INGO FRIEDRICH ABOUT EU LOBBYISM

The EPP-ED aims at increasing transparency in lobbying activities. In your judgment, in which of the three basic EU-institutions at present is lobbyism less transparent - the Commission, the Council or the Parliament?

The European Parliament is the most transparent as an institution. Since 1996 we have a Mandatory Lobbyists Register on which all lobbyists who wish to gain access to EP plenary sessions and MEPs should register. At the same time registered lobbyists sign Code of Conduct and they should abide by the strict ethical standards set there. The Commission's activity seems to be less transparent, and as for the Council, the processes of decision-making there are the least transparent of all.

In the US, there exists the so-called FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) online register, which is a very good example for accountability and transparency. Do you think it is applicable in Europe, too?

The American lobbyists register is too overall and unclear. This does not lead to transparency in any way. The European Parliament aims at a non-bureaucratic decision for lobbyists through a register common for the three institutions.

You call for the establishment of a common lobbyist register with the EP, the EC and the Council. Which of the three institutions is most sceptical to this idea and why?

The European Council has not announced yet its position on a common register, and in my opinion, this is the source of the greatest difficulties. It is the Council that works predominantly with representatives of national parliaments.

The Lisbon Treaty is increasing the Parliament's powers, on the one hand, and decreasing the number of Euro-commissioners, on the other. Will this make it easier or harder for lobbyists to influence on the decision-making process?

In my view the lobbyists' activity will become more complicated as a result of the changes in the Lisbon Treaty.

Today, Bulgaria is governed by a Socialist-dominated three-party coalition which faces difficulties in curbing crime and corruption. Some government supporters are saying in the press that "Bulgaria needs to lobby in Brussels", so that the European Commission would not activate the so-called "safeguard clause", in other words to punish the government's failures. Is such "lobbying" doable?

According to the definition of lobbyists formulated in the report of the European Parliament, government representatives do not fall in that group. They belong to the Council of Ministers, and as such are also part of the European institutions. National and European parties are also not included in the lobbyists group according to that definition.

To your knowledge, do governments of EU-accession candidate countries use some sort of lobbying for speeding up the membership chances? If yes, how is it implemented?

Not only EU-accession candidate countries protect their interests in Brussels but also the governments of Member states and non-Member States try to influence EU policy. This is clearly evident from the Permanent Representations which different countries have in Brussels.