Lobbyists to be probed

Persuaders

'Lobbyists' no longer exist. The name died of shame.  But the business of persuaders-for-hire continues.  Lobbyists have metamorphosised themselves into political or public affairs consultants. Their approach is subtler but their purpose is still subversive.

So much so that the Public Adminsistrtion Committee are today launching a probe into the murky trade.

The crude bribes of the recent past, trips, meals and money, have been replaced by intelligent targeted flattery.

I reply to most lobbyists’ letters with a standard abusive reply.  It explains to them that lobbying organisations are an ugly, anti-democratic and corrupting incubus that haunts the British body politic.

I helpfully suggest that their clients should directly approach MPs because using lobbyists as a conduit only adds to their costs for no worthwhile purpose.

That is precisely what has happened.  At least one firm does nothing but that. They are still lobbying but they call themselves a ‘Result Orientated Political and Public Relations Agency’, or a ROPPRA.  They employ 60 people of which 50 are ‘consultants’. They do not approach any MPs directly.

Two covert techniques are used.  For good causes, ROPPRAs draft letters to MPs that are then sent under the letterheads of the charity.  Each letter is drafted to appeal to the personal convictions of  each MP based on  knowledge of constituency interests  and  parliamentary activity.  Hansard is trawled to discover what levers need to be tugged to excite MPs’ devotion to the cause on offer.

Many of the campaigns seek extra funding for charities. Most MPs are unaware that a large slice of the cash that may be gained has already been sliced off by the ROPPRA’s fee.  The professional persuaders have become so skilful, it is not possible to detect their expensive fingerprints on appeals from worthy groups. They have failed if their cover is blown.

Bad causes require greater subtlety. When Mega-greed PLC want to persuade MPs that their constituents need more of their harmful, polluting products, a ROPPRA will suggset the best conduit to parliamentarians..  Few MPs  promote greed or pollution publicly. They would smell a  rat if a letter from a ROPPRA arrived.

Mega-greed and ROPPRA together seek out constituents whose jobs or pensions are under threat unless Mega-greed expands. The most irresistible letters for MPs are handwritten ones that carry the postmarks of their constituencies. Trade Unions are enlisted to approach Labour MPs and Trade Associations are pressurised to contact Tories.

It’s the low key vicarious alternative to the frenetic direct lobbying of the recent past. Another reason for the decline in activity is the fading influence of backbenchers. Power is now concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of people close to the Prime Minister. The key decision to go ahead with the Millennium Dome was taken by less than half the Cabinet.  Formal or informal contacts with the Prime Minister or his inner circle are now greatly prized by the persuaders.

MPs are no longer the main focus of their work.  But lobbying stills prospers, profitable even from its hidden bunker.  Occasionally, the worst form of pre-Nolan abuse breaks through. Two years ago I was forced to draw to the attention of the House authorities  abuses by  lobbyists  registered as ‘researchers’ to members.

One had a pass as an unpaid researcher to an MP.  He told me that he did “some work” for the member, but received a “living wage” from one of the four registered interests he had as an individual freelance influence.  All were commercial firms with murky reputations.

One of the firms is notorious. Their cheating of their customers has been  universally condemned by the national press. The freelance lobbyist improperly used the House’s internal mail  to send  old press cuttings  attacking  the character of the leader of a group  campaigning against the accused firm.

In the past some MPs allowed lobbyists to work under the guise of  ‘researchers’.  It gave them privileged access to the facilities of the House.  This practise has probably now ended following the sleaze scandals.

MPs are so alarmed at possible sleaze accusations, they refuse to accept invitations even to entirely legitimate events. The IPU and CPA find it increasingly difficult to recruit members for visits abroad. A character-building, blameless, fact-filled visit to Finland in January might be judged by voters to be as corrupting as a weekend in the Paris Ritz.

Going underground has not reduced the malign affect of political lobbying. It still exerts great power and influence on legislators.   Rich and powerful bodies still buy extra advantages for themselves. They corrupt the political process by ensuring that the attention of politicians is directed to the causes that can pay the biggest fees, not those that have greatest needs.

The Select Committee already has some hair raising evidence of dubious practices. I look forward to asking a qusetion or two.

Comments

[Anon]

What a sadly misinformed posting. Hopefully your inquiry will enlighten you!

[Paul Flynn]

Would be pleased to hear about the reasons why you think I'm misinformed. As part of the investigation by the Select Committee we would welcome all input.

Do I sense a lobbyist replying?

[Anon]

I have already submitted my views to the Committee, thank you. If you would genuinely welcome a constructive discussion, with an open mind, of course I would be interested.

[Paul Flynn]

I have read the bundle of evidence submitted to the Committee and there was nothing in there to change my mind. This week we are looking at lobbying in the USA and my views have only strengthened.

[Anon]

You don't say. Well please don't confuse the US system with ours - merciful it is very different. The US is a great example of how regulation fails. I suspect I won't be a witness before the Committee - pity, I would rather enjoy it.

[paulflynn]

The US has been interesting but the the motive behind lobbying is same in both countries - to buy advantages. The dollar is mightier than the vote. I certainly reject much of the self-serving pompous twaddle in many of the submissions to PASC and I look forward to your comments and the evidence sessions. The committee is generally agnostice on regulation

[London Lobbyist]

Well here goes.....

Your first mistake is with the use of the word "lobbyist". It is the noun from the verb to lobby. Anyone lobbying is a lobbyist, whether a company, an charity, or indeed an individual, like one of your elderly constituents complaining about his or her pension. You surely are not arguing that lobbying is wrong! That is why the label lobbyist is misapplied.

Political consultant is fine as an alternative - after all that is why the APPC is called the Association of Professional Political Consultants. There is nothing wrong or to be ashamed of in offering advice on the best way to influence the political system any more than offering advice on anything else - whether it be on financing options for small businesses or on pruning your roses.

"The crude bribes of the recent past, trips, meals and money, have been replaced by intelligent targeted flattery." I trust you will bring forward the evidence of this. The APPC Code, to which the vast majority of the industry subscribe, prohibits the kind of corruption that worries people. Not every company is a member - they should be but I'm not convinced they can be forced to be without creating a special class of "lobbyist" which is not presumably what you want to achieve.

"I helpfully suggest that their clients should directly approach MPs because using lobbyists as a conduit only adds to their costs for no worthwhile purpose." Which clients? Large corporates tend to have in-house public affairs teams to advise them. They effectively do full-time what consultants otherwise would do for them part-time - is it really so different? Smaller companies who do not have the resources to employ in-house experts are surely entitled to seek professional advice to assist them when they need it.

"For good causes, ROPPRAs draft letters to MPs that are then sent under the letterheads of the charity." And the point is??? Are you seriously saying it is wrong for a charity to seek advice on how to draft letters. The large charities have people in-house who know how to draft them - why shouldn't the smaller charities have access to such advice when they need it?

"Mega-greed and ROPPRA together seek out constituents whose jobs or pensions are under threat unless Mega-greed expands." Get real - every good campaign considers the best case it can make. Are you suggesting that MPs are so niaive that they somehow have to be protected from campaigning? Surely not.

"Two years ago I was forced to draw to the attention of the House authorities abuses by lobbyists registered as ‘researchers’ to members." Again this practice is forbidden by the APPC Code.

"Rich and powerful bodies still buy extra advantages for themselves." If you mean through corruption, I don't think this is a serious problem at all. If you mean by buying advice, I fail to see the remedy. Maybe a legal aid system equivalent for lobbying? After all, the law is often criticised in similar terms, with the rich able to buy the best legal advice. What remedy do you propose?

Now a real challenge for you. I would love to share a pint or two with you (but don't expect me to pay for your beer!) and discuss these issues in an open-minded way. Who knows, you might persuade me to go off and become an accountant instead!

[paulflynn]

Thanks for that.
The point is that '. 'Lobbyist' is now dirty word. 'Consultant' is a desirable description for all jobs from a surgeon to a rat-catcher.

Have a look at the Post Pharmageddon. There examples are given of how NHS priorities are distorted and dangerous over-expensive drugs are pushed. Is it sensible for Pharmas to spend more on marketing than on research? More on to-day's posting.

I always insist oon buying the first meal/pint when I meant journalists. The same rule applies to lobbyists. Look forward to seeing you.

[London Lobbyist]

Good stuff - free beer and the chance to change your mind. An irresistible challenge. I shall email you and we'll see.