Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

1. Last year the Bureau carried out an undercover investigation into Bell Pottinger’s representation of foreign governments with dubious human rights records.

2. The investigation was prompted by reports that London is a first port of call for regimes in need of “reputation laundering”.

3. In the US, lobbyists acting for foreign governments are asked to publicly disclose in great detail the value of their contracts and their contacts with the media and politicians. (www.fara.gov)

4. The lack of disclosure requirements may partially explain why London appears so attractive.

5. During the investigation into Bell Pottinger it proved difficult to establish when the firm had started and ceased to act for countries such as Sri Lanka and Yemen, which in turn made it more difficult to establish lobbying impact.

6. The Bureau therefore supports the concept of a statutory lobbying register for the UK.

7. The Government’s stated aim with its proposed register is to shed light on “who is lobbying and for whom” and to ensure that “those seeking influence do so in a way that is open to scrutiny.”

8. For journalists aiming to scrutinize the lobbying process, a US FARA-type register is most helpful, as it is so comprehensive.

9. Closer to home, the register produced by the group Conservatives in the European Parliament is also useful:

(http://www.conservativeeurope.com/media/ResourceCategories/64/LobbyingContactReportsJan-June10.pdf)

10. This shows the name of the individual that has approached the MEP, the date of the meeting, the name of any third party being represented and the subject under discussion.

11. If Conservative MEPs—who, as the register shows, meet a lot of people—are willing and able to produce a document of this type then lobbyists shouldn’t struggle to report along similar lines.

12. Some of the larger trade associations already provide regular updates of their lobbying encounters with parliamentarians for the benefit of their members.

13. But the Government’s current proposals fall far short of this.

14. They would only require third party lobbyists to register. Many of the individuals who appear on the Conservative MEPs’ list would not be caught as they are in-house lobbyists.

15. The Government also expects lobbyists to disclose lists of their clients, but asks for no further detail about their contacts with politicians and government officials. The reasoning given is that ministers and senior civil servants already disclose their contacts with external organizations.

16. Ministers can be reluctant to disclose the detail of their discussions with lobbyists—“catch up meeting” is a typical description. And many lobbying meetings do not take place with ministers, but with special advisers (who only have to disclose hospitality), parliamentary private secretaries and select committee chairs and members (who do not currently have to disclose anything).

17. Only the most senior officials in regulatory bodies are expected to disclose meetings, and then only if they have received hospitality.

18. Establishing details of these undeclared meetings using the Freedom of Information Act has been difficult; untargeted FOI requests are often rejected on grounds of cost.

19. A register that showed all meetings between government officials and lobbyists, would help considerably.

20. In short, the register as currently proposed would do very little to assist journalists and others scrutinize the lobbying process.

21. And scrutiny is badly needed, as the lobbying scandals of the last few months have shown.

April 2012