parliamentary work. Article 2 should be extended so that MEPs cannot hold lobby or representation jobs that invoke a fiduciary duty that requires them to act in the interest of another individual or organisation. This is because such roles could provoke the risk of a conflict of interest by impinging on the MEPs’ duty to act solely in the interest of their voters and the public at large.

4. Refusing office funding from external sources

MEPs must declare any material external support received towards office costs or staff salaries, according to Article 4.g of the Code of Conduct. No MEP should accept funding from any external source (other than their political party) towards these costs. MEPs already receive generous publicly-funded allowances and they should not jeopard­ise their independence by accepting other contributions, particularly if these external actors are involved in EU lobbying.

5. Revolving door

MEPs should  be cautious about the possible conflicts of interest (or public perceptions of conflicts of interest) that could arise from MEPs moving into private sector jobs that are related to their previous EU portfolios. MEPs who wish to avoid accusations that they may abuse their political position to secure future careers should follow these guidelines:

• Adopt a voluntary two year cooling-off period after leaving office before accepting any EU-related lobby job
• Do not negotiate or accept new job contracts while still in office
• Do not accept the transitional allowance if they have accepted a new job with equivalent pay

In addition, the Code of Conduct for MEPs (Article 6) prevents ex-MEPs from using their lifelong access pass for lobbying purposes. Action should be taken if anyone suspects that a former MEP is lobbying without a lobbyist badge, for instance by alerting the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members.

6. Meetings with unregistered lobbyists

The MEP Code of Conduct does not prevent or restrict MEPs from meeting anyone and currently, the EU only has a voluntary lobby register. It is good practice for MEPs to refuse to meet with lobby organisations that are eligible to join the lobby register but have failed to do so. At the moment, too many lobbying consultancies, law firms engaged in lobby work, and major companies, refuse to sign up to the register. MEPs are uniquely placed to stop this from happening, simply by refusing meetings with unregistered lobbyists. In line with the register itself, if an organisation is in any way engaged in “activities carried out with the objective of influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the Europe­an institutions”, it should register. Individual citizens, SMEs or small grassroots constituents’ groups could be exempt from this, especial­ly when they only occasionally approach EU institutions. But formal organisations, businesses or campaign groups (even those within constituencies) that do attempt to influence EU policies should register, and MEPs could actively encourage them to do so.

7. Contacts with the tobacco industry

MEPs should avoid meetings and contacts with the tobacco industry lobby as far as possible. MEPs are bound by World Health Organisation guidelines on tobacco-related public health policies, which seek to limit regulators’ contacts with the tobacco industry lobby in almost all circumstances. The World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires, in Article 5.3, that all parties “act to protect these [tobacco-related] policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”. The WHO’s accompanying guidelines stipulate that decision-makers “should interact with the tobacco industry only when and to the extent strictly necessary to enable them to effective­ly regulate the tobacco industry and tobacco products.” The guidelines state “where interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, Parties should ensure that such interactions are conducted transparently”. This means that MEPs should rarely have a need to meet with members of the tobacco industry lobby. The EU is bound by the WHO FCTC and as such, MEPs should avoid meetings and contacts with the tobacco industry lobby as far as possible. In any case, MEPs should always be transparent about such lobbying contacts.

8. Preparing for meetings with lobbyists

Before meeting with a lobby group MEPs should check various sources of information to learn more about the group and to ensure that they are well briefed. Such sources might help identify front groups or other deceptive lobbying tactics.

9. Publishing lists of meetings with lobbyists online

There are already some examples of good practice among current MEPs who are proactively transparent about meetings and /or correspondence with lobbyists and all MEPs should follow suit and adopt procedures to maximise the information in the public domain about the lobbying that they encounter as an MEP. To be most effective, such proactive transparency systems should be updated as regularly as possible and should be published online in a way that allows members of the public to download, export and compare the data.

10. Enacting a legislative footprint

The legislative footprint, as currently defined, is an annex to a European Parliament proposal, dossier or report, which details the stakeholders that have been consulted and had an important role during the preparation of the report. The European Parliament adopted a Resolution in 2008 in which it calls on rapporteurs to enact legislative footprints on a voluntary basis. It also recommends that the Commission do the same with legislative files. Any MEP acting as rapporteur or shad­ow rapporteurs should produce a legislative footprint for each of their reports. The legislative footprint report should be detailed enough to show citizens how a piece of legislation was shaped, and by whom. Ideally, this information would be published well before the final report is adopted, so that citizens can follow the ‘live’ decision-making process in detail, and not after it is already adopted. It is worth noting that many legislative proposals do not lead to the adoption of a piece of legislation. In fact, some lobbying activities can kill legislative proposals, meaning that legislation is not enacted. This is why it is so important to routinely provide information about lobby contacts.

