Discussions between lobbyists and defense committees in Westminster and Brussels are not very transparent.

While both jurisdictions have implemented some measures to increase public visibility, significant loopholes, and a deeply institutionalized "revolving door" culture ensure that much of the most important influence happens behind closed doors.

Transparency in Westminster (UK)

Westminster's system for lobbying transparency is widely considered to be one of the least transparent among major Western democracies. The primary law, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, has a major design flaw that severely limits its effectiveness.

The "In-House" Lobbying Loophole

The most significant issue is that the UK's lobbying register only requires consultant lobbyists (firms that lobby for clients) to register. It explicitly excludes in-house lobbyists, who are employed directly by a company. The vast majority of lobbying by major defense contractors like BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, and Babcock is done by their in-house teams. A Transparency International UK report found that at most, only about 4% of those who engage in lobbying are on the statutory register. This means that discussions between these firms and parliamentary committees, including the Commons Defence Committee, are largely hidden from public view.

Ministerial and Committee Opacity

While some ministerial meetings with outside parties are disclosed quarterly, this is not a comprehensive record. The Ministerial Code requires ministers to report meetings, but the scope of what is included is not always clear, and it does not cover all parliamentary or committee-level discussions. The Defence Committee itself does not have a comprehensive public register of all its meetings and discussions with lobbyists and defense firms.

The "Open-Plan Office" Culture

Beyond formal meetings, a culture of close partnership exists between the UK government and the defense industry. This is often referred to as an "open-plan office" where senior government and military officials are regularly seconded to defense companies, and former officials are hired to serve as board members or lobbyists. . This revolving door facilitates private, informal, and untraceable discussions that circumvent official transparency rules.

Transparency in Brussels (EU)

The EU's system is more transparent than the UK's, but it still has significant shortcomings, particularly in the sensitive defense sector.

The EU Transparency Register

Brussels has a more robust system through the EU Transparency Register, which lists organizations that seek to influence EU policy. Major defense contractors like Airbus, Leonardo, and Thales, as well as their powerful trade association, the Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD), are on this register. A key feature is the public disclosure of meetings: officials in the European Commission and key Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are now required to publish records of their meetings with registered lobbyists. This provides a valuable, though often incomplete, paper trail.

Gaps in the System

Despite these improvements, the EU system has weaknesses. The data relies on self-reported information, and watchdog groups have pointed to underreporting and inconsistencies. Much of the lobbying still takes place in informal settings or with lower-level officials where disclosure rules are weaker. A Transparency International report noted that the level of public reporting on meetings with defense sector lobbyists is low, which complicates efforts to monitor influence and ensure accountability.

The Role of Advisory Bodies

The EU is increasingly developing its defense architecture, including the European Defence Fund (EDF). Lobbying for a share of this fund is intense. The industry has been instrumental in shaping the rules of the EDF by participating in advisory groups established by the Commission. These groups, often dominated by industry representatives, provide a private channel for influence that can be difficult to track publicly. The transparency of these discussions is often limited, giving corporate interests a disproportionate say in how a multi-billion euro fund is designed and allocated.

In conclusion, while some measures for transparency exist, discussions between lobbyists and defense committees in both Westminster and Brussels are largely opaque. The UK's system is particularly weak due to its failure to capture in-house lobbyists, while the EU's system, though better, struggles to fully track informal influence and the growing number of meetings with defense lobbyists.