Government Response
REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS
We would welcome more clarity from the Government
about the process it has established for reviewing the industry's
progress on self-regulation, in particular how it intends to assess
whether this progress is adequate or not, and to what timescale.
We remain convinced that a mandatory register
of lobbying activity will require the backing of legislation to
be effective and needs to be considered separately from the issue
of ethical regulation.
The Committee's Further Report asked for more clarity
from the Government about the process for reviewing the industry's
progress on self-regulation. In the Debate on 7 January, I set
out the Government's position in terms of progress by the industry
on self-regulation, and the industry's intention to put in hand,
by Easter this year, arrangements to establish the Public Affairs
Council. I have had an initial meeting with Sir Philip Mawer,
Chair of the Public Affairs Council Implementation Team, and I
am meeting representatives of the implementation team to review
progress. If at Easter the Government is not satisfied that adequate
progress is being made, it will review the position.
As the Government set out in its response to the
Committee's Report Lobbying: Access and influence in Whitehall
(1st Report of Session 2008-09, HC 36-I), it believes that any
system of regulation, whether it is voluntary self-regulation
or statutory regulation, requires a register to ensure that lobbying
activity is transparent. The Government believes that the industry
itself should be given the opportunity to produce and maintain
such a register, which as a minimum should be publicly available,
contain the names of individuals and organisations carrying out
or advising on lobbying, and the details of any third party interests
they represent.
TRANSPARENCY
We welcome the moves towards transparency made
by the Government and, in particular, the routine publication
of information about ministerial meetings with outside interest
groups. We would expect such information to include, as a minimum,
the date of the meeting, the minister(s) and senior civil servant(s)
who attended, the organisations present and the principal subjects
discussed.
We urge the Government to go a little further
and publish information about meetings between the most senior
officials and outside interest groups. This information is already
collected and much of it is presumably disclosable under the Freedom
of Information Act. We do not believe that the costs of publication
would be substantial; they would certainly not outweigh the public
benefit accrued through this increased level of transparency.
We welcome the regular publication of Ministers'
relevant private interests and agree with the Government that
it represents "an important step forward" in improving
public confidence in rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest.
In view of this, we do not believe that publishing the relevant
private interests of the most senior civil servants (Director
General and above) and equivalent employees of public bodies would
place a disproportionate burden on departments and agencies. We
would be concerned if the reason for the government's reluctance
to take this step was that such interests are not currently recorded.
The Committee's Further Report welcomed the moves
towards transparency made by the Government in a number of areas.
The Government agreed with the Committee that information about
Ministers' meetings with outside interest groups should be published.
This will be published by departments on a quarterly basis and
on-line. Information for the period 1 October 2009—31 December
2009 is currently being collated and published by departments.
Information published includes the name of the Minister holding
the meeting, the date of the meeting, the organisations present,
and the principal subjects discussed. Information will also be
published by departments on a quarterly basis and on-line regarding
hospitality received by Ministers in a Ministerial capacity.
The Committee recommended that information about
meetings between the most senior officials and outside interest
groups, and information about the relevant private interests of
civil servants at Director General level and above should be published.
As I set out in the Debate, the Government believes that the publication
of information about meetings between the most senior officials
and outside interest groups would place a disproportionate burden
on Departments and agencies—there are more than 4,000 members
of the Senior Civil Service and around 210 at Director General
level and above. In respect of relevant private interests, the
interest of board members are already publicly available as part
of a Department's annual report and accounts. However, as I said
in the Debate, the level of disclosure will be kept under review,
and the Government will continue to bear in mind the recommendations
of the Committee.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS APPOINTMENTS
We welcome the fact that the Advisory Committee
is meeting regularly and reviewing its internal processes, and
that some efforts have been made to ensure its membership is more
representative. However, there has been a marked decline in trust
in those in public life over the last year. Under such circumstances
we believe the Advisory Committee will need an element independent
of the client groups it advises in order to retain public credibility.
