About this Video

• Video Title: Beïnvloedt het lobbygeweld Nederlands beleid? Ja, maar er is een oplossing | VPRO Tegenlicht
• Channel: VPRO Tegenlicht
• Speakers: Tara Vierbergen, Luzwies van der Laan
• Duration: 00:26:32

Introduction

This VPRO Tegenlicht podcast investigates the influence of lobbying on Dutch policy. Luzwies van der Laan, director of Transparency International Netherlands, discusses the subtle yet significant ways corruption is interwoven with Dutch governance, arguing that while not as overt as in other countries, it necessitates solutions to ensure fair and equitable policy-making.

Key Takeaways

• Subtle Corruption: Dutch corruption is less about blatant bribery and more about indirect influence, networking, and a lack of transparency in decision-making processes.
• Network Corruption: Corruption often occurs indirectly, through connections and favors exchanged within networks, such as donations to local sports clubs influencing municipal decisions.
• Lack of Transparency: The absence of a mandatory lobby register hinders the ability to track influence and ensure that all stakeholders' concerns are considered in policy development. Other countries, like those in the EU, have such registers.
• "Deny, Delay, Deflect" Tactic: Lobbying groups often employ tactics of denial, delay, and deflection to hinder progress on issues like climate change. This includes commissioning conflicting research or focusing public attention on less significant issues.
• Strengthening Oversight: The podcast emphasizes the need for increased transparency and stronger oversight mechanisms, including a mandatory lobby register and increased resources for parliamentary investigation.

The UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) mandates that signatory countries criminalize influence peddling. The Netherlands, having signed UNCAC, is legally obligated to do so. However, the podcast highlights that the Netherlands has not yet implemented this requirement, deeming it unnecessary despite the recommendation from both the Public Prosecution Service and the National Crime Squad that such criminalization would aid in tackling corruption. The podcast suggests this inaction is somewhat bizarre and points to a potential self-perception in the Netherlands that such measures are not needed.

Based solely on the provided transcript, influence peddling is described as "handel in invloed" (trade in influence) internationally, and "influence" is considered a good term for it. The podcast implies that it's a situation where there's an indirect benefit conferred, even if there's no direct personal enrichment, making it difficult to track and prosecute. The transcript indicates that making influence peddling a criminal offense is seen as a solution to better address these kinds of situations.

The podcast contrasts the Netherlands' lack of a transparency register with the existence of such registers in Brussels and other countries (including Ireland and France). In places with these registers, it's easier to see who has attempted to influence policy, allowing officials to assess whether all interests have been fairly considered and to identify potential misconduct. The absence of this transparency in the Netherlands makes it harder to track influence, assess whether policies are truly serving the public good, and investigate potential instances of corruption. The podcast uses the example of the Huawei lobbying scandal in Brussels, where a transparency register helped expose bribery, to illustrate the investigative advantages of such registers.

The podcast describes a common lobbying tactic as "deny, delay, deflect." This involves denying the existence of a problem, delaying action through further research or committee formation, and deflecting attention to less significant issues.

The podcast illustrates this with several examples:

• Climate Change: Lobbying groups initially denied the existence of a climate problem, claiming scientific uncertainty and delaying action.
• Sugar Lobby: The podcast suggests the sugar lobby focused attention and research on fats, diverting attention away from the negative health impacts of sugar.
• Rietjesverbod (Straw Ban): The ban on plastic straws, ostensibly to protect sea turtles, is presented as an example of "deflection," shifting attention away from the larger problem of overfishing and its impact on turtles. This is implied, not explicitly stated as a deliberate lobbying tactic. The focus on the straw ban allowed the larger issue to remain unaddressed.

In each case, the tactic serves to delay or avoid meaningful action on the core issue.