Lobbying regulation - chronology 2010-2019

From Powerbase
Revision as of 06:48, 15 September 2011 by David (talk | contribs) (→‎November 16th)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page lists the history of debates on Lobbying regulation, predominantly in the UK.

Timeline of events

1928

In the U.S.A, the Senate enacts a bill which required lobbyists to register with both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. The bill is blocked by the House of Representatives.[1]

1946

The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act is adopted by Congress. The term ‘lobbyist’ is defined as referring to any person who by himself, or through any agent or employee or other persons in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, solicits, collects, or receives money or any other thing of value to be used principally . . . to influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of the United States. (Byrd, 1987).

1973

In 1973, the Senate and House Bills are introduced. Prior to this, lobbyists were required to register with and report to each house of the legislature separately (Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, 2007).

1987

1988

The House of Commons’ Select Committee on Members’ Interests begins its inquiry into the lobbying of parliament (Rush, 1994: 641).

June

Evidence is given by Dr Michael Rush, a member of the Study of Parliament Group, to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. In their memorandum, Rush et al (1988) suggest:

There is no doubt that not only has there been a growth in the number of organisations that lobby Parliament but also in the number of professional lobbying consultants, a number of whom specialise in parliamentary lobbying. Developments in this area, justifiably or otherwise, have given cause for concern and, if for no other reason, further consideration should be given to establishing a register of professional lobbyists. At the same time, it should be noted that our data would not support the view that the growth in lobbying is a product of the growth in the number of consultants, in that lobbying has grown far more than has the number of consultants.

In his subsequent oral evidence to the Committee, Rush (1988) remarks:

The only advantage I can see of a register, whether it is of professional lobbyists or lobbying organisations in the wider sense, is that it provides publicity. It opens up the process more so that Members of Parliament or members of the public may, if they wish, be able to see who is lobbying. But I take your point [MP William Shelton suggested ‘that it is almost impossible to have a register unless those who register are accorded some sort of privilege’]. I could not agree more. If you say, "As a consequence of registering you have some privilege or other, access to Members or access to certain Parliamentary papers," that is something which I think would be very difficult to control but it would also, I would say, be something to be deplored.

1990

At the Commons Select Committee on Members’ Interests, Greer admits making payments to MPs in return for business introductions (Burrell, 2006).

May

Dr Michael Rush gives evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Members' Interests . He raises the following points: the register must have a clear purpose; with particular consideration to the question of who would be required to register, what information lobbyists would have to provide, the arrangements for keeping the register up-to-date, questions around access to the register, and whether registration confers and rights or privileges (Rush, 1990).

In a later article, Rush (1994: 641) notes that although the House of Commons’ Select Committee on Members’ Interests considered the registration of lobbyists on four occasions , it was only on the fourth that it recommended a register. He observes: In its most recent report the committee detected a sufficient shift in opinion among professional lobbyists, MPs, academics and other observers to merit recommending a register.

As Rush (1994: 641-642) notes, although the quarterly publication of a register would be ‘primarily informational’, the proposals included a significant regulatory element in the recommendation for a code of conduct. The code would include a complaints and arbitration procedure. Although there is no mention of penalties, being struck off the register would have ‘moral force’ which ‘would probably damage the reputation of the firm concerned’. The responsibility for compiling and maintaining the register would lie with the Registrar of Members’ Interests; with one copy available in the House of Commons Library and an additional copy available for inspection by the public.

1993

June

The proposal for a register of lobbyists is debated by the House of Commons , nearly two years after the presentation of the report by the Select Committee on Members’ Interests. Rush (1994: 642) argues that this ‘provides clear evidence, if any were needed, that it was not a matter high on the Government’s agenda’. The most significant objection of the government was that the reform would simply give an apparent ‘seal of approval’ to those registered, thereby be of most benefit to the lobbyists themselves. Favouring a voluntary code, the government referred the issue back to the committee which subsequently re-examined its proposal (Rush, 1994: 643).

Referring to what he describes as ‘The most striking lesson of the Canadian experience’, Rush (1994: 643) argues that registering lobbyists has been of most value to those within the public affairs industry itself; as professional lobbyists now have a resource with which to monitor their competitors and identify potential new clients. He contests that the British government is therefore vindicated in its contention that a register would be of principal benefit to lobbyists themselves. He concedes that other lessons have been learned; namely that any register should include lobbying of the House of Lords and ‘the most important actors in the political process’: ministers and civil servants; in addition to those who directly represent (direct advocacy), those who advise (information gatherers) should be required to register; and that clearer definitions of lawyers and professional lobbyists be reached.

Rush (1994: 644) argues that while there is no doubt that registering lobbyists can contribute to open government, there is no evidence that informational schemes have a significant impact on lobbying itself unless the information requested ‘exposes or is likely to expose lobbying abuses’. Beyond the disclosure of information about fees, expenditure, and records of contacts, Rush (1994: 644) suggests that ‘registration tends to become regulatory and the purpose of regulation is to create and maintain norms of behaviour’. These norms can be enshrined in codes of conduct, legislation against certain practices, or a combination of both these approaches.

