Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Emma Catterall

1. Question addressed in this response:

Are there important questions that are not asked (in the Government’s consultation on a Statutory Register of Lobbyists)?

2. I agree with the Government’s point that providing duplicate information about meetings in the proposed statutory register of lobbyists is unnecessary as “departments already publish lists of their external meetings.”1 However, I was disappointed to find that the Government’s consultation ignores questions on how to make the current list of meetings between ministers and third parties more transparent, particularly as it is because of this list that the Government’s plans currently justify the exclusion of in-house lobbyists from the proposed register.2

3. The current details of ministers’ external meetings are vague and not as transparent as they could be. The current list of external meetings only state:

The date (month and year only) a meeting takes place.

The name of the organisation met (not the name of the individual(s) representing the organisation in the meeting).

The purpose of the meeting (the information provided here is very vague, eg “Welsh issues”, “social issues”, “energy issues,” or “general discussion”).

4. The mere provision of an entry that states a meeting took place between an organisation and a minister does little to hold the Government or an organisation to account. While it may show who is meeting with whom and how often, unless what was discussed, requested, and promised is recorded and made available, then this information does little to hold anyone accountable. The views of organisations are already evident in meetings where they present oral evidence as the transcript is hyperlinked to the meeting entry. However, there is no such transparency found with private meetings.

5. The Government could do more to increase transparency by publishing the minutes of meetings along with the current meeting entry. The list of meetings also should be made easily accessible from the register of lobbyists. This information would make significant contribution to improving scrutiny and knowledge about the political process and hold those involved in policy decision-making to account. To conclude, if the Government is using the list of minister’s external meetings to justify the exclusion of certain lobbyists over others, questions should be asked on how to make this list more transparent and open to scrutiny.

February 2012