On 2 May 2024, MP (déi Gréng) tabled a motion in the Chamber of Deputies to launch an evaluation of parliament’s transparency register. This request followed criticisms made by the European Commission during an evaluation of the rule of law in Luxembourg.

Now published, this highlights the limitations of a register that simply lists the individuals and interest groups to approach MPs. Currently, this list includes 27 individuals and 307 legal entities. Adopted on 9 December 2021, it appears in article 178bis of the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies. In accordance with article 5 (2) of the code of conduct for Luxembourg members of parliament on financial interests and conflicts of interest, elected members are supposed to refuse any contact with persons wishing to influence parliamentary work who are not registered in the aforementioned register.

Paperjam: On 2 May 2024, you tabled a motion to launch an evaluation of the Chamber of Deputies’ transparency register. Why?

Sam Tanson: First, because this register isn’t one. It is--at most--a diary listing the individuals and legal entities whom MPs have the right to contact. This is a far cry from the provisions that apply to the government in terms of transparency. Ministers are systematically required to indicate the meetings that have taken place, to mention their subject, namely the bill or grand-ducal regulation in question, and the person with whom the meeting took place. Some parliamentary groups, including déi Gréng, do this.

The Europeaen Commission then made a number of comments about the register as it exists, in particular concerning the fact that it is nothing more than a simple Excel spreadsheet and its accessibility. If you want detailed information, you have to go to the Chamber of Deputies. And the commission noted the absence of what one might call a register of interviews. Something had to be done.

Why do you think there are such gaps?

I wasn’t an MP when discussions on this register began in 2019. The discussion was long and heated. There were many obstacles and legal opinions. The register as it exists is the result of a minimalist compromise. But I have the impression that minds are evolving, and I don’t rule out the possibility that we could move towards a more functional register that better reflects the contacts MPs have in the exercise of their legislative functions.

What are the avenues for improvement to explore?

The report mentions them, and I completely agree with its conclusions: registration applications should include the name of the MP that the legal entity or individual intends to meet, the subject of the meeting and the scheduled date. And, obviously, only if it is a meeting related to legislative work.

The déi Gréng MPs already do this. We note all the meetings we have, which are requested or which we request, with professional organisations, unions or NGOs. Currently, in many countries, we have a real problem of trust in politics. I think it’s important to be able to trace how decisions are made and the influence of interest groups. This is very important for the voters we represent. I see nothing negative about transparency.

What will be the follow-up to this report?

We discussed this report at the conference of presidents and--without betraying the secrecy of this discussion, which took place behind closed doors--I have the impression that we will be able to move forward on this matter and proceed with a modification of the regulations.

This article was originally published in .