1994

May

Forced by the affair to confront the problems it had previously been avoiding, the public affairs industry takes action to convince decision makers and the public about its apparent commitment to ‘ethical standards’. To this end, five consultancies came together to established the self-regulatory Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) under the chairmanship of Andrew Gifford, founding director of lobbying firm GJW (Bevan, 1996). The APPC developed its own code of conduct and makes publicly available its register of clients. It purports to enforce a ban on financial relationships with politicians (Burrell, 2006).

July

The story of the ‘cash-for-questions’ scandal breaks, in which a Sunday Times reporter posing as a businessman offered twenty MPs £1000 in exchange for tabling a parliamentary question. Conservative MPs Graham Riddick and David Treddinick are fined and suspended from parliament. As a result of the furore, then Conservative Prime Minister John Major establishes the Nolan Committee (Public Affairs Links, 2007).

October 20th

In a second scandal, first reported in The Guardian, it emerges that Greer had paid Conservative MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith to table parliamentary questions on behalf of Al-Fayed. Smith admits having accepting payments of £2000 per question directly from Al-Fayed - rather than from Ian Greer, as was alleged in the original Guardian report. Hamilton and Greer initiate libel proceedings against the newspaper (Public Affairs Links, 2007). Greer famously said to Al-Fayed, regarding his feud with Roland "tiny" Rowland over the sale of the House of Fraser, ‘You need to rent an MP just like you rent a London taxi’ (Hencke, 1994).

October 25th

Responding to concerns in the wake of the cash-for-questions affair, then Prime Minister John Major makes an announcement in the House of Commons announcing the establishment and terms of reference of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Often referred to instead as the ‘Nolan Committee’, Sir Michael Nolan chairs the Committee from its establishment until November 1997 (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). According to an obituary in The Guardian following his death in January 2007, Nolan ‘made a profound mark on national life by substantially cleansing the Augean stable of corrupt politics as founding chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’ (Roth, 2007). Only days after his appointment, Nolan demonstrated his independence; announcing his intention that the Committee sit in public and thereby contradicting Major’s statement that the Committee would ‘probably sit in private’ (Roth, 2007).

1995

May 11th

The First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, ‘Standards in Public Life’, is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010); provoking what Roth (2007) describes as ‘shrieks of protest’. Nolan’s Report stated that MPs should declare incomes gained from acting as parliamentary consultants; they should not be able to work as paid agents on behalf of lobbyists; and they should end their self-regulation with the introduction of a permanent and independent parliamentary commissioner (Roth, 2007). The Report set out the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ (the ‘Nolan Principles’) as follows:

  • Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
  • Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
  • Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
  • Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
  • Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
  • Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
  • Leadership - Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example (Commissioner for Public Appointments, 2010).

November

PR Week reports that despite having apparently ‘captured the moral high ground’ by setting up its own register of lobbyists, the APPC remained ‘coy’ about revealing the contents of the register. During the making of a Channel 4 Dispatches programme on peers and their outside interests, Observer Films attempted to gain access to the register - and were duly informed that the contents were not open to the public. This was confirmed by then APPC Secretary and managing director of the lobbying firm Public Policy Unit, Charles Miller, who explained that the register was only available to MPs, Peers, APPC members and their clients: ‘it does not exist to feed salacious stories in the media’. However, this position was not uniformly agreed upon within the industry (PR Week UK, 1995). Michael Burrell of Westminster Strategy, one of the founders of the APPC, remarked ‘We were trying to promote greater transparency and disclosure. My view is the register should be made available to journalists’. Miller responded: If other members feel like Michael, I dare say we will open it up... we are going to have think very carefully about way the clients are listed at present - it’s too easily misinterpreted (quoted in PR Week UK, 1995).

1996

March

The APPC announces its intention to move to publishing its previously annual register of membership twice yearly. Additionally, whereas the register could previously only be accessed via the Association offices in Rochester Row, it was now to be available by post. Michael Burrell remarks that ‘Some members felt that yearly publication meant the register was too historic’ (quoted in PR Week, 1996).

May 16th

The Second Report, ‘Local Public Spending Bodies’, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010).

October

The APPC announces that it will be extending its code of conduct to ban its members from having financial links with sitting peers and MEPs, as well as MPs and public servants. Members are also explicitly prohibited from making contributions to political parties. The Association reports that it is ‘stepping up its marketing efforts’; investigating the creation of ‘developing a new visual identity’; and creating an online presence (Dowman, 1996).

1997

July 8th

The Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, ‘Standards of Conduct in Local Government in England, Scotland and Wales’, is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010).

