CorpComms Magazine

Adam Werritty may not have been a lobbyist in a way that public affairs professionals recognise but his questionable relationship with former defence secretary Liam Fox and today's revelations in The Independent about Bell Pottinger's close links with government have again thrust the £2 billion industry into the spotlight and raised the spectre of regulation.

The revelations have also refocused media attention on the Conservative party's election pledge, which became part of the Coalition agreement, to introduce a mandatory statutory register for lobbyists and its distinct lack of progress as the country's economic woes have taken centre stage for the government.

Even in the wake of the Werritty and Fox scandal, Downing Street conceded there were no plans to speed up proposals to regulate the lobbying industry but said a consultation on plans for statutory regulation would begin 'quite soon' with legislation planned for the second session of Parliament next year.

Unsurprisingly, this slow approach was seized on by the Opposition. Labour MP Paul Flynn opened a Westminster Hall debate held weeks after Fox's resignation with Prime Minister David Cameron's own words when he described lobbying as 'the next big scandal waiting to happen' whilst leader of the opposition in a speech at the University of East London.

'It's an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money,' continued Flynn as he quoted Cameron. The Independent today questions whether the prime minister 'will stop the scandal in its tracks'.

Cameron's speech in February 2010 came just one month before three Labour MPs, all former ministers, were suspended after secretly being caught on film by Channel 4 programme Dispatches seeking work with a lobbying firm after they stood down from Parliament.

Again, the media was united in its demands for a statutory register. But will its introduction necessarily improve the situation and boost the reputation of the currently self-regulating lobbying industry? Phil Morgan, director of policy and communications at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) does not think so.

'Would the existence of a statutory register have prevented the Adam Werritty affair from happening? That is not clear at all,' he says.

'It is all so back to front,' Gill Morris, chief executive of Connect Public Affairs, complained on the Huffington Post. 'What government, Parliament, the media and the public need to know is that the UK lobbying industry has a pretty damn impressive story to tell.'

Voluntary register

Morris highlighted the UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC) register of lobbyists which was established in October last year in response to the recommendations made by the Public Administration Select Committee as evidence of the industry's desire to be transparent and improve its image.

Founded by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC), the self-regulatory body for UK public affairs professionals, in association with the CIPR and Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), UKPAC encouraged 'all those engaged in lobbying' to enter their details.

'Any member of our respective organisations needs to act in a wholly transparent manner; we list all clients and consultants, we do not seek to misrepresent or make boastful claims, we do not have Parliamentary passes and we most definitely do not pay Parliamentarians,' added Morris.

Chair Elizabeth France says UKPAC was set up to demonstrate that it is possible to strengthen self-regulation. 'We recognise that the Government is committed to a statutory register but it has not talked of, and we would not look for, anything further.'

But UKPAC's site has been dogged by technical difficulties and critics have berated the quality of information which they claim is frequently inaccurate or out of date. The technical difficulties have fuelled rumours that both the APPC and the PRCA are threatening to pull out of the project.

UKPAC cites the difficulties of taking data from three different sources with different criteria and technology as a challenge. It has now switched technology providers and says it is confident it can now move forward. 'The industry should be given credit for moving this work forward on a voluntary basis and with a limited budget,' France argues.

The project repeatedly attracted criticism from high-profile quarters of the lobbying industry. Peter Bingle, chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, who long campaigned against publishing clients' information, says: 'UKPAC is a disaster and should be abolished. Its launch was a fiasco and it has been downhill ever since.'

Minimal response

In-house signatories are also few and far between on the UKPAC register. A cursory glance at the UKPAC site would suggest just 250 individuals (although not all in-house) have signed up. The CIPR is encouraging more in-house signatories by mandating all new members to be automatic signatories of the register while existing members must sign up in order to renew their membership. The PRCA claims it will make a similar ruling with its new in-house membership. 'Two corporate members did not wish to be on the UKPAC register. Consequently, we did not allow them to continue as PRCA members,' Ingham explains.

Tamasin Cave, director of SpinWatch and leader of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, believes in-house lobbyists may be deterred from signing up to the register by the requirement that signatories must be a member of a trade organisation, such as the CIPR. 'The UKPAC also has a low profile in the in-house world,' she adds.

Iain Anderson, chief corporate counsel at Cicero Consulting, and chairman of the CIPR Public Affairs Group, is still holding out for self regulation but also claims to be relaxed about statutory regulation. 'If you are prepared to be transparent about the organisation that you represent this should not be a problem,' he explains. 'The problem is that there are still some who don't declare who their clients are. We are now in an environment where that won't wash.'

