February 22, 2007
Who advises on advisers?
Brussels has once again been wrongfooted by allegations of a conflict of interest. As we reported on Monday, an industry lobbyist who advises Andris Piebalgs, the energy commissioner, has had his contract terminated.
Rolf Linkohr, a former MEP, had already been working for two years before Siim Kallas, Brussels’ Mr Clean-up, sent him a letter asking to clarify whether he had a conflict of interest to declare. Mr Linkohr says he was dismissed before the letter was sent.
Whatever the case, it certainly appears to have been a case of making policy on the hoof.
Mr Linkohr argues that he declared his board positions, though he does not declare the energy clients of his consultancy. He also signed the standard declaration of interest at the beginning of his contract in 2005. "If the Commission was to change its rules now, it is its choice. I have by all means stuck to the rules that applied when sigining the contract, a contract that provides a daily allowance and also a tight travel allowance," he said.
Questions about Mr Linkohr’s role have been circulating for months. Finally in January Corporate Europe Observatory, a pressure group, wrote to Mr Kallas, Mr Piebalgs and commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, apparently triggering the action.
Back in September MEP Herbert Bosch asked for names of advisers. It took three months for Mr Kallas to tell him how many there were. He was promised the names at a later date but they haven’t materialised. The Commission pleaded data protection problems but recently shifted its stance. The latest position seems to be that advisers have to agree to be named. If they refuse, their contract will be terminated.
Transparency campaigners point out that without full disclosure of names and interests it is hard for the public to scrutinise those making decisions in their name.
You can follow the correspondence at http://www.corporateeurope.org. This is in a different order than Edith Cresson, the French ex-commissioner, putting her dentist on the payroll, which helped bring down the commission in 1999. Yet it is also more subtle.
The usual objection to too much transparency is that there will now be a shortage of quality people coming forward. Yet Mr Barroso has a clutch of academics advising him as well as the illustrious Michel Barnier, a former French foreign minister and commissioner. He is drawing up a report on whether the EU should have its own crisis management teams to deploy during natural disasters.
If nothing else, it shows just what a tricky task Mr Kallas has in finalising his transparency initiative to try to shed light on all these matters, expected next month.
"An adviser gives advice, but the Commission has to decide for itself," says Mr Linkohr.
At the heart of the matter is the quality of European policymaking. Of course expertise is required. But Brussels is also trying to get close to the citizen and it is hard to see how that is served by having unnamed people whispering in commissioners’ ears.











It does look very dodgy that an adviser was appointed without requiring him to declare who his consultancy’s clients are.
Vast numbers of companies have consultants working for them in Brussels; there is nothing unusual or questionable about that. But if a company objects to its name being disclosed to (even very specific) others as a client of a particular consultant, it must have something to hide - a particular project or sensitive lobbying campaign, for example. Disclosure of identity does not imply any disclosure of the work that is being done. If the company has something to hide, it stands to reason that the consultant is highly likely to have a personal stake in the decisions being taken on the basis of his/her advice. Such interests may or may not be acceptable, but they must surely be declared.
Good work - the Commission does too much of this and must be held accountable!
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Report this commentThe idea of FT journalists holding the EU institutions to account reminds me of Denis Healy’s quip that being attacked by Sir Geoffrey Howe is like being mauled by a dead sheep. The FT acts as a simple and unquestioning relayer of the messages that the elites in Brussels would like the masses to hear. The EU has a program to subsidise journalists and one must wonder if the FT is benefiting from this.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/news/eu.php
Posted by: John | February 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Report this commentJohn, rest assured we pay our own way and do not take any subsidies from Brussels for trips and the like. As for our coverage, perhaps the fact that the FT broke the very story you are commenting on should be mentioned. Why not use our excellent website search to have a look at, say, this year’s reports so far and make up your own mind.
Posted by: Andrew Bounds | February 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Report this comment