July 3rd

A report commissioned by parliament is published by Sir Gordon Downey, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards serving the newly-formed Committee for Standards and Privileges. In the report, ‘Complaints from Mr Mohamed al-Fayed, The Guardian and others against 25 Members and former Members’, Greer, Hamilton and Smith are cleared of the original allegation that Greer had paid the MPs to table questions. However, Downey rules that the testimonies from three of Al-Fayed’s employees that they processed cash payments to Hamilton amounted to ‘compelling evidence’; though he refutes their claims that payments were processed to Greer. In the eventual Hamilton/Al-Fayed libel trial at the High Court in 1999, Hamilton loses and is ordered to pay costs; eventually declaring himself bankrupt in 2001 (Public Affairs Links, 2007).

November 7th

The Fourth Report, ‘Review of Standards of Conduct in Executive NDPBs, NHS Trusts and Local Public Spending Bodies’, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is published and Lord Nolan is succeeded as chairman by Sir Patrick Neill QC. On the 12th November, Prime Minister Tony Blair extends the Committee’s terms of reference: ‘To review issues in relation to the funding of political parties, and to make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements’ (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010).

1998

March

The APPC sets out to review its sponsorship rules to consider allowing the sponsorship of political events by lobbyists' clients. Although the existing rule prohibited members from causing a client to give financial incentives to public servants (or persons acting on their behalf), representatives or employees of Parliament; except for entertainment and token business mementos, APPC secretary Charles Miller remarked:

We’ve all broken that rule. If approached by Government, lobbyists should be able to ask their clients whether they are interested, but they can’t push anybody - a lobbyist’s first duty is to the client... Labour is increasingly wooing business directly through the party’s business unit and not through lobbyists anyway (quoted in Barker, 1998a).

July

The series ‘Lobbygate: Cash for Access’ is published by Greg Palast and Antony Barnett in The Observer. The investigative accuses three consultancies (two of which are members of the APPC) of unethical behaviour; particularly with regard to bragging about having close links to politicians. The APPC launched an inquiry from which emerged a series of recommendations endorsed by the Association and designed to foster a ‘culture of compliance’ with the APPC code of conduct amongst member consultancies; prompting APPC 2006 management committee member Michael Burrell to conclude:

Partly as a result – and while there will never be room for complacency – one could reasonably claim that the professional political consultancy business in the UK today has one of the best ethical track records of any in the world (Burrell, 2006).

July

The APPC comes out in support of a single lobbyists’ code, despite traditionally opposing the idea of running a joint code with the Institute of Public Relations (IPR, now Chartered Institute of Public Relations) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA). The APPC had previously resisted closer association with the PR industry, holding lobbying to be a distinct industry. The PRCA, however, also represents full service agencies such as Hill and Knowlton and Burson-Marsteller which run large lobbying operations - and are not members of the APPC (Barker, 1998b).

October 13th

The Fifth Report, ‘The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom’, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010).

1999

October 13th

A Consultation Paper setting out the issues and questions that the Committee on Standards in Public Life proposes to consider in its review of recommendations in its First Report is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010)

2000

January 12th

The Sixth Report, ‘Reinforcing Standards – A Review of the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010).

