Lobby register still faced with same problems

Over one year since it was launched, the European Transparency Initiative (the EU's register of interests) continues to face problems over its ability to deal coherently with law firms and think tanks.

 

Critics of the Commission remain skeptical that the avowed desire to sort out the problem will amount to any real change.

The European transparency initiative (ETI) was launched in June 2008 with the aim of creating a public document that would enable European citizens to gain a more valuable insight into who exactly influences the decision-making process.

Immediately, the scheme drew criticism for being a voluntary rather than a compulsory register, and for failing to bring to book law firms and think tanks, which have attempted to exempt themselves from the definition of 'lobbyist', despite often attempting to influence the political agenda covertly.

Now, with its one-year review of the ETI, the Commission has sought to deal with some of these criticisms. However, the same problems refuse to go away.

Law firms and think tanks are still, in the words of one official, “suspicious by their absence” from the register. And while law firms in particular have been noted for the fact that “they are often operating in a domain with other lobby groups”, the Commission still seems reluctant to take them on directly by forcing them to declare a lobbying interest.

The advantage for the lawyers is obvious: by remaining outside the transparency initiative, they can entice clients on the promise that they are not bound by the same rules as their lobbying rivals.

Despite the recognition by the Commission that this is the case, it still has not gone for the jugular. According to officials, a compromise solution is currently being worked out. So far details are vague.

Think tanks also are proving to be a tough nut to crack, with most Brussels-based think tanks considering themselves to provide academic or intellectual support to policy makers, despite the acknowledged reality of the fact.

As a sop, the Commission has now decided to grant then special status on the register,  but whether or not this will work is perhaps for the next review to show.

Ultimately, the Commission, defensive of the ETI's voluntary status, defends the register on the grounds that staff pressure on lobby firms is itself an effective way of bringing firms in to the fold.

As one member of Commissioner Kallas' cabinet put it: “if we are approached by someone who wants a meeting, we look at the register. If they are not on it, then we ask them 'why not?'”  

Is this the kind of pressure that will make the apparent 1,500 still unregistered lobbyists sign up to the ETI? Until the next review we just won't know.