We note that the Government has agreed to provide
remuneration to new members of the Advisory Committee, while continuing
to rely on the political parties and Crown Service heads to identify
all but one of these new members. This does not seem to us to
strike the balance we were seeking.
We welcome the Advisory Committee's involvement
in the Government's proposed revision of the Guidelines for former
Ministers and the Rules for Crown servants and that the revision
will address the definition of lobbying. However, we are concerned
that the Government appears to have prejudged the outcome by asserting
that the principles set out in the
existing Guidelines "remain the right ones".
The Committee's Further Report welcomed some developments
in relation to the Advisory Committee, but was concerned that
the Committee would need an element independent of the client
groups it advises in order to retain public credibility, and suggested
that the Government appeared to have prejudged the outcome of
the revision of the rules.
The Government continues to believe that the Advisory
Committee's unique remit, which is narrowly focussed and confined
to individual casework for a relatively small number of people,
calls for a membership with first hand experience and understanding
of the Business Appointment Rules and procedures in order to have
credibility in the areas on which they are advising. As I said
in the Debate, the Government has committed to reviewing the outcomes
of the recent refreshment of the Advisory Committee, and is working
with the Commissioner for Public Appointments on this. The Commissioner
has welcomed this review, and as part of it we will include consideration
of the points the Committee has made in relation to the appointments
process.
In consultation with the Advisory Committee, the
Government is reviewing and revising the detail of the Business
Appointment Rules for Crown servants and the parallel rules for
former Ministers, to ensure that they are effective and clear
for applicants and departments. I reassured the Committee during
the Debate on 7 January that there is no question of the Government
having prejudged the outcome of that exercise, and I repeat that
assurance. The Government is clear that the Business Appointment
Rules should continue to reflect the high-level principles set
out in the seven principles of public life, which were drawn up
by the Committee on Standards in Public Life under the chairmanship
of Lord Nolan.
THE INDUSTRY'S RESPONSE
We welcome the recognition by the three main industry
representative bodies that a system of regulation is needed as
well as their efforts to co-operate to achieve a self-regulatory
body, chaired by a "senior independent person of stature"
and with a common set of principles of conduct signified by a
"kite mark". However, the effectiveness of such arrangements
can only be assessed by examining the details of the proposals,
how they will work in practice, the standards to be upheld by
the new body and how far the industry more widely is prepared
to support these proposals. We are therefore disappointed that
eleven months work has only got as far as another consultation
on a broad set of principles.
Any regulatory body must have a universal, or
near universal, reach in order to be credible and effective. It
must not become a closed shop, only available to the paying members
of certain representative bodies.
There is a risk that the Public Affairs Council
will end up enforcing different standards for different lobbyists,
depending on the signatory body to which they belong. This would
be unfair, but it would also be inadequate simply to enforce the
lowest common denominator of the standards of the existing member
groups. Getting these standards right will be an important early
test for the Public Affairs Council if self-regulation is to have
a chance of working effectively.
CONCLUSION
We are encouraged that our report has led to some
tentative movement in the direction of better regulation of lobbying
and greater transparency on the part of government and the lobbying
industry. However, progress is slow and we remain sceptical that
effective regulation will be achieved without legislation. Some
lobbyists may be delaying regulation in the hope that the concentration
on their activities will die down after a General Election. This
would be a cynical attitude which we believe would misjudge the
public mood. If the industry is serious about trying to avoid
external regulation then it needs to have robust procedures in
place for self-regulation before the General Election.
The Government agrees with the Committee that the
Membership of the Public Affairs Council should be open to as
wide a range of those involved in lobbying as possible. Universality
will be a key test of the proposed new system of voluntary self-regulation—namely
whether the vast majority of those involved in lobbying take part.
The Government believes it is for the industry to make a success
of a system of voluntary self-regulation, and to also ensure that
a single set of ethical standards are applied and quickly implemented.
It will be monitoring the position to satisfy itself that adequate
progress is being made.
| 