November 16th

The Seventh Report, ‘Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2001, February 28th The Prime Minister Tony Blair announces that Sir Nigel Wicks is to be appointed as the new Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2001 Scotland Standards Committee Success in Scotland – but for Consultants only 2002, November 21st The Eighth Report, ‘Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2003 Scotland change of Committee after election; the issue was dropped 2003, April 8th The Ninth Report, ‘Defining the Boundaries within the Executive; Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2004 SpinWatch is established ‘by leading journalists and media academics’ (Jempson, 2005: 271). The group, run by Professor David Miller, ‘subjects the PR industry to radical critique from a radical, peace perspective’ (Keeble, 2009: 10). 2004, April 22nd Sir Alistair Graham takes over as chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2004, September 8th The Committee on Standards in Public Life publishes its First Survey Report of public attitudes towards conduct in public life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2004, November The official SpinWatch website is launched. Receiving a mention in the diary of industry magazine PR Week, the launch was announced as follows: Readers beware - self-appointed watchdog and exposer of underhand and deceitful PR practices SpinWatch is getting its communications systems in order. The organisation of academics, journalists and researchers this month launches a website that it promises will 'counter corporate PR and government propaganda'. However, PRWeek wonders if SpinWatch itself is practicing a little bit of media manipulation to maximise its buzz (PR Week, 2004). 2005, January 19th The Tenth Report, ‘Getting the Balance Right – Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2005, March European Commission Vice President Siim Kallas launches the European Transparency Initiative (ETI). During his speech at the launch of the ETI in Nottingham, Kallas himself remarks that ‘Lobbyists can have considerable influence on legislation, in particular on proposals of a technical nature... But their transparency is too deficient in comparison to the impact of their activities’ (quoted in ALTER-EU, 2010b). 2005, May The ETI is formally debated by EU Commissioners. 2005, July SpinWatch organises a ‘SpinWalk’ in Edinburgh to ‘shine a light on the activities’ of corporate Scotland. Inviting anti-spin activists to ‘know your enemy more effectively’, the tour takes in ‘lobbying consultancies and PR outfits working incessantly to boost corporate power’. The PR Week Diary wryly reports that ‘PR folk in Edinburgh ‘are on edge this week… perhaps best batten down the hatches… just in case’ (PR Week, 2005). 2005, July 19th The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation in Europe (ALTER-EU) is established. ALTER-EU is a pan-European civil society organisation representing a diverse range of over 160 organisations whose shared interest is in transparency as a first step to a more democratic and accountable EU. The Alliance emerged out of a pre-existing campaign set up to tackle environmental and developmental externalities of EU trade policy (Dinan, 2009). ALTER-EU is coordinated by a Steering Committee which currently has the following members: Paul de Clerck (Friends of the Earth Europe); William Dinan (Strathclyde University & Spinwatch); Marc Gruber (European Federation of Journalists); Yveline Nicolas (Adéquations); Ulrich Müller (LobbyControl); Jorgo Riss (Greenpeace European Unit); and Erik Wesselius (Corporate Europe Observatory) (ALTER-EU, 2010a). ALTER-EU members groups are themselves expected to practice ‘unilateral transparency’ as they campaign for ‘EU lobbying disclosure legislation’; ‘enforceable ethics rules for lobbyists (for instance prohibiting employment of officials or their relatives for lobbying purposes’; and ‘an improved code of conduct for European Commission officials’. The coalition has led the European debate on the European Transparency Initiative (ETI) and the need for lobbying disclosure and regulation of ethical standards (ALTER-EU, 2010a). 2005, November ETI formally adopted by Commission. 2005, November It emerges that Labour MP David Blunkett was paid £15,000 by APPC members Weber Shandwick to speak at a dinner hosted by the agency. The APPC code states that it is against the rules for their members to ‘make any award or payment to any MP, MEP or sitting peer’. However, while the lobbying arm of Weber Shandwick is a member of the APPC, its corporate practice - which paid for Blunkett to speak - is not, and therefore the rules were not officially breached. This prompted the APPC to review their code and address ‘the grey area’ regarding member agencies which are part of large PR groups. Weber Shandwick CEO Colin Byrne defended the payment, saying ‘There is nothing wrong with MPs being paid for after-dinner speeches if they abide by parliamentary rules’ (quoted in Chandiramani, 2005) 2006, May Green Paper published. (ETI) 2006, August Consultation. (ETI) 2006, September 12th The Committee on Standards in Public Life publishes its Second Survey Report of public attitudes towards conduct in public life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2007 In the U.S.A., the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act comes into force. As a result, it is possible for anyone using a quick internet search to find out ‘who is lobbying whom, how much they are being paid, and whom they represent’ (Monbiot, 2009). 2007 The publication of a new ministerial code drops the requirement for meetings between ministers and lobbyists to be recorded (Monbiot, 2009). 2007, January 18th The Eleventh Report, ‘Review of the Electoral Commission’, is published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2007, March Golden Arrow Communications (non-APPC) scandal 2007, March The APPC is again forced to ‘tighten up’ its Code of Conduct. Although disclosure of clients and consultants is a condition of APPC membership, the original code of conduct failed to include a clear requirement for this information. Gill Morris, then association chair of the APPC, remarks that ‘This is an important development for the APPC and will promote greater transparency and clarity in the PA sector’. The changes were made after it emerged that lobbying firms were assuring potential clients that they adhere to the code - without actually being members of the APPC itself. The alarm was raised by Labour MP John Grogan, who later published an Early Day Motion (EDM) on lobbying, when he discovered that non-APPC agencies were telling clients that they adhere to the code, without being prepared to disclose their list of clients. Several recent tenders for consultancy firms had required adherence to the code, but not membership of the APPC, such that Bell Pottinger Public Affairs (at that point not registered with the APPC) were able to compete with Connect Public Affairs (a member) for its account with Thames Gateway London Partnership, on the grounds that both agencies followed the general principles set out in the code (Singleton, 2007). 