CorpComms Magazine

If ever there was a maligned profession in need of a Trinny-and-Susannah-style makeover, that profession is lobbying. Big businesses buying influence, brown envelopes stuffed with cash - the stereotypes live on, even if the practices do not.

Many commercial lobbyists are proud of the levels of transparency at UK lobbying firms, yet still feel victimised by the press. 'The problem for the industry is that over the last 10 years, no one has made the case to journalists or to politicians about why public affairs is a good thing and why it is essential,' explains Peter Bingle, head of public affairs at Bell Pottinger.

That could all be about to change, however. Several groups of lobbyists are currently getting together to do what they do best: lobby the government. Following a spate of scandals in the 1980s, then prime minister John Major outlined seven principles of public life and in 1994 set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Since then, UK lobbyists have enjoyed a period of relative quiet.

'We have always been very clean here in the UK, and when people cross the line I think it is inadvertent,' says Lionel Zetter, president of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR). 'I really can't think of a single instance during the past 20 years where someone has set out deliberately to corrupt or distort.'

But that doesn't keep professional lobbyists from making headlines. In October of this year, lobbyists were again in the spotlight when allegations of impropriety resurfaced. The Guardian accused a Westminster lobbyist of giving 'cash for access' after a Labour peer admitted taking cash to arrange an introduction. Michael Wood, a self-employed lobbyist, paid to be introduced to the defence minister, Lord Drayson. This and similar stories prompted a backbench Labour MP to put forward a parliamentary motion calling for another look at UK lobbying practices.

'Lobbying is a noble profession and is necessary whether you're a charity or a business, but lobbyists need to be more transparent,' says John Grogan, MP for Selby and the main backer of the parliamentary motion. 'Everyone needs to know where the lobbyists stand, not least the MPs.'

Getting the house in order

In response to this, the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) launched an inquiry in June into lobbying practices in the UK. It has since taken evidence from a variety of lobbying groups, in both the commercial and not-for-profit spheres. Public affairs industry bodies like the CIPR that have submitted formal evidence hope the committee will push for a self-regulatory solution.

'We hope the select committee will conclude that lobbying works extremely well in the UK,' says Zetter. 'It is very well policed, there are no scandals and the system - broadly speaking - works.'

Other public affairs figures have also come out in support of the current system. 'We would like to keep the status quo because it works, but I think one of the biggest problems we still face is a lack of understanding of the industry,' says Gill Morris, chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC).

As part of the effort to improve the self-regulatory framework, the APPC, the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), the Government Affairs Group and the CIPR have all been working together to draft a set of guiding principles for their respective members. They hope their argument for pan-industry self-regulation will reduce the need for a government-led solution. 'The good thing about the guiding principles is that they would apply across the lobbying board, whether you were in-house or multiclient,' explains Grogan.

Although the three bodies already have their own individual codes, they vary in scope and there is some disagreement about precisely what the agencies should be made to disclose. The APPC and the PRCA subscribe to two key principles. 'Firstly, all member firms must publish their client lists on a quarterly basis, and secondly, we also have a complete financial ban on paying any money to politicians,' says Morris. 'We enforce our code. There have been instances of people not filling in their register and where this is the case they risk being suspended.

'In the days of 'Drapergate' [when lobbyist Derek Draper, former aide to Peter Mandelson, boasted he had access to all 22 people in government who mattered], our panel investigated the situation. In that case the two member companies had their membership suspended, so we have enforced our principles in the past and we will continue to do so.'

Exclusive access

But the PASC is considering several options besides self-regulation, including a register of all lobbyists. 'In the last decade there have been several parliamentary reports that have suggested a register in Parliament; the government has always rejected the idea, however, largely on the basis that it might mean the only people who could lobby Parliament would be those who are on the register,' notes Grogan.

