Speech: Lobbying and transparency – a challenge for young professionals - Hoofdinhoud

European Commission

[Check Against Delivery]

Vice-President for Inter-institutional relations and administration

Lobbying and transparency - a challenge for young professionals

General Assembly of EPCA2.0, Maastricht University

Maastricht, 5 June 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen

Thank you very much for your invitation. I am delighted to meet you as young and dynamic professionals of the lobbying community in Brussels, and I am also happy to hear that you have recently registered your network as well in the Transparency Register.

Just 10 days ago, European voters went to the polls to decide what direction they wanted the European Union to take.

It was a chance for Europe's 300m voters to send a clear message to EU leaders about what they expected for the next five years.

As it turned out, there was not one message but several.

The rising influence of nationalist, Eurosceptic, fringe parties seems to suggest disenchantment with the EU, with its policies and processes.

And yet, the vast majority of the Members of the European Parliament will continue to come from pro-EU parties - even if now they will most likely have to work more closely with one another in order to pursue their positive agenda for Europe.

It was the first time since 1979, when direct elections to the European Parliament first began, that voter turnout did not decline - not a great change, but nevertheless not that bad either.

So how should the European institutions respond to these somewhat mixed messages?

Can we continue with 'business as usual', reassuring ourselves that the majority of voters continue to support pro-European parties?

Or should we see the rise of the Europhobes and protest parties as a wake-up call, and do more to change the way we work at the European level?

Well, it is certainly clear to me from the month that I spent campaigning in Slovakia that we need to listen more to what European citizens are telling us - both positive and negative - and to act more effectively to address their concerns.

This includes communicating better with clearer messages.

It also means that some people who are in favour of certain actions at EU level will have to speak up and not stand by hoping that the Commission will do the job. This means that we have to build support and coalitions. Member States, Parliamentarians, but also

stakeholders cannot stand by and leave the communication job to the Commission whereas everyone else focuses on criticising.

When you look at the media coverage of some decisions at EU level, it seems sometimes that no one was in favour but nevertheless "Brussels" adopted the decision.

This will be the great challenge for the next five years; to strike the right balance between 'more Europe' and 'less Europe', between the need to address issues collectively at the European level, the need to ensure democratic legitimacy for these actions at the national level and also request support.

Of course, this is not a new challenge - it is one that has become increasingly pertinent with every enlargement, every Treaty change, every crisis.

But the election results have brought it front and centre - and the pro-Europeans need to react.

Of course, we still do not yet know what the final outcome of the negotiations for the top EU jobs will be - whether the Council will respect the vote in Parliament or choose a different path.

But whatever decision is taken, it seems clear to me that we cannot expect to continue with business as usual; the people of Europe have spoken - and they want change.

But not radical change necessarily.

Not 'business as usual' but rather "new political management' at all levels.

Our ultimate goals are good - it’s the means we use to get there that perhaps now have to change.

There are many ways in which this can be achieved, and I'd like to put just a couple to you here today, ways that are likely to have the greatest impact.

First, we must focus on the big issues and we must have public acceptance in mind. This means a clear focus on priorities like growth and jobs, simplification for businesses and citizens, listening to what citizens, businesses and employees need and work on public acceptance from the beginning.

This also has repercussions on the internal organisation of each organisation.

Second, it seems clear to me that we still need to work on transparency.

Now, I believe that the Commission is one of the most transparent organisations in the world, with a commitment to wide consultation, open law-making and high quality impact assessments that are second to none.

But as you well know, there are people who do not share this view.

They see the Commission's commitment - in fact, its obligation under the Treaties - to consult widely on legislative proposals as opening the process up to undue influence.

This is the perception of lobbying in Brussels - as widely reported in the EU media over the last few months - and it is undoubtedly a difficult image to dispel.

But I believe it is simply an image, and one that does not truly reflect the reality of the way in which the Commission and other institutions work.

Of course, there are risks in such a process, but I think that the Commission has rules and procedures in place which protect the decision-making process. External influence and pressure has existed from the very beginning of the existence of this institution in the 1950ies. Its independence has always been key. Therefore, I am convinced that things are under control.

But the perception is there and we have to take this into account.

Media reports claim that there are around 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, almost as many as there are staff at the Commission, and that these 'shadowy activists', as one news story put it, can influence up to 75% of EU legislation.

Given these figures, it is easy to see why European citizens might be disillusioned with the EU: if this were true, it would mean that the institutions that are meant to put citizens at the very heart of what they do would be doing entirely the opposite.