2007, March Commission proposals for a voluntary register. 2007, April 27th Rita Donaghy CBE takes over as interim chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2008, January 1st Sir Christopher Kelly becomes the new chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2008, January The Second Session of the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) inquiry involves the submission from evidence by SpinWatch and Unlock Democracy. David Miller of SpinWatch told the MPs: It's clear that it is the democratic right of every interest in society to be able to access decision-makers and petition them, but it's also clear that in a democracy there ought to be some sort of level playing field (quoted in Singleton, 2008). His colleague William Dinan said: 'The public have a right to know who is trying to influence policy.' However, Labour MP and committee chair Tony Wright claimed 'You don't need regulation unless there's a problem; arguing that it is not possible to 'read across the problems in one political culture to another'. Labour MP Julie Morgan remarked 'There's a real danger that you're stifling democracy with these suggestions.' Similarly, Liberal Democrat Jenny Willot suggested that the campaigners 'might be over-estimating the influence of lobbyists on MPs.' In what Singleton (2008) describes as ‘the most scathing attack’, Conservative Charles Walker said ‘You're creating a concern that simply doesn't exist’; concluding 'You're conspiracy theorists... You think there's a conspiracy on behalf of big business to corrupt democratic systems.' 2008, February 1st On the 1st of February, PR Week reports that ‘according to lobbyists who were following the spectacle’, campaigners calling for stringent regulation of the lobbying industry during the select committee inquiry ‘failed to win over MPs’. Immediate past president of the CIPR, Lionel Zetter, claims: Most members of the committee seemed to feel that the type of elaborate regulatory regime that they are advocating would be inappropriate and unnecessary in the UK. The article concludes saying ‘the campaigners did get some support from Labour MPs Kelvin Hopkins and David Heyes’ (Singleton, 2008). 2008, May European Parliament plenary vote on the Stubb Report – mandatory, finance and names. 2008, July European Commission register launched. 2008, October 9th The Committee on Standards in Public Life publishes its Third Survey into public attitudes towards conduct in public life (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2008, December From December 2008 until April 2009, the IIWG. 2009, January The Public Administration and Select Committee (PASC) of the House of Commons publishes its report ‘Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall’, recommending the introduction of measures which would ‘promote ethical behaviour by lobbyists’, ensure ‘the maximum reasonable degree of transparency’ in the process of lobbying, and make it more difficult for politicians and public servants to use information or contacts built up during their time in office ‘as an inducement to other potential employers’. Although the Committee ‘do not believe that transparency requirements are ever likely to be enforceable through self-regulation’, they suggest that there could be ‘a role for a self-regulatory organisation in promoting ethical behaviour by those involved in lobbying’. For the current situation of self-regulation to be made more effective, PASC recommended the establishment of ‘a single umbrella organisation with both corporate and individual membership, in order to be able to cover all those who are involved in lobbying as a substantial part of their work’. Furthermore, the running of the organisation should involve individuals from outside lobbying; with a clear separation between the promotion, representation and regulation of lobbying; and the introduction of more rigorous scrutiny and external validation (Public Administration Select Committee, 2010: 64). The UK Public Affairs Committee (UK PAC) is conceived as a response to the PASC recommendations (Chartered Institute of Public Relations, 2010). 2009, January The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT) launches its campaign in parliament ‘for the public scrutiny of the contacts between legislators and professional hustlers’ (Monbiot, 2009). Monbiot (2009) argues that this launch comes ‘with impeccable timing’: There's a major lobbying scandal about once a month, and no one who is aware of the government's failure to regulate this industry should be surprised. It was elected to stamp out sleaze, but since 1997 has done almost nothing. 2009, February Full-page advertisement for the ALT published in The Times. 2009, April Joint EP-EC register ‘portal’ 2009, May 38 Degrees – named after the angle at which an avalanche happens - is launched with their campaign for a Recall Law. Inspired by similar campaigning movements such as the US-based MoveOn.org and global campaigners Avaaz.org, 38 Degrees aim to use the latest technologies to allow the public to take effective action as part of ongoing campaigns (38 Degrees, 2010a). 2009, June The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) dismisses UK PAC's proposals for a self-regulating lobby register; citing the fact that charities are different from organisations in the private sector and already regulated by the Charity Commission. The NCVO is, however, supportive of government proposals for a statutory register; proposals which are themselves to be based on the work of UK PAC. Chloe Stables, Parliamentary Officer of the NCVO, states that the NCVO will continue to work with UK PAC ‘to show how its register would impact on the Government's own plans, and now we will continue to work with it as it takes forward a statutory register’. Leigh Daynes, Plan UK Director of Communications, disagrees with the position of the NCVO, stating ‘I'm not sure how a register would work, and we do have umbrella organisations such as NCVO, so we would want to avoid duplication and waste’ (Cartmell, 2010). 