Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC)
1. The Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) welcomes the opportunity to offer its views on the Government’s proposals for introducing a statutory register for lobbyists.
Key Principles
2. The APPC is continuing to consult its members on its detailed response to the Government’s consultation. However, the following key principles that we believe should underpin any statutory registration scheme have already become apparent:
The APPC supports the principle of a statutory register, providing that it treats all those who engage in lobbying equally.
This means, as well registering lobbyists who work for multi-client agencies, the far larger number of lobbyists who work for law firms, management consultancies, planning consultancies, think tanks, trade associations, trade unions, charities, NGOs and in-house for businesses, should also be covered by the register. To exclude such lobbyists would mean the register would fail to achieve its objective of improving transparency and building public confidence.
We support the proposed level of information to be included in the register.
3. In addition, consistent with the Government’s concern that its proposals should not place undue burdens on business and others in their day to day dealings with government, we are keen that the system should be as cost-effective and as simple to administer as possible. To achieve this:
We think the administration of the Register should be added to the functions of an existing organisation rather than creating a new additional and costly body.
The APPC already runs such a register, and should be used as a benchmark for the level of costs that it can be run for in the public sector.
4. We agree with the Government that lobbying serves an important function in politics, but that it needs to be transparent.
5. We support the principle of a statutory register, providing that it treats equally all those who engage in lobbying on a professional basis. That means not only public affairs consultancies, like our members, but also law firms, management consultancies, planning consultancies, trade unions, think tanks, charities, NGOs and those who work in-house for business or other organisations who lobby on their employer’s behalf.
6. To exclude such lobbyists would mean that the register would fail to achieve its objective of improving transparency and restoring public confidence.
7. We support the level of information that the Government proposes should be included in a statutory register, which is very similar to the information already provided on a voluntary basis by our 68 member consultancies (which is publicly available at www.appc.org.uk). We have been operating such a register for 17 years.
8. We think that the statutory register should be operated by an existing body, and funded by lobbyists themselves. Whichever body is chosen to hold the register should do so cost-effectively: we suggest that the APPC’s membership subscriptions provide an appropriate benchmark. Indeed, the costs per registrant should be lower, since the introduction of a statutory requirement to register will deliver significant economies of scale.
9. The Committee asks a series of specific questions to which we respond below:
Does the Government’s consultation paper represent a balanced approach to the idea of a statutory register?
10. We think that the level of information that the Government proposes should be included in a statutory register is appropriate. However, in our view the register should encompass all those who lobby on a professional basis, not just public affairs consultancies who represent only a small proportion of professional lobbyists.
Does the paper present the evidence in a balanced way?
11. We think that the paper is right to emphasise the positive role of lobbying in the political process, providing it is conducted transparently. We do not think that the paper’s proposal that registration should be confined to those lobbyists who are independent or work for multi-client consultancies would achieve the Government’s aim of greater transparency and public confidence. We think that a statutory register needs to encompass all professional lobbyists. This means, as well registering lobbyists who work for multi-client agencies, the far larger number of lobbyists who work for law firms, management consultancies, planning consultancies, think tanks, trade associations, trade unions, NGOs, charities and in-house for businesses, should also be covered by the register, as comparable existing registers in Canada, the United States and the European Union already do. We think that the Government’s expressed views on these issues reflects a lack of understanding of the role played by multi-client agencies and that it is therefore inevitable that some issues are presented in an unbalanced way. It is important to recognise that the principal role of lobbyists working for consultancies is to advise our clients on how best to make a case to government. In the vast majority of the cases, it is the clients themselves who are undertaking the lobbying, reflecting the view that they are their own best advocates. It is rare for a consultant to lobby on behalf of a client, not least because ministers and officials look to the clients to provide the front line evidence which can best inform better policy-making.
Are you confident that the issues covered are ones on which the Government has an open mind?
12. We fear that it is perhaps inevitable that, given what appears to be a limited understanding of how lobbying is organised and takes place, some issues properly raised by the Government are dismissed almost without discussion. For example, the lack of apparent understanding that the majority of lobbyists do not work for multi-client consultancies has led to some judgements being assumed which we would assert cannot be sustained in the face of the facts. We think that is unfortunate and that no legitimate issue should be excluded from the consultation. We are mindful that the introduction of a statutory register for lobbyists was included within the Coalition Agreement, and thus the fundamental policy has not been the subject of consultation. It is also worthy of note that the Cabinet Office did not hold consultation meetings with representatives of the industry—the APPC, PRCA and CIPR—before formulating its proposals, as would normally be the case.
Is the Government clear wherever it has a preference for a particular option, and is this preference in each case a reasonable one?
13. There is clarity on some options, but not others (eg whether the register should be based on a definition of lobbying or lobbyists and the status of trade unions and charities). On occasion where there is clarity (eg on the exclusion of in-house lobbyists) we see the Government’s preference as unreasonable.
Does the consultation paper contain the right questions?
14. In broad terms, we think that it does and that it offers a useful opportunity for a public debate on the main issues and for Parliament, the public and affected stakeholders to give their views on the range of issues surrounding a statutory register for lobbyists.
Is each of the questions asked in a balanced way?
15. On the whole, we think that the questions are relatively balanced, though not always based on a full factual understanding of lobbying and who lobbies.
Are there any important questions that are not asked?
16. We think that the paper covers most of the important questions and are confident that respondents will raise all of the issues that they think are important. Our own response to the paper will be based on the principles outlined here, but offer more detail on implementation and, for example, on the issue of how a lobbyist covered by the register should be defined.
Which lobbying contacts are of greatest legitimate public interest?
17. In our view, all professional lobbying contacts (ie other than individual contacts between constituents and their MPs) are of legitimate public interest and so all professional lobbying should be covered by the register. We do not think that the legislation setting up the register can or should discriminate between one class of professional lobbyists and others. (Note that Members constituents are not “professional lobbyists” and we strongly support their not being caught by the proposed register.)
Does the consultation paper envisage the capture of appropriate information about these contacts, as opposed to other kinds of contact?
18. We agree with the level of information that the paper proposes should be disclosed but think that the Government’s objectives on transparency and public confidence will only be achieved if the register encompasses all professional lobbyists (including in-house lobbyists) in the same way as existing registers in Canada, the United States and the European Union. We do not think that discrimination based either on the nature of the person conducting the lobbying on a professional basis or on the type of issue being advocated can be justified.
How should the Government deal in policy and practice with how it might be lobbied on the issue of a statutory register of lobbyists?
19. We think that it should deal with this consultation in the same way as it deals with all other consultations. It is right that any measure which impacts on a particular industry should be the subject of consultation and discussion with that industry, but equally that the industry’s views should be assessed against the defined objectives of the Government’s proposals.
How open should the Government be about such lobbying contacts?
20. It should be entirely open.
How should the Government analyse the consultation responses, and seek to balance the weight of opposing argument?
21. Thoughtfully, with an open mind and with a view to responding in a way which offers a relevant and proportionate set of proposals for a register that will deliver greater transparency and public confidence. We would hope that consultation responses will provide the Government with information and facts that it may hitherto lack and that the Government should reassess its proposals in the light of the information and arguments put to it. We believe that this is at the core of effective consultation.
Do you have any comments on how any proposals emerging from the consultation should be implemented?
22. There should be continuing dialogues on points of detail with all interested parties and adequate time for Parliamentary debate.
23. We are happy for our evidence to be made public and would welcome an opportunity to discuss our views with the Committee. We are currently finalising our submission to the consultation, and we would be pleased to share it with the Committee in due course.
February 2012