Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by PRCA

Introduction

1. The PRCA welcomes the Government s proposal for a statutory register of lobbyists and the opportunity to contribute to the consultation process and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee s inquiry.

2. The Association considers it to be an important step forward in increasing transparency of the public affairs industry. The questions put forward by the Committee have been answered in turn below.

3. Currently, the PRCA is in the process of consulting its members before responding to the Government s consultation document.

About the PRCA and a Register of Lobbyists

4. Founded in 1969, the PRCA is the professional body that represents UK PR consultancies, in-house communications teams, PR freelancers and individual PR practitioners. The PRCA promotes all aspects of public relations, public affairs and communications work, helping teams and individuals maximise the value they deliver to clients and organisations.

5. Members that conduct public affairs services are bound by a Public Affairs Code of Conduct and must submit details to a Public Affairs Register that is updated quarterly and posted to the PRCA website.

6. The register is retrospective, covering those who have conducted registrable public affairs activity in the three months prior to publishing, and includes the following details: an office address and contact information, a list of all staff that conduct public affairs services, and a client list (consultancies only).

7. The latest copy of the register can be found at www.prca.org.uk/paregister. At the time of writing, there are a total of 81 organisations represented on the most recent PRCA Public Affairs Register, including 946 individuals and 1,214 clients.

Executive Summary

8. The PRCA supports a statutory register of lobbyists that should be administered by an independent body that is credible with the Government, industry, and public alike.

9. The Association believes that any statutory register of lobbyists should be founded on a robust and universal definition of lobbying that ensures all professional lobbyists are included in the register.

10. A lobbyist is not defined by the specific profession of the person conducting the lobbying, but by the act of lobbying in a professional capacity itself.

11. This includes in-house communications teams, think tanks, trade unions, lawyers, management consultancies, and charities and other professional organisations.

12. The PRCA strongly disagrees with the Government s proposal to only include multi-client consultancies on the register, as it would mean that the register would fail its main aim of providing greater transparency of those who engage in lobbying activity.

13. The PRCA agrees with the information that should be submitted to the register. It notes this is similar to the information currently submitted to the PRCA s Public Affairs Register. The consultation is correct not to include financial information on the register due to its sensitive nature.

14. The purpose of a statutory register is to provide transparency, not to discriminate against different types of lobbyists. The PRCA believes the Government should not make a judgment that a certain type of lobbyist is of greater public interest than another.

15. The PRCA is concerned that the Impact Assessment does not provide enough information for there to be an accurate calculation regarding how much registration should cost each organisation or individual that is included.

16. The register should be updated quarterly, as is currently the case with the PRCA Public Affairs Register.

17. Statutory sanctions are a necessity if the register is to be credible in preventing non-compliance.

Questions From the Committee

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

Does the paper present the evidence in a balanced way?

18. The PRCA has serious reservations in regards to the paper s evidence on who should be included in the register, which leads to imbalances. In particular, the PRCA is concerned that the paper does not sufficiently take into account the nature and size of the in-house lobbying industry, which is according to the most recent evidence 80% of the public affairs industry.1

19. Equally the decision to only include multi-client agencies suggests a misunderstanding of their role within the wider public affairs industry. The consultation document presents the problem as an issue of not knowing who lobbying agencies represent in ministerial meetings. However, this is a problem that can be resolved in the declaration of ministerial meetings. The role of multi-client agencies is to facilitate meetings with the right minister, thus rarely do lobbyists meet government officials without their client. Therefore the PRCA believes focusing on this small issue, rather than the big picture of universal transparency of the lobbying industry, leads to an imbalance in the consultation s approach.

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

20. The PRCA is confident that the Government has an open mind on the issues covered, but believes the paper is confused by the lack of a clear, robust definition of lobbying and lobbyists. For example, the paper s scope sets out that “A register should include those who lobby”2 but limits its definition to “those who undertake lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client”.3 The consultation paper discusses other registers that include in-house lobbyists, so it is surprising that they are not included in the consultation s definition.

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

21. The Government is clear but unreasonable in its preference for a register that includes only multi-client agencies and excludes in-house lobbyists. A preference for only including one type of lobbyist means the register will not fulfil its main purpose in increasing transparency as it will not cover the entire industry.

22. The Government is unclear on its preference on whether trade-unions, think-tanks and charities should be included. The confusion arises from an acceptance that these organisations undertake lobbying activities but not necessarily through a multi-client consultancy.4It is our view that these organisations should be included in a statutory register.

2. Does the consultation paper contain the right questions?

Is each of the questions asked in a balanced way?

23. The PRCA believes that the consultation paper asks the right questions that will result in a comprehensive understanding of the views and concerns of all relevant stakeholders, with one exception (see next question).

Are there any important questions that are not asked?

24. In the Summary of Questions (Pages 18–19) there should be a specific question in relation to the inclusion of in-house lobbyists as this is one of the principal issues of contention in the consultation paper.

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

25. It is vital that a statutory register does not make any political judgments regarding who is lobbying. All professional lobbyists should be treated equally under a register as they are of equal legitimate public interest. It must be emphasised that the purpose of the register is to provide greater transparency and public awareness, but not to directly comment on lobbying itself. Therefore a statutory register should not discriminate between different types of professional lobbyists.

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

26. The PRCA agrees with the consultation regarding what information should be captured on the register.5 The Association’s current register captures identical information, with the exception of the requirement “whether those employees are former ministers or senior civil servants”.6 Law firms, management consultancies, and other organisations that represent third parties should also produce this information. In-house organisations do not need to produce client lists, but all other information will be applicable.

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?

How open should the Government be about such lobbying contacts?

27. The Government should not act any differently in this consultation process to how it normally interacts with lobbyists. Lobbyists seek to inform parliamentarians in the public policy process, and this will remain the case for the consultation on a statutory register of lobbyists. The PRCA expects the entire process to be open, informative and productive.

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

28. The Government should take into account all responses equally in order that all issues are fairly covered and all relevant stakeholders have been heard. The PRCA expects that responses to the consultation will be highly informative in clarifying areas of the consultation where there appears to be confusion. In particular, the Government should examine responses to the definition of lobbyists/lobbying so that a robust definition can provide a more comprehensive and transparent register for the public affairs industry.

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

29. The Association is currently consulting with its members that conduct public affairs services, as well as other trade bodies, to ensure an industry-wide representation to the consultation. The PRCA looks forward to continuing its open discussions with the Government and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on how best to implement a statutory register of lobbyists.

February 2012