| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Jan 2010 : Column 146WH—continued
I have explained why we got into this matter and the argument that we made. We came forward with a set of proposals that is sensible, doable and not over the top. It deals with an issue that systems in every country are having to deal with in some way. Where does that leave us? Our argument is that it is much better to put such reforms in place at a time of relative calm, when there are no scandals or crises. The next time there is a
scandal, crisis or report about impropriety in the lobbying industry, there will be instant demands that something be done and we will probably do something that is completely inappropriate. It would be much better to take some time to stand back from the issue and then come forward with a set of sensible proposals that prepares us to deal with such issues or, better still, prevents them. That is what we tried to do.
I have spoken of developments elsewhere that show the direction of travel. It is not plausible to suggest, when lobbying regulation is a normal part of almost every other system, that we do not need it. It should be part of the furniture of government and we should do it in a way that is consistent with and appropriate to our tradition.
This issue will not go away, and it would be best to deal with it now. I do not know whether some in the industry think that it will go away once this Parliament, this Select Committee and perhaps this Government have gone. I read in a newspaper that a vast number of Conservative parliamentary candidates come from the lobbying industry. Perhaps they think that they will be able to take care of the issue by effective lobbying from inside. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North, I do not know such dark secrets, but simply what I read in the newspapers. However, I am pretty sure that the issue will not go away. It is unfinished business that we must turn our attention to. Not for the first time with some of our reports, it is only subsequently that people decide that something is worth turning to and implementing in full or, at least, in part.
The core proposition is simple: in a democracy, people are entitled to know who is lobbying whom about what. It is as simple as that. If we accept that core proposition, it is worth spending some time thinking through what kind of arrangements and procedures would secure the achievement of that principle. That is what we have tried to do in our report, and I hope that it will come to be seen as the basis for some sensible action.
3 pm
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. After the debate, like you, I have to repair to the frozen north before the next snowstorm, although I appreciate that Luton is not quite as far north as Bootle.
The last point my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) made was that as and when things go wrong-when a crisis arises-he is rather pessimistic that the Government of the day might do the wrong thing. Perhaps he could then say, "We told you so. Here's our report; just implement it." He perhaps should not be too clever about it, but he could at least offer the report and say, "Here's one we made earlier. This is what you should do." I would like to think that we are ahead of the game and that, at a future point, the report that we recommended will be adopted, rather than the Government's inching towards that position. We have made progress, however, and that is good.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister a happy birthday and hope that she is not delayed too long by our debate. The Chamber is not too crowded, so she might get away fairly soon.
The report is absolutely splendid, and although I put my name to it, the credit goes to the whole Committee and, indeed, to those Officers whom my hon. Friend the Committee Chairman praised so fully and appropriately. I should also say-he would not say this, and he has perhaps heard me give such compliments before-that his chairmanship of our Committee is absolutely first class. In my 13 years in the House, the most enjoyable and worthwhile thing I have done is to be a member of the Public Administration Committee for the past seven years. At least for the next six months, I hope to continue to be a member of it. The Committee has a splendid group of members and produces first-class reports, as it has done over several years.
My fellow Committee members present will have heard my arguments before, so I apologise for raising them yet again. My concerns were always about the power of lobbying at the very centre of the Government. I have drawn a spectrum of lobbying, or perhaps a division between its two types, one of which I call altruistic lobbying-indeed, that is the sort of lobbying that I do. I represent the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament-I have mentioned that organisation before in the House. It does not pay me any money; I support it because I believe in its aims and objectives. It is a matter of personal belief, rather than a question of interest.
I also sponsor the National Pensioners Convention lobby of Parliament every year. As I am above pensionable age, I should declare an interest, but I also believe in what that organisation is doing. There are a number of other organisations that we support, in a sense, because we passionately believe in their objectives, and that is what I call altruistic lobbying.
Moving along the spectrum, one then has the professional organisations. I have personal associations with the trade union Unison, the Association of Colleges-as co-chair of the all-party group on further education and lifelong learning-and million+, which is an organisation of new universities, the chairman of which is vice-chancellor of my local university. Again, there is no financial interest involved. We do these things because we happen to agree with what such organisations stand for and what they are doing.
We then get to the more serious end of the spectrum, which is where large sums of Government money and contracts are involved. Those are invariably dealt with at the highest level of Government, and that is what my concerns relate to. The links between the defence industry and the Ministry of Defence are well known. The contracts concerned are literally worth billions, not just millions. As far as is reasonable-as long as one is not giving away national secrets that would be advantageous to an enemy-such contracts should be transparent. There have been scandals in the past about the defence industry and its relations with not just the British Government but foreign Governments.
