The debate about transparency in EU policy-making has become muddled into exaggerated assumptions about corporate lobbyists trying to influence Brussels officials, according to Tom Spencer, Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA).
In an interview with EurActiv, Spencer pointed to "the faulty logic sequence" behind the whole transparency debate which assumes transparency is offended by lobbying. "By lobbying they mean corporate lobbying. By corporate lobbying they mean companies using paid professional consultants here in Brussels".
But Spencer argues this is "the wrong starting assumption […] primarily because public affairs is much larger than lobbying. Lobbying is only about 10% of the total process".
According to the former MEP elected in 1979 for the British Conservatives, the large majority of lobbyists in Brussels are not the paid professionals but national civil servants lobbying each other, the Parliament and the Commission.
"The professional public affairs consultants in this town are only the tip of the iceberg," Spencer said. "90% of public affairs is not conducted by such consultants. Think of the number of trade associations in this town or the number of citizen's groups."
Spencer thinks that the Commission, which is due to produce a green paper setting out the terms of a wider consultation on transparency in October, still has time to rectify this assumption.
"If they want to take the high road and do it properly, then I think they might consider an institution that is already well developed," Spencer went on, suggesting that an ombudsman-like figure be appointed to oversee a unique code of public affairs practice for all those seeking to influence EU law-makers.
Such an ombudsman would be responsible for dealing with code of ethics infringements by everybody seeking to influence law-makers - the latter encompassing member state experts sitting in the thousands of Brussels expert committees. But then, identifying with certainty who are the law-influencers becomes the next tricky question.
"If one were an entirely cynical observer of the whole process, one could go out and buy a think tank, a journalist and a specialist on any subject. You could make a payment to them and nobody would ask you to declare that. Yet they are all open to influence."
Read the full version of this interview
