Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Countryside Alliance

1. The Countryside Alliance is the major British campaigning organisation on rural issues. With over 105,000 members the Countryside Alliance defends and promotes the rural way of life. We welcome the opportunity to submit to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s inquiry into the consultation on a Statutory Register of Lobbyists.

2. Lobbying by definition covers any activity that seeks to influence or change government policy and/or the legislative process. Anyone from a constituent seeing or writing to their MP to the largest charity or multi-national company seeking to influence government policy or the passage of legislation is engaged in lobbying.

Countryside Alliance Position

3. The Countryside Alliance has welcomed the Government’s consultation on a register of lobbyists and believes that the consultation allows for a full range of comments and options but that it also clearly indicates where the Government has a current preference with regard to the various options. As such the consultation is, we believe, fair and open. Respondents are clearly able to agree with the Government’s preferred options or to disagree; whether they favour less regulation or for the proposals to go further and be more restrictive.

4. As the consultation recognises, lobbying is an intrinsic and essential part of a properly functioning democracy. Charities, companies and individuals acting on their own behalf can make a valuable contribution to policy, debate and legislation ensuring that government and politicians understand issues and the impact of policy and legislation on those affected.

5. Most organisations which lobby on their own behalf do so openly and publicly. Indeed, it is often very obvious in relation to a given issue, proposal or piece of legislation, which interests will seek to be involved and will be seeking to influence the development of policy and legislation.

6. As the consultation notes ministerial meetings with stakeholders are already published and communications between ministers and individuals or organisations are subject to freedom of information legislation. As such there is already a considerable degree of transparency in addition to the fact that it is quite obvious in most instances which organisations are likely to be seeking to influence a given policy area.

7. Where the activity of lobbying becomes opaque is where third parties are employed, whether or not for a fee, to represent an interest or facilitate a meeting with someone within the Government. In this scenario simply being able to know that someone met a particular minister will not always reveal the interest which that person was representing. It is this aspect which a register of lobbyists would shed light upon.

8. The register should also apply in the situation where a union or charity employs a third party to lobby on their behalf. That person, either as an individual and/or the lobbying firm employing him, should be registered so that it is clear who is acting in whose interest.

9. We do not believe that the register should go further and should remain targeted at the problem; not become an unnecessary and bureaucratic burden on those engaged in the democratic process on their own behalf, as is necessary in a properly functioning democracy.

In Response to the Committee’s Specific Questions our Response is as Follows:

1. Does the Government’s consultation paper represent a balanced approach to the idea of a statutory register?

Yes

Does the paper present the evidence in a balanced way?

Yes

Are you confident that the issues covered are ones on which the Government has an open mind?

Yes

Is the Government clear wherever it has a preference for a particular option, and is this preference in each case a reasonable one?

Yes

2. Does the consultation paper contain the right questions?

Yes

Is each of the questions asked in a balanced way?

Yes

Are there any important questions that are not asked?

No

3. Which lobbying contacts are of greatest legitimate public interest?

Where a person is employed as an individual or a company to lobby on behalf of a third party then it should be clear for whom that person is acting.

Does the consultation paper envisage the capture of appropriate information about these contacts, as opposed to other kinds of contact?

Yes

4. How should the Government deal in policy and practice with how it might be lobbied on the issue of a statutory register of lobbyists?

All submissions to the consultation should be made public. Correspondence and meetings can be assessed under existing rules and should make clear where a meeting was held with one person acting on another’s behalf.

How open should the Government be about such lobbying contacts?

Submissions and meetings should be a matter of public record.

5. How should the Government analyse the consultation responses, and seek to balance the weight of opposing argument?

In the usual way for treating government consultations.

6. Do you have any comments on how any proposals emerging from the consultation should be implemented?

None.

February 2012