25 January 2008 

The second session of the Public Administration Select Committee Inquiry into Lobbying saw three members of the new Alliance for Lobbying Transparency underline the urgent need to reform the rules governing lobbyists.

Giving evidence were Prof. David Miller and Dr William Dinan of Spinwatch and the University of Strathclyde, and Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy.

“This inquiry is part of a wider discussion about the disconnection from politics and the political process,” said Peter Facey opening the session. “What’s particularly worrying,” he said, “is the public perception that in politics powerful interest groups have a great deal more influence than ordinary voters.”

David Miller began by stating the need for regulation of lobbyists. Citing the recent case of the charitable trust TOAST, a lobbying front group that misled MPs over its sources of funding, he underlined the need for a regulatory system to include the range of different actors now engaged in lobbying.

He also drew attention to the question of privileged access to both civil servants and MPs. “It is a democratic right to be able to access decision-makers,” he said, “However, we need a level playing field.” Some of the techniques and tactics employed by some lobbyists undermine the democratic system, he said.

William Dinan underlined the point that transparency in lobbying doesn’t just mean openness between the individuals involved. “Wider society has an interest in this,” he said. “The public have a right to know who is trying to influence policy.” He added that he saw lobbying transparency as a positive initiative and one of the only ways we have of combating a decline in trust in politics. A register of lobbyists, he said, would be a positive and enabling thing for both the public and MPs and officials.

Questions put to the panel in the course of the session covered a range of concerns. A number of the committee focused on the question of how much influence lobbyists actually had on MPs and whether, in today’s more open government, there was a problem with privileged access. Conservative MP and former lobbyist, Charles Walker put it to Miller and Dinan: “You think there is a coordinated conspiracy by business to corrupt democratic systems around the world.” “You are basically conspiracy theorists,” he said – a claim strongly rejected by Miller.

Will Dinan said the reason why corporations invest in lobbying is that they believe it can be successful. He drew attention to research by civil society group, Public Citizen in the US that showed that for every $1 spent on lobbying, commercial interests expected to enjoy a $100 return.

David Miller highlighted the massive increase in the influence industry and lobbying consultancy since the 1980s as a sign of the growing influence of lobbying on decision-making. However, he also stressed that business is only one sector engaged in lobbying - trade unions, NGOs and others lobby too. What’s important, he said, is that lobbying is transparent and that there is a level playing field for all actors.

The concern was also raised by the committee that greater transparency may in fact further undermine trust in the political system. Some members noted that transparency rules for MPs, for example the introduction of a register of MPs interests, had had the unintended consequence of undermining trust in politicians. “If we have transparency,” replied Peter Facey, “we can deal with facts.” If you don’t have transparency and therefore evidence, he said, it could lead to conspiracy theories because people simply don’t know.

David Miller also cited evidence from the US and the role regulation plays in flushing out lobbying corruption, as in the case of Jack Abramoff. Looked at positively, it would help to improve the behaviour of some lobbyists, he said. The point was concluded by Peter Facey: “Knowing about a problem is the first stage to tackling it… Not knowing about a problem is worse.”

The question of whether regulation should apply equally to both the voluntary and business sectors was also raised by the committee. Would it not act as a barrier to smaller campaigning groups? Peter Facey made it clear that the panel was not looking to deter people from participating in politics, quite the contrary.

He stressed that there should be an appropriate threshold below which smaller groups – or larger organisations which spend a small amount of money on lobbying – should not be captured by transparency rules. “We need appropriate regulation,” he said, adding that this was not a “crusade against business.” David Miller cited research conducted in the US that showed that lobbying transparency rules had in fact had a positive effect on political engagement by making the political landscape more open and easier to understand.

The panel also responded to questions relating to commercial confidentiality and the difficulty some felt would arise from lawyers disclosing clients (on a register). This has not been the experience in other jurisdictions that have introduced lobbying transparency rules, including the US, Canada and Australia. “It’s a misplaced issue,” David Miller said.

The ethical conduct of lobbyists was also raised. Lobbying involves more than contacting ministers and civil servants and advising on policy processes. Some of the tactics and techniques employed by lobbyists undermined the democratic process, said David Miller. The example of lobbying firm PPS, which has been accused of creating fake letter writing campaigns to support various developments, was brought up by one member of the committee.

David Miller confirmed that the ‘third party technique’ is a standard and very widely used technique of lobbyists and PR professionals.  He underlined the need to outlaw deceitful practices like fake letter writing campaigns. It is legitimate for your mother to write to an MP on a particular issue, he said. It is not okay for lobbyists to create fictitious people, or use people’s names and addresses without their consent or knowledge to fake support for a particular position.

Finally, members of the committee wanted to know whether the panel members regarded themselves as lobbyists and if they thought regulation should apply to them. All agreed that as people who engaged in lobbying, it should. Peter Facey, director of a campaigning NGO, said: “You as MPs do have a right to know what sources of funding I have, and judge how that influences what I say.” Transparency is key.

The session can be watched on Parliament TV.