2009, July 2nd Six months after the publication of its long-awaited report into lobbying, the PASC holds a session with representatives from the APPC, PRCA and CIPR Government Affairs Group (GAG) at Portcullis House, Westminster; in a move which Hall (2009) suggests ‘is being interpreted by industry observers as a sign from the committee… that its members are getting fed up with waiting and want a government response sooner rather than later’. Also invited to attend are a representative of the ‘Public Affairs Council Working Party’ and representatives from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT), Unlock Democracy and Friends of the Earth (Hall, 2009). 2009, September The shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, Conservative MP Francis Maude, declares that lobbying firms should publish their client lists and details of their full- and part-time staff, warning that ‘If the industry fails to self-regulate, it should be prepared for legislation that will ensure greater accountability’ (quoted in Singleton, 2009). Responding to these threats about the possible future introduction of tougher legislation, chair of the APPC Robbie MacDuff remarks: I think Maude's comments have been noted by a significant group of lobbyists outside of self-regulation at the moment. Sometimes it takes this kind of political interest to move forward those who have been resistant to taking seriously issues around accountability, transparency and openness. SpinWatch spokesperson David Miller comments ‘We are a bit sceptical about the plans. We think this is the Tories being soft on lobbyists’. Director of DLA Piper, Eben Black, welcomes additional Tory pronouncements on amending the solicitors’ code of conduct allowing solicitors’ firms that engage in lobbying to disclose their lobbying clients without breaching the code. Black remarks ‘We have been calling consistently for a statutory register’ (quoted in Singleton, 2009). 2009, October The government dismisses the PASC recommendations for a statutory register, arguing that the industry should be allowed to self-regulate. The government did accept the recommendation that all departments publish online quarterly reports outlining the details of ministerial meetings with external groups and hospitality received by ministers and advisers; and an extension to the list of civil servants required to publish details of their own hospitality and expenses details. However, the suggestion that details of meetings between officials and external groups should be published was rejected; and the government failed to suggest a timeframe within which the efficacy of industry self-regulation will be assessed (Mason, 2009). PASC’s chair, Dr Tony Wright MP, remarked that he was disappointed that the government had dismissed the idea of a statutory register; but maintained ‘this is where I think we will eventually end up’. Suggesting that ‘self-regulation is no regulation’, David Miller of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency commented that asking the public to trust lobbyists to operate transparently is akin to ‘asking us to trust MPs on expenses’. He added: The government has dropped the ball on political reform and ignored public concerns by refusing to force lobbyists to operate in the open. In June, Gordon Brown said that the future was about opening up areas of public life that have been too secretive. This must include the massive and growing influence commercial lobbying has on public life (Miller quoted in Mason, 2009). 2009, November The Twelfth Report, ‘MPs' expenses and allowances: Supporting Parliament, safeguarding the taxpayer’, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is published (Committee on Standards in Public Life, 2010). 2009, November Sir Philip Mawer - who from 2002 until 2008 was parliamentary commissioner for standards - agrees to chair an ‘implementation team’ for the new umbrella body UKPAC (PAN Staff, 2009). 2010, February SpinWatch publishes its report about lobbying within the financial services sector, ‘An Inside Job: A Snapshot of Political Schmoozing by the City’. Highlighting the lobbying ‘clout’ of consultancies such as Brunswick and Finsbury, the report also outlines tactics employed by industry bodies such as the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), concluding: We currently have no way of knowing what lobbying is under way in relation to banks and the financial sector, and how such lobbying might be harmful to the public interest. Transparency is needed if we're to have government accountability on these issues. Assistant director of the BBA, Brian Capon, responds saying: Of course we talk to ministers and other parliamentary officials - that's part of our job and the two-way communication is valuable in establishing a greater understanding between us. To suggest these meetings are 'secret' simply fuels the media hype that surrounds the issue, which brings us back to the reason why it's important for us to engage in lobbying in the first place - to put forward the industry's views and put the record straight (quoted in Singleton, 2010d). 2010, March 14th The Observer reports that ‘David Cameron’s drive to clean up politics is facing an embarrassing test’. It emerged that numerous prospective Tory MPs – including Priti Patel, Penny Mordaunt, and George Eustice - failed to declare in their election campaign material that they work for lobbying firms on behalf of big business. These ‘secret lobbyist candidates’ are the subject of an online ‘advertising blitz’ orchestrated by campaign group 38 Degrees (Mathiason, 2010). Mathiason (2010) notes that: The Observer is aware of a significant number of parliamentary candidates who will be unmasked in coming days as part of a co-ordinated campaign by Spinwatch and 38 Degrees aimed at introducing a statutory register of interests. This would force lobby firms and parliamentary candidates to clarify who they represent and work for. 2010, March 22nd Following the March 2010 Sunday Times and Dispatches joint exposé - in which senior politicians were recorded offering to help the private sector lobby the government - the Labour Government made an announcement on 22 March 2010 outlining its commitment to the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists. In an interview for Sky News, Foreign Secretary David Miliband remarked that ‘the Labour manifesto is going to say more about the need for a statutory register of the lobbying industry, because there is absolutely no room for the sort of innuendo or promises that seem to have been floated in this case’ (Jack and Couzens, 2010). Prior to the negative headlines, David Singleton of PR Week writes, ‘Labour insiders admitted the party had merely been 'considering' making a statutory code as a manifesto commitment’ (Singleton, 2010a). The Labour Government was not, however, alone in their attempts at damage limitation. Lobbyists were similarly provoked into ‘an impromptu PR offensive’ (Singleton, 2010b) with the aim of salvaging the industry's reputation. At the forefront of this were CIPR's former president Lionel Zetter and Warwick Smith of College Public Policy, who duly produced a series of ‘key media lines’ for those required to discuss the issue: ‘This is not about lobbyists; none were involved’; ‘It is about politicians doing things for which they were not elected’; ‘You can be a lobbyist or a legislator, but not both’; ‘It is frustrating that politicians are proposing tougher regulation of the industry when this issue is all about them, and the UK industry has put its house in order’ (Singleton, 2010b). Despite their best attempts to avoid this ‘tougher regulation of the industry’, Labour's plans for a statutory register of lobbyists were already in motion. Cabinet Office minister Angela Evans Smith wrote to Sir Philip Mawer, Chairman of UKPAC's Implementation Group, saying: As you know we have taken the decision to have a statutory register of lobbyists. The work that you and the Council are doing to produce a voluntary register will help in the work of delivering a statutory register and I would encourage those who are considering signing up to the voluntary register to do so (PAN Staff, 2010a). Writing in Public Affairs News, Mark Adams (Deputy Chairman of UKPAC's Implementation Group) responded, arguing that: [T]here are some serious issues about a statutory register that must be addressed. How will the enforcement of a statutory register be paid for? If, as some have argued, it is to be paid for by the 'lobbying industry', it will introduce an astonishing tax on democracy. Any organisation wishing to make its case to government or Parliament will first have to register and pay a fee to exercise its right to lobby. Is that desirable? (PAN Staff, 2010a). Adams adds that ‘Unlike some of the proposals that have emerged since last weekend from government and others, the PAC is not a knee-jerk reaction to unfavourable headlines. It is the product of careful and measured consideration over many months.’ (PAN Staff, 2010) This sentiment is echoed elsewhere within the industry. Francis Ingham of PRCA describes Labour's response as ‘A shameful, utterly cynical response. One of the worst examples I’ve ever seen of naked politics dressed up as moral outrage.’ Similarly, CIPR's Iain Anderson argues that Labour ‘spun this as a lobbying scandal when there were no lobbyists to be seen’. Tom Spencer from the European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA) argues that any commitment to a statutory register ‘should not have been made on such a ‘shoot from the hip’ basis’. Alastair Ross from the Association for Scottish Public Affairs (ASPA) suggests that Labour's proposal was ‘knee-jerk and misses the point’. Charles Lewington of Hanover concurs that Labour's plan is ‘a knee-jerk reaction’ (PAN Staff, 2010b). Several public affairs professionals do, however, back statutory legislation; such as Eben Black of DLA Piper UK LLP Global Government Relations and Chris Whitehouse of The Whitehouse Consultancy (Hall, 2010a). Whereas Francis Ingham of PRCA argues that the Conservatives are ‘right in resisting the temptation to match Labour’s volte face’, Alastair Ross from the Association for Scottish Public Affairs (ASPA) argues that the Conservative position ‘has changed with the public mood’ (PAN Staff, 2010). 2010, May The commitment to a statutory register became one of the concessions made by the Conservatives in securing their coalition with the Liberal Democrats (Hall, 2010b). On May 11 2010, a series of agreements was reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. With regard to political reform, the agreement document states: The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics (Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, 2010: 4). As PR Week journalist Singleton (2010c) observes, the UKPAC ‘is keen to exert influence over ministers' plans for a statutory register of lobbyists by coming up with the first detailed blueprint for such a scheme.’ Accordingly, CIPR's Iain Anderson remarks that ‘It is good news that... UK PAC [is welcomed] as the statutory model’ (PAN Staff, 2010b). In an interview with PR Week, Elizabeth France commented that her organisation's aim is a smooth transition between the self-regulating approach and the introduction of a statutory register. That will require us to understand the scope of the register envisaged by the Government and to see how far we can reach agreement to anticipate it (quoted in Singleton, 2010c). 2010, June Despite UKPAC favouring self-regulation, a ComRes poll of 285 public affairs practitioners published by Public Affairs News finds that a majority of lobbyists now support a statutory register. Sixty-two per cent of respondents supported the statutory register, with 20 per cent undecided and 17 per cent opposed. Furthermore, of those polled, only 55 per cent were 'familiar' with UKPAC; with 53 per cent believing that UKPAC still has time to play a role within the industry. Commenting on the findings, the APPC remarked that: [T]he results reflect the wide array of views among PA professionals and, indeed, APPC members. We believe that self-regulation works and that UK PAC has a vital role to play in extending transparency across the wider industry. Nevertheless, the APPC is not necessarily antagonistic towards a statutory system of registration. The PRCA, on the other hand, responded saying: We are loathe to be dismissive of any poll, but the picture it paints of industry enthusiasm for government action bears little relation to the reality we see. The simple, settled majority view of the industry is that self-regulation works (quoted in Hall, 2010b). A poll of lobbying firms carried out by the APPC yielded similar results. While three quarters of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that self-regulation was working, the same proportion would support a statutory register - only if it included all lobbyists. While 64% of those polled agreed that a statutory register would be more effective than self-regulation, 83% were in favour of the ethics and activities of lobbyists being regulated by an umbrella body established by trade associations - rather than by a mandatory regulation introduced by the Government (Miller and Wicks, 2010). 