Thursday 2nd February 2012 | 20:00

Tony Wright on the statutory register for lobbyists

Government efforts to bring transparency to lobbying remain inadequate, warns Tony Wright

WORDS: TONY WRIGHT

Language is always the giveaway. I used to go to considerable circumlocutory lengths to avoid describing myself as a politician. So too with lobbyists. Notice how they never call themselves what they are. Instead they have invented a Sunday-best language of ‘public affairs’ and ‘government relations’ to dress up what they do.

This is quite unnecessary, since what they do is perfectly respectable (just like politicians). Whether it is worth all the money spent on it is another matter. In fact it is more than respectable; it is necessary for democratic politics and good government. It enables interests and opinions to have a voice, and decision-makers to learn from those with direct experience and expertise.

So what’s the problem then? Why has David Cameron described lobbying as “the next big scandal”, and why has the government now started consulting on a proposal for a statutory register of lobbyists?
A bit of history is needed at this point. At the beginning of 2009 the public administration committee, which I then chaired, produced a report on lobbying after a major inquiry, and recommended that a statutory register should be established. We showed from examples elsewhere how this could be done in a way that was effective without being excessive. We also said that it would be sensible to do this before a new lobbying scandal erupted.

The last government was not persuaded that a statutory register was needed and looked to the lobbying industry for better self-regulation. Then came the inevitable scandal, in the shape of a sting operation on departing ex-ministers, and suddenly our proposal found itself in the Coalition Agreement. The next scandal, at the Ministry of Defence, has now propelled the proposal into a consultation on implementation.

This is to be welcomed. There is now a clear legislative commitment to a register for lobbyists. What is not to be welcomed is the minimalist and half-hearted way in which it is being done. There is no real sense of belief or purpose behind it; rather a sense that this is a commitment they are saddled with and that it will be done in the least demanding and effective way possible. So the consultation document proposes that it will cost nothing (being funded by the industry), will cover only lobbyists who lobby for a third party (thus justifying the nature of the funding), and will not cover the subject matter of the lobbying.

This is not only inadequate, but runs directly contrary to the thrust of the PASC report which it claims to be building on. In that report we said: ‘The key… is transparency. There is a public interest in knowing who is lobbying whom about what’. We shall not know this if the definition of lobbyist is confined only to those who work for third parties. A company like Tesco has a clutch of in-house lobbyists and it makes no sense to exclude these from the scope of a register that is intended to shine a light on lobbying activity, and not just on the multi-client lobbying companies. There was unanimity on this point in the evidence we received, with campaigning charities demanding to be included too.

Then there is the important matter of ‘about what’. Transparency requires that we know what any lobbying activity is about, at least in outline terms (and with established FOI exceptions). It is not enough to know that a lobbying encounter took place and who was involved, without also knowing what the subject was.
So let there be genuine consultation on this lobbying proposal, so that we get a register that does the job. Just as one select committee started this process, I hope another will ensure that it delivers what it says on the tin.