Thankfully, of course, this is far from being the case.

It seems to me that the presumption is that any Commission or Parliament official talking to a lobby group or interest representative is automatically in their pay, representing their interests.

And yet, meetings between officials and stakeholders on a wide range of policy areas, and representing every side of the argument, take place on a daily basis in Brussels.

How else can the Commission - as the main proposer of legislation - ensure that it does intelligently and effectively, in a balanced way that tries to take into account all points of view?

Would critics prefer that the Commission remained entirely aloof, taking decisions that could affect millions of Europeans, without bothering to ask about the potential repercussions?

Of course not.

Transparency register

We have, as I say, an obligation to consult widely - with citizens, with national parliaments, with NGOs and yes, with industry - as part of our legislative proposal procedure.

These public consultations are widely publicised, open to all, and transparent, with contributions visible to all who are interested.

And, we believe, that consultations carried out more directly, through lobbyists in Brussels, for example, should also be transparent.

This is why we, along with the European Parliament, have developed the joint transparency register, which now has over 6600 registrants representing, at a conservative estimate, around 30,000 individual lobbyists.

Academic estimates say that the register covered several months ago around 75% of the business related organisations which are present in Brussels and 60% of the NGOs.

The register is currently a voluntary one, but we do not believe that this in any way weakens it.

Mandatory does not mean better as some stakeholders seem to think.

Mandatory registration means regulation, precise definitions, proportionality checks and leads quickly to a much smaller scope of the register as well as difficult interpretation and implementation issues. We might well end up with a register which covers only lobbying on behalf of third parties.

Not to mention the legal and political difficulties of adopting binding regulations in this field. We would need unanimity in the Council since the legal basis would be Article 352 of the Treaty. This implies also that some Member States need prior approval from their national parliaments. You can imagine how difficult such a proposal would be.

Lobbying should be open and transparent on both sides, and as such organisations or individuals involved in lobbying the Commission or Parliament should have nothing to hide and sign the register.

Our recent revision of the register strengthens the register, introducing more incentives to encourage registration.

Among these is the recommendation that Commissioners do not lend their patronage to events organised by groups not registered.

The credentials of organisations participating in expert groups or requesting meetings with Commission staff shall be checked by DGs and staff and be encouraged to register if they haven't done so yet. DGs have just recently been informed and reminded of these guidelines.

But of course in the first place, registration should be a reputational issue for each and every organisation. And I count on you, as the next generation of lobbyists, to be at the forefront of encouraging your profession to sign up to the register - to show that you too are committed to acting openly and proactively.

The register is here to stay, and will be the framework within which lobbyists and lobbied will have to act for years to come.

It is incumbent on all of us - on both sides of the fence - to act appropriately, to stick to the rules and to make the register work.

We continue to work on the Council to convince them to participate in the register. But so far, many Member States in the Council don't see why the Council should be involved in this exercise.

The European election results are as much about citizens' response to their national governments as they are about the work of the institutions in Brussels, and it is vital that the Member States assume their European responsibilities fully.

After all, it is they, alongside Parliament, who make the vast majority of the decisions that affect citizens across Europe.

A commitment to do so transparently would in my opinion go a great deal of the way towards improving the image of the EU. The Commission and Parliament have done their job, and I hope that Council will follow suit.

Conclusion

We all of us have a part to play in addressing this issue of trust - because that is what I believe is at the heart of the message sent by citizens through the European elections.

There is clear belief in the broader goals of the European project - but trust and faith in the ability of Europe's political leaders to achieve those goals is far less clear-cut.

That's why the Parliament and Commission are committed to transparency and openness, to showing citizens that they are indeed working on their behalf.

The transparency register is an important step towards achieving that goal.

Transparency alone will not of course restore faith in the EU - this depends on the right policy choices and the support you get for them.

But it is an important element and will give us plenty of good arguments to fight those determined to undermine the EU project - to counter their arguments and show the true added-value of European action.

You, as the new generation of EU lobbyists, will be part of that battle - ensuring the reputation of your industry does not suffer by making contributions to the development of future EU policies, alongside the myriad of other stakeholders involved in that process.

I am sure I can count on your support in this shared endeavour. Transparency and in particular registration in the Transparency Register must be a natural part of the culture at EU level - this is a small but nonetheless important element of what will certainly be Europe's biggest challenge over the next five years - restoring faith.

Thank you for your attention.