11. Respecting the right of access to information and EU documents

Article 15.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union guarantees that EU citizens have a right of access to documents held by the EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies, “whatever their medium”. The right of access to information is a fundamental human right that is necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression. Furthermore, without information, citizens cannot participate in the EU’s decision-making processes or hold EU officials to account.

EU Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to EU documents applies to the European Parliament, but not to individual MEPs per se. The Parliament is obliged to respond to requests for information within 15 working days and can only refuse access to information that is covered by a particular exemption. The premise is that public access to information is the norm and secrecy the exception. MEPs should respond to citizens’ requests and questions in a manner that is consistent with the right of access to information, so that citizens are better able to know what their elected representa­tives are doing with the power entrusted to them.

12. Cross-party groups

There are two kinds of cross-party groups operating in and around the European Parliament: formal intergroups which have preferential access to Parliamentary resources and facilities in Strasbourg, and informal groups. Informal cross-party groups, in particular, can be lobbying vehicles set-up and funded by industry lobbies and thus they should be treated with caution. When invited to an intergroup or cross-party group, MEPs should check if the group is transparent and open: Is it clear who the members and funders are, who sponsors meetings and publications made in the name of the group, and who provides secretarial and administrative services etc? MEPs should not join any intergroup or cross-party group that is not transparent about these matters.

13. Amendments drafted by lobbyists

It is a widespread practice in the European Parliament for lobbyists (both industry and NGOs) to send proposed amendments to MEPs that often get submitted for voting. This is not an illegal practice, nor it is intrinsically negative, but it can be potentially problematic. Industry lobbyists in particular are able to devote huge resources to drafting large numbers of detailed, technical amendments and to spend time getting them tabled. Often, several MEPs table identical amendments, or the office of an MEP has tabled hundreds of amendments, raising serious questions about whether the MEP is genuinely understanding and agreeing with what they are submitting or whether they are simply acting as a channel for external interests. MEPs should exercise extreme caution and vigilance when using externally-drafted texts, and they should be sure that they understand and agree with the changes being proposed by outside groups before tabling amendments. Externally drafted amendments could be gathered as part of the MEPs consultation with stakeholders and then only used verbatim if the MEP fully agrees with the position that they are tabling as a formal amendment. It is important that any MEP tabling an externally-derived amendment is transparent about its original source, for example by listing the organisations and individuals who have suggested amendments to be tabled. MEPs may wish to submit any draft amendments, voting recommendations or lobby materials to the external website LobbyCloud, which is an online repository of lobby documents that was coded by OpenDataCity https://lobbycloud.eu/ Alternatively, MEPs could publish these on their own websites.

14. Invites to paid hospitality and travel

Hospitality and travel accepted by MEPs have to be disclosed under the current Code of Conduct. Hospitality offers (from dinners and cocktail parties to all-expenses-paid trips funded by external parties) can be attempts by wealthy interests to influence MEPs and for this reason a cautious and critical approach should be taken when considering such invitations. MEPs should adopt full transparency around hospitality and travel regardless of whether or not the cost was greater than €150. The MEP Code of Conduct should be revised to reduce the acceptable gift value from €150 to €50 and MEPs should also be required to estimate the value of the hospitality they are offered by outside actors.

15. Helping to host events in the Parliament

Sometimes lobbyists will ask an MEP for their help to host events in the European Parliament in the expectation that association with parliamentary premises will give its lobbying activities greater authority and respectability. MEPs are of course free to host any event that they choose, but they should treat such requests with caution, carefully analysing them on a case-by-case basis so they know what interests they are supporting. In any event, if support is provided, this should be made known to the public and should be fully transparent.

16. Challenging unethical lobbying proactively

The Code of Conduct for lobbyists, which is part of the EU Transparency Register, states that lobbyists should “not obtain or try to obtain information, or any decision, dishonestly, or by use of undue pressure or inappropriate behaviour”. No further information is given about what might constitute inappropriate behaviour. Unethical or inappropriate lobbying includes actions or activities by lobbyists that infringe upon the private sphere or personal life of a policy-mak­er in an attempt to exercise influence. Examples may be unsolicited phone calls to home residences or private numbers (when the MEP has not proactively shared these numbers); seeking-out personal acquaintances in a bid to access decision-makers; or employing “middlemen” to engage in lobbying activities so that it is not clear which interests are being represented. MEPs should speak out if they see unethical or inappropriate lobbying taking place. This could mean reporting it to the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members; submitting complaints to the Parliament’s President; publishing an article; reporting it to transparency watchdogs, informing the media etc.

17. Seeking input from all sectors of society

MEPs should actively reach out to citizens at home for guidance on EU decision-making and don’t rely only on paid lobbyists for all information. MEPs should open up channels for citizen participation and ensure that they seek multiple viewpoints and sources of information in order to be better placed to balance the different interests seeking to influence decision-making process.