Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR)

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

1. The Government has made it clear that it intends to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists. Whilst we have no problem with the aim of increasing the amount of information available about lobbyists, we maintain that this must be done in a way which does not damage their or commercial operations and does not have the effect of deterring others from entering this part of the democratic process. The paper, in our view, is not clear about the problem that it is aiming to solve. However, we applaud the intention made clear in the paper that the Government does not wish to introduce obstacles or burdens to those who engage in lobbying or who employ lobbyists. This would appear to us to be fundamentally sound approach to a statutory register. Our position on lobbying in general goes further than the Government’s description of it as a legitimate activity1 and we prefer to see it as a an essential part of the democratic process with an important relationship to freedom of speech. However, we also accept that influencing public policy is a sensitive issue and that ideally lobbying should be normalised—that is to say, open, understood and accepted. This is consistent with our view on professional standards in public affairs and we believe the provision of greater information in the public realm relating to lobbying activity will aid this objective.

Does the paper present the evidence in a balanced way?

2. The paper is perhaps somewhat light on evidence. The scope of the register, as the paper notes,2 will be determined by the final definition of lobbying and lobbyists. The paper discusses international examples and the only domestic attempt (UKPAC) to set a definition,3 which is dismissed as unsuitable. Whilst the paper offers little or no idea as to the Government’s preferred definition, which is disappointing, it does present a positive opportunity for respondents to offer their own potential definitions. In our view, definitions should centre on the activity of lobbying. Once the activity has been defined, it is a simple step to label all those who lobby as lobbyists, and all those who do so for remuneration as professional lobbyists—all of whom (in our view) should be covered by the scope of the statutory register.

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

3. Yes, beyond the question of whether a register is necessary, or will achieve the Government’s aims, they appear to have an open mind around the definition, level of disclosure and operation of a register and the sanctions that will meet non-compliance. We hope that this extends fully to the administration of the register and that the UKPAC will play part in their deliberations on who should run it.

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

4. There is a clear initial preference for a register of those who lobby on behalf of third parties.4 Although the argument presented in favour of this supports their preference for a register that increases the amount of information about lobbying in the public realm, it is unreasonable because it would place a disproportionate burden on the multi-client lobbying agencies and freelancers, and would ignore the significant role played in influencing public policy by in-house lobbyists.

5. This approach would also build loopholes into the register, which might be exploited by unscrupulous operators. Having a register which did not encompass three quarters of the industry would, in our view, be perverse—and possibly open to legal challenge. There is a clear initial preference for a register which requires a reasonable level of disclosure, which we support. There is a clear initial proposal for quarterly updates of the register, which would be a reasonable minimum to expect to keep the information current.

Does the consultation paper contain the right questions?

6. Broadly, the paper tackles the important issues that need to be addressed in the introduction of a statutory register. These include the definition of lobbyists/lobbying, the scope of the register, the information to be disclosed through the register, who should run the register and the cost of registration, and finally what sanctions should be in place in the event of non-compliance.

Is each of the questions asked in a balanced way?

7. One of the key questions asks whether the register should cover in-house lobbyists,5 which we feel is not presented in a balanced way—as we have said above. The paper states that, since it is clear who in-house lobbyists represent, to register them would not provide additional transparency. This assumes a lack of transparency on the part of third party lobbyists which we believe is not the case. Whilst we accept that not all third party lobbyists are regulated by professional bodies such as the CIPR, PRCA or the APPC, the majority follow professional standards which require them to disclose on whose behalf they are lobbying. The guiding principles of the CIPR Code of Conduct require our members to “deal honestly and fairly in business with employers, employees, clients, fellow professionals, other professions and the public”6 and to operate with “honest and responsible regard for the public interest”.7 Our understanding of good practice by third party lobbyists would be at least to disclose the party they are representing at any meeting or discussion through which they seek to influence public policy. For many in this sector, the client is the best advocate for their own cause, the role played by the third party lobbyist is to facilitate contact rather than to represent. On the specific point about the disclosure of information relating to previous employment in the Civil Service or any previous ministerial role, there is as much (and arguably more) reason to ask this of in-house lobbyists as there is of third party lobbyists.

Are there any important questions that are not asked?

8. No. The paper covers the important questions that arise from the introduction of a statutory register.

Which Lobbying contacts are of legitimate public interest?

9. In general, lobbying contacts, that is to say, where a person, group or organisation seeks to influence public policy, are of legitimate public interest. In this context, the usual relationship between a Member of Parliament and their constituents is not of legitimate public interest. We have also stated above that the proposed register should cover professional lobbyists, not individuals or groups campaigning over local issues which affect them or their neighbourhoods.

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

10. Yes. The amount of information to be disclosed would contribute to the compliance burden on lobbyists and should be kept to a reasonable minimum. The paper envisages a system that avoids duplication of information already collected elsewhere,8 discloses relevant former employment and the clients of any third party lobbyist.9 The paper asks sensible questions about whether information relating to commercial fees should be included.10

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

11. The Government should seek the views of all interested parties through the consultation and through direct contact.

How open should the Government be about such lobbying contacts?

12. The Government should be “transparent” and disclose any representations they receive on a statutory register, either from interested parties, pressure groups or potential providers. It was notable that ministers were generally resistant to approaches before the consultation was published, which was not entirely helpful but was at least even handed.

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

13. The Government should be even handed as a rule in their analysis of the consultation responses. Perhaps, when considering the compliance burden that may accompany a register, the views of those working in the industry, particularly those who are freelance or from a small business, could be considered closely. Similarly, the sanctions recommended need to be realistic and enforceable as well as a fair.

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

14. We would like to see a statutory register implemented within a reasonable timeframe allowed by the legislative process and to allow the industry and profession to adjust to a new burden of compliance. The provider will also need to establish processes to handle the collection and representation of information on a publicly searchable basis but with due regard to issues including data protection. In this respect, our recommendation is that UKPAC, a body established by the industry to provide a model vehicle for a statutory register, should be considered as a potential provider, since it has experience and knowledge of creating a register of lobbyists on a voluntary basis. The CIPR, as a Royal Charter body with a strong track record in maintaining professional standards and in operating member databases, also stands ready to assist in the setting up and maintenance of the statutory register, bound by a strong code of conduct with disciplinary sanctions including expulsion from membership, if called upon to do so by government.

About the Chartered Institute of Public Relations

15. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations is the professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK. With 9,500 members involved in all aspects of public relations, it is the largest body of its kind in Europe. The CIPR advances the public relations profession in the UK by making its members accountable through a code of conduct, developing best practice, representing its members and raising standards through professional development. The CIPR, through the PR Academy, provides the CIPR Public Affairs Diploma, a professional qualification specific to lobbying.

16. The CIPR Public Affairs Group has nearly 700 members and meets regularly to discuss current issues in UK politics. It recently hosted the first industry meeting with Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, following the publication of the consultation paper.

February 2012