In Scotland, the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee tried to regulate commercial lobbyists by statute but ultimately failed after facing opposition from members of the public affairs community. 'When the public affairs profession took legal advice, it was told the proposed law was discriminatory; why should public affairs consultants be treated differently from other groups and individuals who lobby?' asks Rod Cartwright, head of public affairs at Hill & Knowlton.

Key industry figures argue that banishing negative perceptions of the lobbying industry is also an essential part of their objectives going forward. 'Our reputation and the reputation of our industry are indispensable elements of our survival,' says Morris.

Multi-client commercial lobbyists are regarded as the most suspect lobbying entities. 'Every time there's a supposed lobbying scandal, it tends to be focused on agencies,' notes Cartwright, 'yet agencies are the only organisations in the public affairs realm that have any codes of conduct. You see the same pattern of commercial lobbyists being singled out as if they are different from other lobbyists.'

'It seems there's a fundamental issue,' adds Bingle. 'If you're an NGO and you lobby, it is okay. But if you have a client who pays you to do the work for it, it's no longer good. We do the same thing as the NGOs - we just do it commercially.'

Not the same

Grogan argues that commercial lobbyists are different, however. 'With a charity or an in-house lobbyist you know where they are coming from,' he points out. 'With multi-client lobbyists, it's not so easy - which is why more transparency is needed.'

Morris argues that stringent levels of transparency should apply to all lobbyists, commercial or otherwise. 'Ironically, I would argue that while the public affairs industry is strictly self-regulated, other entities are treated differently,' she says. 'Other types of lobbyists do not have codes of conduct, and parliamentarians' perceptions of War on Want and the NSPCC are often more favourable. I would argue that whatever the kind of lobbyist, it is essential to be transparent.'

While all public affairs practitioners appear in favour of openness and transparency, there is a controversial debate on the necessity of publishing client lists. APPC and PRCA members are obliged to do so, and some members of Parliament, like Grogan, are pushing for across-the-board enforcement of the practice. 'Different lobbyists should know who their competitors are lobbying for,' Grogan says.

'I can't see a legitimate reason why you can't declare your clients and make them completely transparent,' says Morris. A number of politicians agree, especially where taxpayers' money is concerned. 'If you've got public sector contracts especially, you should be meeting the minimal professional standards. I don't see why public money should be given to those who don't,' Grogan argues.

But not all agencies are rushing out to publish their client lists. 'Obviously, Bell Pottinger is an example of a big firm that doesn't publish,' says Grogan. 'But it's interesting that Good Relations, which - like Bell Pottinger - is also a member of the Chime Group, has signed up as a proud member of the PRCA.'

Defenders of client confidentiality argue that publishing client lists should not be made a prerequisite. 'Paying politicians is something that Bell Pottinger has never done or planned to do, and to equate being a reputable company with publishing your client list is simply a non sequitur,' argues Bingle.

Keeping a confidence

But why are some companies so cagey about their clients? 'Firstly a number of clients make us sign confidentiality agreements, so we can't make public who they are,' Bingle points out.

He denies any plans to join the PRCA or the APPC any time soon. 'The APPC is totally irrelevant,' he says. 'In terms of integrity and best practice, we are one of the few companies that insists every individual staff member has to join the CIPR. If you have 30 staff, all of whom are members of the CIPR and are following its code of conduct - which is far more detailed and challenging than the APPC code - that to me seems a far better way forward for the industry.'

Despite the reluctance of Bell Pottinger, there are some firms that are now signing up to publish client lists. 'There's been a movement in the past few months among firms that, if you'd asked them a year ago, would have said, Oh no, we can't publish our clients for a variety of reasons. Recently, however, Finsbury signed up to the PRCA and Sovereign Strategy has signed up to the APPC,' says Grogan.

Given the split in opinion, the industry will need to work hard to foster a consensus if it is to convince the committee that self-regulation is a viable long-term option. The guiding principles drafted by the APPC, PRCA and CIPR could well be the document that binds the fragmented elements of the lobbying community together.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet