December 3, 2006
Opening up EU ‘black box’
When Siim Kallas, head of the European Commission’s administration, embarked on a drive to improve transparency in the EU’s funding and decision making last year he said he wanted to open up "Brussels’ black box". Too much of what went on in Europe’s capital was hidden, he said.
The rejection of the proposed constitution by voters in France and the Netherlands soon after he launched his transparency initiative proved that he was on to something. The public in two of the Union’s founder members felt that decisions were taken far away by those stuck in a Brussels bubble that listened more to those lunching them at swanky restaurants than taxpayers and voters.
Mr Kallas and fellow commissioners pressured member states to disclose where subsidies went to: by 2008 they will. They also encouraged them to open ministerial meetings were decisions are made to the cameras. Many now are, though there are doubts as to whether it has improved the quality of debate. He has promised to disclose more openly funding to non-governmental organisations. The Commission gives �1bn euro a year to "civil society".
Then he seized on the Jack Abramoff scandal in Washington to warn the fast-growing public affairs community that it needed to improve its accountability. His final proposals will be tabled early in the new year.
In fact, much of the incentive to accept bribes that ensnared DC lawmakers is absent. Political parties are lavishly funded by the state and Commission bureaucrats have comfortable salaries and a job for life, not needing to worry about a future in the private sector.
Nevertheless, the "revolving door" is turning ever faster and ex-MEPs and Commission officials increasingly join groups lobbying their former employers. With 80 per cent of Europe’s legislation emanating from Brussels, the market it there.
The European parliament’s outside experts, hired to assist MEPs in fast-moving policy areas, are now under scrutiny. Complaints have been made about the authors of two reports who have links to businesses affected by them.
One is documented on the website of Epaca, the only body that has a disciplinary procedure that can be invoked by outsiders. It groups 35 lobby companies with 600 staff. John Houston, boss of Houston Consulting, Epaca’s chairman, said it was examining its procedures and an appeal mechanism would soon be introduced.
Epaca favours mandatory registration and would agree to disclosure of clients but only if others agree.
Lawyers and others who are members of SEAP, another Brussels body grouping 200 individuals, are more wary, arguing that it is hard to divide lobbying and legal work.
They believe the public shame of any media attention to a scandal is sanction enough. "Everybody knows everybody here so it people will soon find out who the rotten apples are," argues one. The thought of dinner party invitations - and possibly business - drying up will keep people on the straight and narrow.
Mr Kallas, the European anti-fraud commissioner, is wary of rigid legislation. It’s hard to regulate 25 different cultures. As one lawyer says: "If I want to talk to a Spanish MEP I need to buy him dinner. A Swede would consider that a bribe."
But Mr Kallas does want to eliminate obvious loopholes and is keen at least for lobbyists - including campaign groups such as Friends of the Earth - to register and companies to disclose their spending, US-style.
"Self-regulation doesn’t work," said one veteran lobbyist who has an in-house code. "What’s the penalty? Being thrown out of the club? Big deal."
Andrew Bounds