I am also very concerned about the extent to which the previous Prime Minister had visitations at Downing street from big business interests, particularly those of the health industry. Time and again, there were reports in the journals about meetings at Downing street involving large numbers of American health corporations that considered the rich pickings they could get from the national health service. That process is still taking place, and it worries me greatly. We should not be privatising
the health service under the disguise of commissioning or whatever. The drive that has come from American health interests, in particular, is very unhealthy and unwelcome. That is all done at the level of Downing street, not even at the level of the Department of Health. That should be exposed and made public. We get leaks in the press, but that is not anything like enough.
Another area that I know a little about is dealt with by the Department for Transport, which is talking about ordering rolling stock from different companies. Many of us were very concerned about the Government's decision to place a big order with Hitachi rather than with companies in Britain that have productive capacity, particularly because the Department for Transport now has its own in-house ROSCO-rolling stock company. That has been an advance, but the ordering process and the links between the companies and the Government ought to be much more transparent. I want them to be made public.
Something that worried me perhaps more than anything was the gambling interests and the American gambling corporations that went into Downing street and pressed the previous Prime Minister to drive forward a large number of giant casinos across Britain. In fact, we saw them off through a combination of Back-Bench lobbying by myself and others. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) also felt that the matter was deeply unhealthy. We did not want the legacy of a Labour Government to be a nation left with increasing levels of gambling addiction and more large casinos. The idea that an economy somehow has to be based on a giant casino, particularly in a poor area, is really reprehensible. However, as a result of parliamentary pressure and lobbying against the gambling corporations, they were seen off to a large extent. That was very healthy.
I understand, again from leaks in the journals, that the American gambling corporations were very disappointed in the previous Prime Minister because he did not manage to get through what they wanted, which was for Britain to become an offshore Las Vegas. My opinion on the matter is not just a result of my puritanical ancestry. It would have been deeply unhealthy for Britain to go down that route and we should not have done so. Again, lobbying was done at a central level, and that was unacceptable.
It is interesting to note from the Government's response to the report that they have apparently agreed to publish details of ministerial meetings with outside interests. That is very welcome. However, at the last minute, they showed reluctance to publish information about lobbying activity involving the most senior officials. The Government are therefore saying, "Yes, you can know everything, except that which is most important." I want to know what the senior officials are doing with these big companies. That is what really matters and that is what I want to see exposed.
Many years ago, I was a supporter-the constituency chair-of Brian Sedgemore, who at that time was the Labour Member of Parliament for Luton, West. I was his party chair and campaign organiser when he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Tony Benn. He and Tony Benn went to have dinner with the warden of, I think, All Souls-certainly the warden of an Oxford college. Brian Sedgemore put forward the view that
government ought to be open and public so that all these things would be known. The warden turned to Tony Benn and said, "Mr. Benn, do you know that your Parliamentary Private Secretary is mad?" Brian Sedgemore was perhaps ahead of his time, but I agreed with him then and do so now.
We have some way to go. The report is a tremendous advance and I would like to think that a future Labour Government will implement it in full so that we have the statutory register and reach the healthy state of affairs in which such things are known publicly and the electorate will know what senior officials and Ministers are doing in their offices regarding big contracts with wealthy corporations, meaning that they no longer have that hidden from them. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.
3.10 pm
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to make a brief contribution to the debate. As the Select Committee Chairman said, I have a dual role this afternoon. It is truly the highlight of my political career to be the Minister's acting PPS for a few minutes. I have just begun to realise how much power I have in that role. I have a lot of notes, and could pass the Minister the wrong ones-or pass the wrong ones back and forth-but I shall try to perform both my roles correctly.
In 1869 the American magazine The Nation defined a lobbyist as
"a man whom everybody suspects...and whose employment by those who have bills before a legislature is only resorted to as a disagreeable necessity."
That is one view of lobbying-not the one that I take. Some of my best friends are lobbyists. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that they are a vital part of our democracy and can articulate the case of not just business but charities and all sorts of organisations about legislation. They can make sure that a diversity of voices and opinions is heard in our democracy. However, the central principle that the Chairman referred to about the declaration of clients by multi-client lobbyists is fundamental. It is no accident that, as he pointed out, nations across the developed world have been changing their rules on the matter in recent years. In the United States there is a long tradition of transparency, dating back to the quotation I gave, and before. In the European Union there is a voluntary register in operation. In France, only this month, the French Parliament has adopted such a declaration of clients-the decision of the Senate has probably to come.
Why does it matter? Partly it is because the websites of the multi-client lobbying firms and the pitches that they make claim great influence. They claim that they shape policy and that they have done over decades. If that influence exists, it should be transparent. Some firms have been holding out against the declaration of clients. Bell Pottinger, chaired by Lord Bell, is one in particular. Down the years there has been an occasional burst of publicity suggesting the importance of declaring all one's clients. For example, a few years ago, during the gambling debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to, Bell Pottinger had two sets of clients-an American gambling company and the British Amusement Catering Trade Association, a trade association covering gambling machines and so on, in Britain. BACTA decided that that was a
conflict of interest, and that it would seek representation other than that of Bell Pottinger. If the client list is not published, one cannot be sure that such conflicts of interest do not exist.
