The first session of the Select Committee Inquiry into lobbying kicked off on Thursday morning (29 Nov) with evidence from three MPs: John Grogan, Peter Luff and Stephan Pound. The Inquiry is looking into the transparency of the lobbying industry, the effectiveness of recent attempts at self-regulation, and whether or not the rules for those in Parliament and government should be changed.
In May, Grogan joined forces with the Association of Professional Parliamentary Consultants (APPC) to encourage the 20-25 per cent of the lobbying industry firms that currently refuse to participate in self-regulation to sign up to the recognised codes of conduct.
Peter Luff, a former lobbyist at Bell Pottinger firm Good Relations, repeatedly took the industry line. In his written evidence to the Committee, he fails to see that there is a problem and has accused the APPC of seeking to “promote concern about this issue [of transparency in lobbying] with a view to enhancing the commercial prospects of its own members.”
The reason given for Stephen Pound being called was because he once said: “lobbying is the most flagrant waste of money in modern politics.” This was a point expanded on later by Committee Member Charles Walker MP, also a former lobbyist. The suggestion being that the problem with lobbying is not that it’s too influential but that it much of it is ineffectual (and presumably therefore not worth investigating).
Grogan began by explaining his central concern: that for self-regulation to work, all lobbying firms need to subscribe to the two major principles of self-regulation – publishing clients and not paying MPs and peers. Bell Pottinger was cited as a case where only some clients were made public while client confidentially was deemed necessary for others on the grounds of national or private security issues.
In the US, Gorgan continued, it would be entirely unacceptable for a lobbing firm to keep secret the fact that it was working for foreign governments when former members of political parties were on the staff. Bell Pottinger, for example, employs among others Tony Blair’s former pollster and it has represented the governments of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. “The idea that they should be working for foreign governments without declaring it is an affront to our democracy,” he said.
“Openness and transparency are vital in lobbying,” agreed Luff. His central and often repeated point, however, was that the industry doesn’t pose a problem and that in fact, if anything as an MP, he’s too aware of lobbyists, “the industry is sometimes too transparent”. However, “there are cases when confidentiality really matters,” he said. According to him, lobbyists provide not access but vital advice because businesses, unlike NGOs, don’t know how to talk to Government.
“Influence is very widely spread in our society,” Luff claimed. Again, there’s no problem with privileged access – any promises by lobbyists that they can provide access for paying clients are “generally exaggerated”. At one point former lobbyist Charles Walker on the Committee also underlined this “need to deconstruct the myth of access” created by lobbyists. Luff, however, did admit that MPs live in the real world. “We know people; we have friends. Regulating for this is terribly difficult.”
Luff, the most eager of the three MPs, went on to say: “Defining lobbying is the most difficult challenge this committee faces – where does it begin and end?” Pound sensibly disagreed. (If you follow the passage of regulation in the US, it’s clear that a broad and slippery definition of lobbying was one of the key issues that held up introducing rules on transparency). Chairman of the Committee Tony Wright seemed to agree that the Committee should be focusing instead on the interface between Parliament and anyone trying to influence it rather than trying to define it.
Self-regulation works, according to Luff, because lobbyists abide by certain rules. Key among these is that they disclose the identity of their clients when making representations to minister and officials. When asked what would happen if this rule was broken and the person lobbied was kept in the dark, Luff replied “good point.” There are no sanctions.
The first session of the Select Committee Inquiry into lobbying kicked off on Thursday morning (29 Nov) with evidence from three MPs: John Grogan, Peter Luff and Stephan Pound. The Inquiry is looking into the transparency of the lobbying industry, the effectiveness of recent attempts at self-regulation, and whether or not the rules for those in Parliament and government should be changed.
In May, Grogan joined forces with the Association of Professional Parliamentary Consultants (APPC) to encourage the 20-25 per cent of the lobbying industry firms that currently refuse to participate in self-regulation to sign up to the recognised codes of conduct.
Peter Luff, a former lobbyist at Bell Pottinger firm Good Relations, repeatedly took the industry line. In his written evidence to the Committee, he fails to see that there is a problem and has accused the APPC of seeking to “promote concern about this issue [of transparency in lobbying] with a view to enhancing the commercial prospects of its own members.”
The reason given for Stephen Pound being called was because he once said: “lobbying is the most flagrant waste of money in modern politics.” This was a point expanded on later by Committee Member Charles Walker MP, also a former lobbyist. The suggestion being that the problem with lobbying is not that it’s too influential but that it much of it is ineffectual (and presumably therefore not worth investigating).
Grogan began by explaining his central concern: that for self-regulation to work, all lobbying firms need to subscribe to the two major principles of self-regulation – publishing clients and not paying MPs and peers. Bell Pottinger was cited as a case where only some clients were made public while client confidentially was deemed necessary for others on the grounds of national or private security issues.
In the US, Gorgan continued, it would be entirely unacceptable for a lobbing firm to keep secret the fact that it was working for foreign governments when former members of political parties were on the staff. Bell Pottinger, for example, employs among others Tony Blair’s former pollster and it has represented the governments of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. “The idea that they should be working for foreign governments without declaring it is an affront to our democracy,” he said.
“Openness and transparency are vital in lobbying,” agreed Luff. His central and often repeated point, however, was that the industry doesn’t pose a problem and that in fact, if anything as an MP, he’s too aware of lobbyists, “the industry is sometimes too transparent”. However, “there are cases when confidentiality really matters,” he said. According to him, lobbyists provide not access but vital advice because businesses, unlike NGOs, don’t know how to talk to Government.
“Influence is very widely spread in our society,” Luff claimed. Again, there’s no problem with privileged access – any promises by lobbyists that they can provide access for paying clients are “generally exaggerated”. At one point former lobbyist Charles Walker on the Committee also underlined this “need to deconstruct the myth of access” created by lobbyists. Luff, however, did admit that MPs live in the real world. “We know people; we have friends. Regulating for this is terribly difficult.”
Luff, the most eager of the three MPs, went on to say: “Defining lobbying is the most difficult challenge this committee faces – where does it begin and end?” Pound sensibly disagreed. (If you follow the passage of regulation in the US, it’s clear that a broad and slippery definition of lobbying was one of the key issues that held up introducing rules on transparency). Chairman of the Committee Tony Wright seemed to agree that the Committee should be focusing instead on the interface between Parliament and anyone trying to influence it rather than trying to define it.
Self-regulation works, according to Luff, because lobbyists abide by certain rules. Key among these is that they disclose the identity of their clients when making representations to minister and officials. When asked what would happen if this rule was broken and the person lobbied was kept in the dark, Luff replied “good point.” There are no sanctions.
Watch it here.