LOBBYING LANDSCAPE IN PORTUGAL

Companies and individuals with the means and the ability to influence public decisions in Portugal can do so without any fear of restrictions or regulation. Lobbying is not regulated, and the issue has not even reached the public debate. Construction and public works, the financial sector and energy are identified as sectors in which dubious lobbying practices occur more frequently.

The word lobbying has several connotations, depending on the interlocutor. For the general public in Portugal, lobbying continues to be a mystery and has a very negative connotation. The lobbying industry and the representation of interests in Portugal is still in its infancy. Professional  lobbyists are not many and a large part of the activity is practiced by lawyers and communication agencies.

The majority of attempts to influence the legislative, regulatory and decision-making process is carried out by means of internal influence networks, informal contacts and support paid to the main offices of law firms in the country. Influence-peddling, "pulling strings" to obtain a service or trafficking of privileged information are common in Portugal.

The lack of regulation has pushed lobbying into darkness. Informal contacts based on family relationships, friends and other social networks are quite common and accepted as the most effective way to get results. Although not always revealed as an illicit activity, lobbying is conducted in an opaque manner, paving the way and providing opportunities for illegitimate practices.

In general, there is a lack of transparency regarding the interests that are behind political,  legislative and administrative decisions. There is no "legislative footprint" allowing citizens to identify the interest groups and individuals who have contributed to the definition of a new law or policy. The mechanisms that govern the behaviour of public decision-makers in Portugal are not satisfactory, since there are few limitations to prevent politicians to accept posts in the private sector after or even during the period in which they are in office. The financial sector is a strong example of these practices, since among the last 19 Finance Ministers, 14 work in banks or financial institutions. In addition, there is a problem of fairness in terms of who has access to decision-makers. Politicians, especially in Parliament, are open to hear and see interest groups . However, the State and private companies have a relationship of mutual dependence. Large companies have a disproportionate access to ministers and senior members of the Government and there are signs that they have the ability to influence and benefit from political decisions.

Conflicts of interest are also not adequately managed in Portugal. Many members of Parliament occupy both public offices and maintain their professional activities. This leads to a highly pernicious situation, where the offices of lawyers, consultants and large economic groups are eventually represented in Parliament by members who are also employees. Ex-politicians and senior civil servants, currently working as employees or consultants/facilitators for large domestic and foreign companies also make a strong use of  their political relations.

Consultants and offices of lawyers who provide services to the Government and private companies that conduct business with the State are another source of conflicts of interest, leading to a potentially illegitimate representation of interests of their private clients and access to insider information. Such consultants and offices are often hired by the State without the requirements of a public tender, and regularly employ former and current politicians as lawyers or consultants. The composition of advisory and study groups, created by the executive branch is also of concern as it is of the same nature.

 Finally, former ministers of different political parties and senior officials of the State make use of their networks of contacts, created while they were holding a public office, and try to influence the current political decision-makers, for example, on behalf of private interests abroad.

Recommendations (TI)

1. The Parliament should regulate the lobbying industry in Portugal, recognizing the existence of  lobbying firms and include in the category of lobbyists other professions and businesses, such as communication agencies, corporate affairs professionals, business associations, civil society organizations and lawyers. Such a regulation would encourage the adoption of codes of conduct, either voluntary or compulsory.
2. Lobbyists should establish their own codes of conduct and self-regulation mechanisms.
3. There should be increased an transparency of decision-making, making public the agendas of all policy-makers and in particular the ministerial offices and managers of Public Administration, as practiced by the parliamentary committees. A detailed transparency register is desirable, but should not be seen as the only solution for the risks posed by the practice of lobbying.
4. The Parliament should make the rules on conflicts of interest more robust, imposing exclusivity for members in office, extending it to the members of ministerial offices and increasing the quarantine periods post-functions. The public authorities, in particular the Committee on ethics and the Public Ministry should apply the law more effectively.
5. Parliament should reinforce the competency and resources of the parliamentary Ethics Committee, grant the committee powers of monitoring incompatibilities in the exercise of public functions, situations of "revolving door" between the political and the private sector and, where appropriate, impose sanctions for those who do not comply with the quarantine periods stipulated by law.
6. The Government, local leaders, regulatory agencies and the general public administration should make use of public tenders for hiring legal and financial consultant and control potential incompatibilities. Members of advisory groups should be independent and scrutinised for their actual or potential conflicts of interest.
7. The Government and the Parliament should create a mechanism for "legislative footprint" that allows the monitoring of the legislative process, as well as the contributions of stakeholders and experts.
8. Public decision-makers should be more inclusive when receiving contributions or meeting with interested parties, by widening participation of civil society in the process.