I know from my own dealings and inquiries in the matter that that was not the only case in which Bell Pottinger represented completely different interests. I went to a dinner organised by Bell Pottinger at which one interest was being argued. A few weeks later I saw the same Bell Pottinger personnel-there were not even Chinese walls in operation-representing exactly the opposite interest. I cannot imagine that the clients would have been happy with those non-existent Chinese walls. The matter is clearly one of public interest.
In recent years some firms have changed, and have begun to declare their clients, and it has not been the end of the world. Life goes on and the firms continue to thrive. Sovereign Strategy and Finsbury were originally very doubtful about publishing lists of their clients. Finsbury, with its influence in the financial world, thought that hedge funds would not be happy about the declaration of clients. Roland Rudd, to his credit, published his clients a couple of years ago and is making massive profits. He is still best buddies with Lord Mandelson and I think he has entertained the Leader of the Opposition to dinner at his house, so there is life beyond declaring clients. That is clearly something that the industry should make universal, as many people have suggested.
I was pleased that the Government acknowledged and encouraged some of the suggestions in the Select Committee report. I, too, have heard rumours about changes in the drafts of the report. I even heard that it was so important that it went to Lord Mandelson himself, and that he made comments. I do not know whether it is true that it achieved such elevated heights, but it is interesting that the industry was a little disappointed that the Government perhaps did not find the words-I hope that the Minister will find them today-to be a little more assertive about the need for the declaration of clients. The chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, Robbie McDuff, said
"we are somewhat disappointed that the Government has not sought to encourage those who choose not to follow the self-regulatory route".
I, indeed, asked the Library for comments of Ministers in the past decade supporting self-regulation, if that is the policy on the declaration of clients by multi-client lobbyists. The Library reply was that Ministerial comments on the subject were elusive.
Today's debate is a chance for the Minister to avoid doubt. To be fair to the Opposition Front Bench, the shadow Cabinet Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), has said:
"Public affairs firms should publish all client lists and their full-time and part-time staff. If this is not undertaken across the whole industry by a process of effective self-regulation, Conservatives are warning that pressure will mount to subject the industry to statutory regulation."
I hope that we can get unity on the Front Benches today and that the Minister will issue similar declarations. I shall make some practical suggestions about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), the Chairman of the Select Committee, mentioned the role of lawyers, in the firms that bring
them together with public affairs. There is much merit in his suggestion that there is no other way to approach this matter than by a statutory register. However, let us not let the DLA Pipers of this world get off the hook by saying that they cannot sign up to a voluntary register because of Law Society rules. They can clearly do that, should they choose to. I wrote to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is the regulatory body in this instance, and asked whether firms such as DLA Piper could, if they wanted to, sign up and declare their clients on a voluntary basis, and quoted the European Commission's voluntary scheme. It wrote back:
"We do not think a lawyer's duty of confidentiality presents an automatic bar to lawyers being included in the initiative."
"provided that membership imposes no requirement which conflicts with a solicitor's professional duties (such as, for example, a retrospective obligation to publish clients' names) there is nothing to prevent a solicitors' firm becoming a member of the APPC"-
or presumably the public affairs council-
"or a similar organisation. The member firm could meet the disclosure requirements of that Association, and therefore the requirements of transparency, by making the client's consent to the disclosure a pre-condition for acting."
Thus, all that firms such as DLA Piper need do when they take on new clients would be to say, "In future we are going to declare all our clients." They could not do that retrospectively, but they could do it in future, and happily remain members of the Law Society and sign up to the code. It is making an excuse and hiding behind the Law Society, when it will not do that. I hope that that firm, and firms such as Bell Pottinger, will review their position and sign up.
We are where we are, as they say, and are coming up to a general election. We have very few weeks left. I hope that Ministers, and the Opposition, can give a further boost to the campaign for all multi-client lobbyists to declare their clients. There are certain things that they could do. For example, the public affairs council is being set up. There all sorts of weaknesses and hesitancies about the organisation, as it is formed, as there are with any new organisation.
Sir Philip Mawer, who I understand is responsible for the new body, and an independent figure of some repute, has said on the record that self-regulation works only if everyone is involved. I have confidence in him and believe he wants to do a good job, but it is difficult to weld together a multitude of organisations. In the first instance, it appears that each organisation will be responsible for its own disciplinary code, but I hope that in future there will be one code.
I also hope that the public affairs council will look carefully at those firms that divide themselves. Bell Pottinger is an example, as it is a member of the Chime group of public affairs companies. One member of that group, Good Relations, declares its clients and is a member of the various self-regulatory bodies, but Bell Pottinger is not. If a company is to be a member of a self-regulatory organisation, the whole organisation should sign up to its principles, not just one arm of it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |