Lobbying & All Party
Groups
1. We have received a memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards regarding a complaint made by the Editor
of the Times, Mr Robert Thomson, that six named All Party Groups
(APGs) had breached the rules requiring groups for which secretariat
services are provided by a public relations company to name in
their entry in the Register of APGs the ultimate client of the
company which is meeting the cost of this assistance. The Commissioner's
memorandum is reproduced as an Appendix to this report.
2. We agree with the Commissioner that the complaint
should be upheld in relation to three of the groups—those
on Intellectual Property, Patient Safety and Pharmacy. We
note that in each case the omissions were remedied by the public
relations company concerned as soon as The Times had drawn attention
to them in an article.
3. We also agree with the Commissioner that the
complaints should not be upheld in respect of the APGs on Export,
Fire Safety and Rescue and Mobile Communications, although we
note that as a result of the Commissioner's inquiries, it has
been revealed that the Mobile Communications Group failed to register
two areas of financial support which were not the subject of the
complaint. Both of these have also now been registered, and
the public relations firm concerned has apologised to the Commissioner
for the failure to do so at the correct time.[1]]
4. We take this opportunity to remind all APGs
of the importance of strict compliance with the rules laid down
by the House for declaring their sources of financial support.
This is an important element in preserving transparency in
their affairs, thus enhancing confidence in them both inside and
outside Parliament.
5. The complaint from The Times also suggested that
the cause of the alleged breach might lie in an apparent discrepancy
between the wording of the Rules and guidance issued by the office
of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
6. In the light of this, the Commissioner has sought
views on the APG regulatory regime generally, and the need for
any change in this. The Commissioner has also included in his
memorandum an account of the responses he received, and has made
seven specific recommendations.[2]
Taken together, the Commissioner believes that these recommendations
represent a proportionate approach, which will improve transparency
and accountability without imposing undue fresh burdens on APGs.
7. We share the Commissioner's view that APGs fulfil
a valuable role as forums in which Members of both Houses and
those interested in a particular subject may meet to exchange
information and views and to advance a particular cause. Assistance
from outside interests frequently has a part to play in helping
such groups to achieve their objectives. It is, however, important
that outside interests should not control them, or be perceived
as doing so. We are pleased to note from the Commissioner's memorandum
that there appears to be no evidence that any APGs have been suborned
by outside interests.[3]
8. Before we take decisions on the Commissioner's
recommendations on revision of the rules applying to APGs, we
would like to give APGs and others the chance to comment on his
proposals. Submissions should be sent to the Clerk of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons,
London SW1A 0AA, or by e-mail to sandp@parliament.uk, to arrive
before the House rises for the Summer Recess. We shall then take
any such representations into account when we give further consideration
to the Commissioner's recommendations.
1 WE 17, p. 56-7. Back
2
See Appendix, paras. 42 to 98. Back
3
Ibid, para. 97. Back
| 
