The European Parliament, a model of transparency tarnished after ‘Qatargate’ arrests

Allegations of corruption involving Vice President Eva Kaili along with five MEPs and parliamentary attachés, the European institution once seen as a leader in lobbying transparency has seen its image tarnished in recent days by a scandal dubbed “Qatargate”. 

“The European Parliament is committed to promoting transparency and ethics when it comes to lobbying activities,” reads its official website. It also states that “together with the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, it uses a common transparency register” to monitor the activities of “interest representatives”. Each institution has the option to take additional measures and MEPs are instructed to publish information regarding their communication with lobbyists.

Third countries are often not required to sign the transparency register

The EU transparency register records the actions of more than 12,000 lobbying groups whose objective is to influence public decisions made at the European level. They may act on behalf of consultancy firms, companies, trade unions, religious organisations or academic institutions. Representatives of local authorities and public bodies may also be involved.

This database also records the interests defended, the legislation and public policies targeted, and the budgets allocated.

All lobbyists must be registered before they can obtain accreditation to the European Parliament, be heard by a parliamentary committee, or meet with European Commissioners, members of their cabinets or directors of the Commission’s administration.

As parliamentarians must make note in their online diaries of all formal meetings with lobbyists, the European register, in theory, is aware of all meetings taking place between an elected representative and those representing special interests. This rule applies to committee chairmen, text rapporteurs and parliamentary group aides (only their staff members are exempted).

These transparency rules were put in place in the early 2000s. The European register, on the other hand, emerged in 2011 in the wake of the “fake lobbyists” scandal, when three MEPs were tricked by journalists from the British newspaper The Sunday Times into tabling amendments in exchange for bribes of up to €100,000.

Over the years, measures have been put in place to promote transparency, regulate conflicts of interest with MEPs and define relationships with lobbyists, says Cécile Robert, a professor at Sciences Po Lyon specialising in European institutions and politics.

Political scientist Olivier Costa wrote an opinion piece for La Tribune on Tuesday reminding readers that the European system is not without its flaws. “It is highly irregular that emissaries from third countries [countries outside of the EU defending their interests before the EU parliament] are not required to sign the transparency register, as all other people who plan to visit European institutions must do so,” writes the researcher, arguing for a necessary change in the way the European Parliament operates.

Permanent representations (embassies in Brussels, for example) are exempt from signing the European register, says Costa, a lobbying and regulations expert. Furthermore, other third countries like Qatar – which, just like other organisations representing interests, should technically be included in the transparency register – are also often let off the hook.  

These third countries fall under a special category in this register (open access). “Currently, there are only four entries, so only four lobbies [associated with third countries] are listed, which differs entirely from reality,” says Robert, adding that Qatar is not on this short list.

Meetings masquerading as diplomatic visits

As parliamentarians must be listed in the European register, they are not allowed to enter into dealings with states that don’t appear on the register. However, when a state representative and parliamentarian “meet within the context of diplomatic visits”, says Robert, “no declaration is necessary, because they are not lobbyists as such [according to the European definition]”.

For instance, if the vice-chairwoman of the European Parliament’s Human Rights Subcommittee meets with a public figure while on an official visit to a particular country, neither of them is required to sign the transparency register. A third country’s representatives must only register if they have come to Brussels to talk to an MEP in charge of a particular dossier and advocate for their country’s interests in relation to that dossier.

“In this case they are invited to sign the register, but as the register is not compulsory they can also dispense with it. It is up to the member of parliament, however – for whom signing is mandatory – to make the decision not to meet with them,” says Robert.

A lesson for every scandal

So are insufficiently restrictive regulations the problem? Yes, but not only, according to Robert. Other issues, such as “the way in which the rules governing MEPs’ code of conduct are structured, or the very limited resources allocated to security”, may have encouraged a scandal such as Qatargate.

Accepting money in exchange for a speech or adding an amendment to a European text (or even attempting to do so) has long been prohibited in the European Parliament, says Robert. “The rule is certainly insufficient in certain respects, but it was put in place after certain acts were committed. On the other hand, if there had been more security and means to check parliamentarians’ appointments, it might have been possible to limit certain interactions.”

Following a scandal of the magnitude of the one currently engulfing the European Parliament, the legislation will have to evolve.

Since 2011, “progress has been made, but at too slow a pace to circumvent the most unprincipled lobbyists and greediest MEPs”, writes Costa.

On Monday, French Social Democrat MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, chairman of the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all EU Democratic Processes, called for a committee of enquiry and a high authority tasked with ensuring transparency in public life at the European level, based on France’s HATVP, to be created. The HATVP is an independent French administrative authority responsible for ascertaining and preventing potential conflicts of interest among French public servants.

The “positive side” to these scandals, Robert says, is that they are an opportunity for strengthening the rules. “This will inevitably lead to more supervision, transparency, and efforts to make these practices compatible with the exercise of democracy,” she says.

This article has been translated from the original in French.