German MEP Sven Giegold, a fierce critic of EU trade policy | European Parliament | European Parliament MEPs try to dilute new lobbying rules A proposal to tighten European Parliament rules has come under a barrage of amendments.

The European Parliament is all in favor of transparent rules for lobbying — except when it comes to its members' own meetings with interest groups.

MEPs have inundated Parliament with hundreds of tweaks to a proposal that would redefine how the assembly defines lobbying and set new rules for how MEPs could meet with people trying to influence legislation. The first batch of 385 amendments come from MEPs across the spectrum, including groups that typically call for tougher transparency rules — at least for other EU institutions. Even more amendments are expected.

"My impression is that the fight for transparency is always welcome when it is about others, but not about yourself," said the proposal's sponsor, German Green MEP Sven Giegold.

Giegold said that while his effort to overhaul transparency rules has attracted little interest from MEPs when it comes to urging the European Council and Commission to do more, changes affecting Parliament have been contested vigorously.

Under current rules, lobbyists approaching MEPS are under no obligation to report their meetings.

MEPs from the Constitutional Affairs Committee have taken issue with conflict-of-interest reforms; others have introduced amendments to weaken the notion of creating a legislative "footprint" — a public record of lobbyists' impact on legislation.

The amendments even reveal a disagreement among MEPs about whether the very act of lobbying is good or bad.

A group of MEPs from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) felt it necessary to include an amendment stating that "lobbying is an integral part of democracy, and is essential in providing insights in the various societal interests as well as in providing information and expertise."

The clash of amendments comes as Parliament discusses a range of transparency reforms put forward in Gielgold's draft report, tabled last November. The proposal, which has yet to be voted on by the Committee, was made a priority by all major political groupings, which broadly agree Parliament is ready for a transparency overhaul.

Under current rules, lobbyists approaching MEPs are under no obligation to report their meetings and are not required to sign up to the Joint Transparency Register, a voluntary database of lobbyists and their clients. The MEPs are not required to disclose their meetings with lobbyists — although many of them do.

But with the Commission now proposing a public consultation on how it should reform its own lobbying transparency regime, Parliament has found itself playing catch-up.

The Commission is expected to publish its proposals before the end of the year. These are likely to include joint transparency measures involving all three of the main EU institutions.

Red tape concerns

Among the more surprising amendments are those put forward by ALDE MEPs Maite Pagazaurtundúa and Charles Goerens, who want to scrap the ambitious legislative footprint initiative altogether.

While center-right MEPs Rainer Wieland and Angelika Niebler, both from the European People's Party (EPP), also want to cut the measure, ALDE has in the past been vocal on the need for greater transparency in Parliament.

The ALDE MEPs, with the support of fellow group members including French member Sylvie Goulard, also suggest removing another central plank of the reforms, which would require that rapporteurs and committee chairs meet only with registered lobbyists and to disclose their meetings.

According to an ALDE political staffer, the reason the MEPs want to slash these parts of the transparency reform is because their implementation would be too cumbersome. The aide said the MEPs prefer an optional, rather than a mandatory reporting system, which would not force elected officials to report even casual or social interactions with lobbyists.

'On the issue of conflict of interest, everyone agrees there has to be some change' — Sven Giegold, MEP

If these measures were adopted, they would mirror the transparency regime which now applies to commissioners, their political staff and top Commission public servants. Those rules push the Commission's top officials to publish within two weeks all meetings — except social events or public speeches — they have with trade federations, lobbying firms and consultancies, NGOs and think-tanks.

Other MEPs have taken aim at a proposed reform that would shift the power to enforce Parliament's code of conduct away from the president of the chamber and hand it to an expanded advisory committee.

British MEP Sajjad Karim, from the European Conservatives and Reformists group, and Constance Le Grip, from the EPP, have introduced an amendment to get rid of that proposal altogether. Neither was available for comment.

"On the issue of conflict of interest, everyone agrees there has to be some change," said Giegold, who is still hopeful he can reach a compromise before the Constitutional Affairs Committee votes on his proposal at the end of May.

And while his legislative footprint proposal may yet prove a stumbling block, he says there is a growing consensus in Parliament around smaller reforms, such as strengthening access to document requirements and greater transparency in trade negotiations.