'We now publish all of our clients and all of our staff,' adds Bingle. 'There has never been a time when the public affairs industry has been so transparent.' But he believes a statutory register 'is now very likely if not inevitable', adding: 'I am not sure what it will achieve (over and above what already happens in terms of disclosure) but there is a very strong tide running across all political parties in support of a register.'

Historically, the industry has maintained a stance against a mandatory register and some smaller lobbying outfits still support this line. Peter Carroll, founder of FairFuelUK, runs a four-strong operation and is fearful of the extra paperwork associated with an all encompassing statutory register.

'If you have to write down every meeting it could get very onerous. It would just be a paperwork exercise - another hoop to jump through,' he explains.

Even those in favour of a statutory register flag up the definitional difficulty that regulators face, in that the goverment could be led to a point where individual constituents who write to their MPs could meet the necessary conditions for being described as lobbyists. 'How do you define the difference between us and a group of 20 villagers who don't want a pylon?' asks Alex Deane, head of public affairs at Weber Shandwick.

The definitional challenge is widely cited, however, those campaigning for greater transparency reject it, citing the effective regulation of lobbyists already in existence in the US, Canada and Australia. 'The argument about definitions used by the lobbying industry annoys the hell out of me,' says Cave, who believes it is simply stalling.

So what can lobbyists expect in the future? Suggestions run the gamut from maintaining the status quo to a statutory register of meetings, complete with running commentaries of all conversations between lobbyists and politicians, a suggestion deeply unpopular with lobbyists.

'I represent quoted companies and we can't have full meeting information being published because it could be price sensitive,' says Anderson. At present, the UKPAC register notes the agency name and who it represents but it does not state the specific issue on which the organisation is lobbying.

A supermarket, for example could be lobbying on anything from planning laws or food regulation. However, this information is available for ministerial meetings held at the cabinet office as the Ministerial Code states that the subject of all meetings must be disclosed by the cabinet office on a quarterly basis.

Where is the line drawn?

Beyond that there have been suggestions that casual meetings of the kind that frequently occur in Westminster should be disclosed. In addition to considering instances where MPs and lobbyists accidentally bump into each other in coffee shops, for example, are the question marks surrounding what constitutes a private meeting and whether these should also be disclosed.

Labour MP Paul Flynn raised this very issue in local government questions recently when it emerged that communities secretary Eric Pickles had been taken out to dinner at the Savoy by Bell Pottinger and failed to register it in the Members' Interests because 'he was not eating as a minister, he was eating as a private person'.

Reformists are also pushing for information on client campaign costs - a prospect that is widely opposed by all quarters in the lobbying industry. Ultimately, Anderson argues the solution will be about offering the best value for taxpayers.

There does seem to be agreement regarding universality; there are still agencies that fail to disclose all their clients. Moreover, other organisations involved in lobbying, such as law firms, think tanks and charities, are not expected to disclose their dealings.

While many are not surprised that the scandal involving Fox and Werritty has led to even louder calls to clean up politics in the UK, some have expressed surprise that the lobbying industry hasn't been able to defend itself better from statutory regulation. The industry heralded a more transparent approach with the launch of the UKPAC, but the continued problems with the project coupled with a distrust of the Westminster machinery in general remains a thorn in the side.

'The reality is that we cannot rely on anybody else to make our case for us,' says Bingle. 'It is essential that when the government publishes its consultation paper, the industry finally starts to tell the world how important we are for the effective workings of the body politic. We are a force for good and we need to keep saying so.'

Some have already come to terms with the inevitable prospect of Parliamentary legislation. 'It's a shame self-regulation hasn't worked,' said one lobbyist, who asked not to be named. 'A voluntary register would only work if everyone volunteered and the project was essentially doomed because two of the main bodies behind it [the PRCA and the CIPR] are arch rivals.'

Bingle believes that for an industry celebrated for its ability to promote clients' interests, it has failed badly on its own account. 'We have not appointed a champion for self-regulation and that has been a huge mistake for which we are likely to pay dearly.'

Yet however strong the arguments put forward by lobbyists, the industry operates against the backdrop of an unforgiving political climate and a public increasingly concerned about business's growing influence on government. Members of the lobbying community recognise they face an uphill battle. 'There is a wider issue here and that is that the public perception is that something needs to be done,' concludes Deane.

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