Lobbying curbs bottled?

There are strong rumours that the government will bottle out on controls on lobbying.   The Select Committee on which I serve (PASC) made radical proposals for reform earlier this year.

We want a mandatory register for almost all lobbyists who are in the business of persuading public bodies and ministers. We want it to be run by a body independent of both Government and lobbyists.

We called for transparency including the names of the individuals carrying out lobbying activity and of any organisation employing or hiring them. We asked for declaration of the previous occupation and interests of lobbyists to avoid the 'revolving door' of former ministers, civil servants  and government advisers trading on their contacts.

We believe that full information of all contacts between lobbyists and decision makers should be published. The aim would be to cover all meetings and conversations between decision makers and outside interests.

The rumour mill now claims that Government will back a 'kite-mark' for lobbyists. The lobbyist paper , PRWeek report that a response to PASC's report  would be with the public administration select committee 'soon'. Nothing has been received by us yet.

As a committee we were unimpressed by the evidence of the lobbyists. They train people on how to give evidence to select committees. So they are  skilled at protecting themselves.

There was abundant evidence that the present self-regulation means no regulations. Lobbyists who flouts all ethical rules are ignored or given a slap on the wrists. They suggested a new voluntary scheme of their own.

PRNews reports that:

"Industry sources said the voluntary scheme had been well received by the Cabinet Office after it was drawn up by the APPC, CIPR and PRCA (PRWeek, 13 May). The three industry bodies want to establish an umbrella group for all lobbyists, provisionally called the Public Affairs Council. All lobbyists that sign up would adopt the mark. A consultation paper from the three bodies stated: 'Organisations not kite-marked could be presumed not to be compliant with (ethical) standards. Those seeking to use the services of a lobbyist could be guided accordingly.'

One well-placed industry source said: 'Government will back a lobbying "kite-mark". To get the mark you will have to be regulated and be on a centralised industry lobbying register, which will contain individuals' names. Sir Philip Mawer will be the regulator.'

Mawer is PM Gordon Brown's independent adviser on ministers' interests and was previously parliamentary commissioner for standards, dubbed the 'Commons sleaze buster' by the press."

Philip Mawer was not judged to be the toughest of regulators.  His record is one of compliance with Government wishes. If this is true, it will be a cop-out and no remedy to the excesses of the hidden persuaders.

Total of British Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan = 196

Comments

[Paul Flynn]

You are an idealist, Kay Tie.

[Kay Tie]

"A new cost effective protein rich cow feed"

It really is true that nobody is worthless.

[Mark Adams]

I look forward to meeting you one day, Patrick. But forgive me if I don't accept a sandwich from you.

[Paul Flynn]

I've always thought you are a softie Patrick.

[patrick]

Would it not be possible to gather up the lobbyists (an invite to a free do) then inject copious amounts of cyanide into the sandwich spread , boil them slowly in a dissused cooling tower adding extracts of herbs and spices thereby producing both -
A new cost effective protein rich cow feed
and
Removing vermin from society.

[HuwOS]

Self regulation has a long and glorious tradition of not working in every field not just politics.
Amongst politicians it's tricky because it would be raising the unelected above the elected, but with everything else it is so much easier.

As a general rule of thumb the more an industry desires and fights for "effective self regulation" the more immediately necessary is external imposed regulation with real and effective sanctions against those who act in breach of the regulations.

[DG]

I think the expenses revelations told us all we need to know about how effective self-regulation is in politics.

I don't think it would take much to persuade the electorate that lobbying should be banned altogether. Why should someone (who probably doesn't even live in the constituency) be allowed to exercise more influence over an MP than the average constituent can? No wonder people don't bother to vote.

[HuwOS]

Touché

[Mark Adams]

Er, no actually, Huw

[HuwOS]

An "effective system of self regulation" would surely mean from a lobbyists point of view, a system by which they can pursue their agendas by whatever means they choose without being checked by either laws or morals.

[DG]

"I will continue to promote an effective system of self regulation."

Cool. Let us know when you find one.

[Mark Adams]

For the record Paul, I am neither delicate nor sensitive :) And I will continue to promote an effective system of self regulation.

[DG]

"Mark is very prominent lobbyist."

Yuck. Those people should be on some kind of register.

[Paul Flynn]

I'm not arguing with your adjectives HuwOS. I have to more mealy mouthed.

Lobbyists tend to be very delicate sensitive creatures. There was a really negative reaction in the USA when I told them that I recommended to fellow MPs, in my splendid book Commons Knowledge, that they should store all letters from lobbyists in a file marked 'Parasites.'

[Paul Flynn]

Thank you DC for getting your retaliation in on Mark Adams before I did. Mark is very prominent lobbyist.

[Kay Tie]

Often no regulation is best. For example, HIPS. Instead of the industry regulating inspectors (thereby operating a guild) we should all just be left alone.

[HuwOS]

I guess it depends on whose doing the self regulation, if its a bunch of grasping greedy oiks, doing their best to undermine democratic politics in favour of narrow financially motivated and often destructive self interests, as in tobacco lobbies, nuclear lobbies etc. then self regulation is of no functional value in terms of providing safeguards but on the contrary may make said graspers appear to be respectable and valuable members of the community.

[DG]

"A shame that you think self-regulation is no better than no regulation."

Self regulation could be considered *worse* than no regulation, if it provides a fig-leaf illusion that there are already safeguards in place.

[Mark Adams]

Thanks, Paul, I take this to be a great compliment:

"As a committee we were unimpressed by the evidence of the lobbyists. They train people on how to give evidence to select committees. So they are skilled at protecting themselves."

A shame that you think self-regulation is no better than no regulation. You may - and do - prefer statutory regulation, but it is surely illogical to suggest that something is no better than nothing. If the government does not back a statutory system, do you think the self-regulatory system should be dismantled?

[Tony]

Worth a read..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/there-is-no-refuge-no-place-to-go-to-deal-with-your-grief-1769938.html

..now why are we there? And what does this say for 'high morale and clear purpose'