Research confirms: agendas of Dutch ministers fall short of transparency
Research shows that the public agendas of Dutch ministers do not provide sufficient insight into the influence of external parties on the decision-making process. This information reached the House of Representatives just before the Christmas recess through a letter from Interior Minister Judith Uitermark (NSC – Social Conservatives). The study was conducted by Leiden University at the cabinet’s request, as part of the planned evaluation of the public agendas, and shows that the agendas are not complete and do not provide sufficient transparency. Moreover, it revealed earlier this year that agendas were poorly maintained in the new Schoof-I cabinet.
Incomplete transparency: what is missing?
The main conclusion of the report by researchers Caelesta Braun and Bert Fraussen is that the public agendas of ministers give an incomplete picture of external influences on policy. Not all appointments are shared publicly, which makes it difficult to identify which external parties are involved in decision-making. In addition, how agendas are drawn up and made public varies from ministry to ministry. Internal consultations with officials, for example, are not required to be shared publicly, which further limits the ability to check what information is included in policy decisions.
The problem of exceptions
Another problem lit by the researchers is the lack of clarity around the exceptions that ministers themselves can make when publishing their agenda. Ministers have the freedom to decide which appointments should or should not be listed on their public agenda, but the reasons and criteria for these choices are often not clear. This lack of consistency makes it difficult to understand exactly which interests are included in the policy process and which may be left out of the picture.
There are also the internet consultations, in which external parties’ reactions to legislative proposals are publicly shared. These reactions are presented, among other things, in so-called ‘lobby paragraphs’. This paragraph provides insight into the organisation or person who contributed to the consultation and thus tried to influence it. However, while this helps somewhat in showing involvement of external parties, these paragraphs remain incomplete. They generally do not clearly answer the question of what was done with the submissions. The report suggests that the public agendas of ministers and the lobby paragraphs should be better aligned so that together they provide a more complete picture of the influence of external parties on decision-making.
Solution: a transparency register?
The researchers therefore suggest the introduction of a transparency register. This transparency register would take the form of a lobby register. In such a Register, ministers would keep track of all their contacts with external parties, which could provide more transparency on who influences decision-making. This idea was previously put forward by MPs Pieter Omtzigt (NSC) and Dassen (Volt) in an own-initiative memorandum, in which they argued for a system where both interest groups and governing bodies themselves make their agreements public. Such a lobby register has already been successfully implemented in other (European) countries. Braun and Fraussen argue that instead of waiting any longer, the Netherlands should adopt this now rather tried-and-tested method.
Delay and lack of urgency
Although the report was already presented to the Ministry of the Interior in October, it was not sent to the House of Representatives until late December, just before the Christmas recess. Again without concrete proposals, but with the notion that the recommendations would be explored further and the House of Representatives would be informed about the next steps in the first months of 2025. This further delay is seen by many as a sign of lack of urgency, especially given the sensitivity of the issue and the long time that has already passed.
Among others, the Open State Foundation and D66 (Liberal Democrats) MP Joost Sneller expressed disappointment at the slow pace. They stressed that the shortcomings around public agendas have been known for three years and that the Netherlands should no longer wait, but adopt international best practices. So the call for a lobby register is growing noticeably. The coming months will have to show whether the cabinet is now willing to take concrete steps, or again opts for further research and exploration.
‘The call for a lobby register is getting louder and louder. The coming months will show whether the cabinet is finally ready to take concrete steps, or again opts for further research and exploration.’
Public matters