2010, June Labour MP for Wigan Lisa Nandy submits a written question about the timeline of plans for the statutory register to the Conservatives' Mark Harper. Nandy remarks: It was one of the pledges in the Coalition Agreement [published by the Conservatives/Lib Dems in May] that raised more questions than it answered. I’m keen to see more transparency in politics but it’s not at all clear from the detail released so far how the government intends to achieve it (quoted in Hall, 2010d). In responding, Harper - who has ministerial responsibility for Political and Constitutional Reform – states: Ministers will meet representatives of the UK Public Affairs Council shortly to discuss how to create the most effective register, on a statutory footing. We hope to publish detailed plans in the autumn (quoted in Hall, 2010d). 2010, June 29th Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins lodges the following Early Day Motion regarding a statutory register of lobbyists, attracting 104 signatures: That this House notes the commitment by the new coalition Government to establish a statutory register of lobbyists; recalls the personal commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce a statutory register; believes that such a register should be independently managed and enforced, that it should include information provided by both lobbyists and those being lobbied and provisions ensuring effective financial disclosure; and calls on the Government to bring forward the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency (Hopkins, 2010). 2010, July The UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC) is officially established. UKPAC is an umbrella organisation formed by representatives from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA); which ostensibly ‘promotes and upholds effective self-regulation for those engaged in public affairs’ by the means of the quarterly publication of a voluntary register of lobbyists (UK Public Affairs Council, 2010a). UKPAC employs the following definition of lobbying: Lobbying means in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wish to influence, the UK Government, Parliament, the devolved legislatures or administrations, regional or local government or other public bodies on any matter within their competence. This covers members who spend all or a significant amount of their time (for example at least 20% of their professional working time) on lobbying activities. Members who do less than 20% may register at their discretion (Chartered Institute of Public Relations, 2010). The aim of UKPAC is, according to the official terms of reference: to promote public confidence in those who, in a professional capacity, undertake lobbying by encouraging and sustaining high ethical standards, transparency and accountability amongst those whom the Council regulates. It will offer a system of voluntary regulation to ensure that all those involved in lobbying institutions of government can be governed by a clear set of principles, underpinned by enforceable Codes of Conduct. Further, it will assist public confidence by establishing a publicly accessible Register of those involved in lobbying, indicating the organisations on whose behalf they are lobbying (UK Public Affairs Council, 2010b). The CIPR ‘sees UK PAC as an opportunity to create a meaningful register which distinguishes between those [lobbyists] who are ethical and transparent, and those who are not’ (Chartered Institute of Public Relations, 2010). However, the self-regulatory model espoused by UKPAC has been subject to extensive criticism. Speaking following the launch of UKPAC, Tamasin Cave of the Allliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT) - a coalition of civil society groups which campaigns for a mandatory register - remarked that: This is the old system of self-regulation by another name, a system that was described last year by the influential Public Administration Select Committee as 'little better than the emperor’s new clothes'. Recent events show such a voluntary system to be totally ineffective. UKPAC is yesterday's solution. Joining UKPAC is voluntary, which means that lobbyists will continue to hide who they are lobbying for simply by not signing up. As a result, the public will stay in the dark over who is lobbying to change government policy, whether it’s defence companies bidding for multi-million pound contracts, private healthcare companies influencing NHS decisions, or supermarkets fighting new labeling rules (Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, 2010). 2010, July 12th Labour MP Austin Mitchell lodges the following Early Day Motion regarding a statutory register of lobbyists, attracting 21 signatures: That this House welcomes the commitment by the Coalition Government to introduce a statutory register of political lobbyists; notes that a recent ComRes survey finds that such an approach would have the support of 62 per cent. of lobbyists; expresses its concern, however, that unless underpinned by a statutory code of ethical practice to which registrants would have to adhere, the implied credibility of statutory registration could be enjoyed by practitioners who do not act ethically and who indeed may even breach the law; observes that such a situation would be completely unacceptable; and urges the Government to ensure that from the moment of its introduction the registration process includes a specific obligation to comply with statutory ethical principles (Mitchell, 2010). 2010, July 27th The Coalition Government publishes a report on July 27th 2010 outlining target dates for political reform. As part of its measures to improve transparency, the report indicates that the process to introduce legislation to implement a statutory register would commence on November 2011 (HM Government, 2010: 6). 2010, July 29th The debate turns to the role of think-tanks within lobbying legislation. The blueprints developed by UK PAC as yet omit think-tanks from a statutory register. The (voluntary) register employed by the European Commission, on the other hand, features a sub-category for think-tanks; with 95 currently registered. However, as Public Affairs News journalist Hall (2010c) suggests: the think-tank landscape is tricky to delineate, populated on its nebulous fringes by some organisations, alliances and councils that are little more than corporate front-groups. 2010, November 15th PR Week reports that CIPR members who lobby are ‘urged to sign up to the UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC)’s lobby register within the next 10 weeks. Those who fail to register by the end of January will face ‘non-compliance sanctions’ from the CIPR (PAN Staff, 2010c).

2011

===February=== UKPAC’s register is expected to launch publicly. It will be electronically searchable (PAN Staff, 2010c).

Bibliography

•*38 Degrees (2010a) ‘About 38 Degrees’, http://38degrees.org.uk/pages/about38degrees accessed 20.11.10

Notes

  1. ↑ Public Affairs Links, 2007
  2. ↑ Burrell, 2006
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Lobbying_regulation_-_chronology_2010-2019&oldid=159234"