Tamasin Cave | ukwatch.net

Lobbyists on the attack

Alex Doherty — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:01:04 +0000

“That’s an oxymoron,” quipped new, New Labour lobbyist Derek Draper, responding to a flyer on ‘lobbying transparency’, promoting a fringe meeting at this year’s Labour conference. Ten years out of the game and he’s as candid as ever.

Beneath the stories that dominated the headlines at conference – Brown’s future and the country’s fortunes – another issue was brewing. That of lobbyists and their licence to operate under the radar of public scrutiny.

The lobbyists in Manchester found themselves the focus of debate thanks to two back-to-back fringe meetings, one organised by the industry’s trade body, the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC), the other by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT). ALT is a coalition of civil society groups, including Friends of the Earth, National Union of Journalists, Unlock Democracy and SpinWatch, who are concerned about the influence professional lobbyists have on public policy and the lack of transparency in the industry.

Some lobbyists were possibly lured to ALT’s debate, Will Lobbyists Come Clean?, keen to be the first to read a new report by SpinWatch, which was launched at the event. The report, Spinning the Wheels: a guide to the PR and lobbying industry in the UK takes readers on a walking tour of the major players in the industry around Westminster, examining the links between their lobbyists and UK politics and revealing some of the industry’s common techniques and tactics.

The fringe debate touched on much of the same ground covered by the Parliamentary inquiry into lobbying, which is due to report this autumn. Speakers John Grogan MP, David Miller of SpinWatch, Jon McLeod, UK Chairman of Public Affairs at lobbying firm Weber Shandwick, and Stephen Kingston, editor of the local grassroots magazine the Salford Star presented and debated many of the current concerns people have with professional lobbying. These include: the absence of transparency in the industry; the disparity in resources and access to political decision-makers between corporate lobbyists and the public; the revolving door between the lobbying industry and MPs, Peers and government officials; the apparent unethical behaviour of some lobbying firms and the weakness of self-regulation to prevent it; and the value of ‘community consultations’ conducted by PR and lobbying firms on behalf of commercial interests such as developers.

Not long into the debate, heckling from the back began. Someone wishing to speak claimed that the level of debate was “low” and the speakers were being “naïve” (which given the collective experience of the panel came as something of a surprise). When it came to questions at the end, lobbyist Robbie MacDuff rose to say his piece. MacDuff is a lobbyist formerly with Ian Greer Associates, now with Precise Public Affairs. He was recently appointed head of the APPC, the trade body established in the wake of scandals in the nineties involving Ian Greer Associates, to set standards and improve transparency in lobbying through self-regulation.

In a lengthy speech, and reading from cards, MacDuff set out to defend the lobbying industry. What we need is transparency in charities, he said; lobbyists work pro-bono for good causes; regulation of lobbyists would create an exclusive ‘elite’ and deter others from lobbying etc. As he continued another member of the audience thought to ask him if he was in fact the fifth member of the panel, so intent was he on holding the floor. Chair Nigel Pivaro, formerly bad boy Terry Duckworth in Coronation Street, stepped in on a number of occasions to try and stem the flow, only managing to stop MacDuff with a look that was pure Terry.

Despite the barracking from the back row, the panel and audience – made up of progressive business, NGO workers, local councillors, media and lobbyists – debated the issues for a further hour, raising questions, dispelling myths and unpicking arguments. And while some stayed on for a drink, others went back to the day job, lobbying into the night.

According to sources, the APPC’s own event on lobbying the following morning passed without incident. With this fringe meeting held inside the secure zone, only those with conference passes were able to attend.

Tesco and BAA coy over lobbying in the face of evidence

tim — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:40:44 +0000

The penultimate evidence session of the current Parliamentary inquiry into lobbying offered a strange mix of obfuscation and revelation. In the first of two separate sessions were representatives of three of the UK’s most powerful companies; Lucy Neville-Rolfe for Tesco, Tom Kelly for BAA and Chris Brinsmead for AstraZeneca.

The Committee of MPs, said its chair Tony Wright, had called them in to find out what they get up to in terms of lobbying, and how they would feel about transparency regulations to open up the world of lobbying to greater public scrutiny.

The next hour and twenty minutes of questions and answers had a familiarity to it, certainly from the point of view of the Committee and anyone who’d listened to previous sessions with lobbyists. Answers were guarded, questions were side stepped and the witnesses were defensive. This despite Tony Wright’s reassurance that lobbying could be seen as a good thing, and a warning at the top of the session for the three to avoid being ‘coy’ in their responses. “Don’t come here to lobby us,” Wright advised. “I want you to tell us like it is”.

Many would be hard pushed to recognise the picture then painted by the witnesses. All three, it seems, were working not for profit, but for the public good, whether it was working to prevent climate change or helping the Government to encourage more science students. According to Neville-Rolfe, Tesco has a ‘dialogue’ with Government (it’s all about dialogue) to explain what they think should be done to help Britain. “It’s a win, win” for Tesco and the country, she said. Similarly Brinsmead saw his drug company working “to the same ends” as the NHS.

Given this ‘constructive dialogue’, one wonders why the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, of which Brinsmead is the President, needed to draw up a lobbying ‘battle’ plan, which Tony Wright had got his hands on. In it, according to Wright, the ABPI talked about ‘deploying ground troops’ to ‘weaken political and professional defences’, after which it planned to ‘follow through with high precision strikes on specific regulatory enclaves in Whitehall and Brussels.’ Quite a different picture of lobbying.

On the issue of the revolving door and privileged access to decision-makers, Tom Kelly, who was Tony Blair’s spokesman at No10 until he moved to BAA, suggested that MPs were vastly overstating his role in Government and therefore his access and influence. In response to a question about the size of his contacts book, Kelly – the man who replaced Alastair Campbell – replied that they extended as far as the press officers of Government departments.

All of which led Tony Wright to say, at the beginning of the next session, that it had been quite difficult to work out how central lobbying is to these three companies. The second session heard from John Sauven of Greenpeace, Owen Espley of Friends of the Earth, and Tim Hancock of Amnesty.

Information flowed much more freely during this next hour, with evidence of lobbying by BAA, Tesco and the nuclear industry all under the spotlight. The previous assertion by the corporate representatives – that open dialogue with Government was necessary for better public policy making – was also put into some doubt by Espley describing the lobbying activities of the Confederation of British Industry.

In July 2005, he explained, Friends of the Earth requested details of meetings between the CBI and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) that had taken place shortly after the last General Election. At the time, Friends of the Earth was concerned that the CBI had been making exaggerated claims over the costs of environmental regulation, claims the Government seemed to be taking at face value. Requests by Friends of the Earth under the Freedom of Information Act of details of meetings between the CBI and the then DTI had been refused.

At the beginning of May 2008, however, the Information Tribunal ruled that the government should disclose the information, stating: “In our view, there is a strong public interest in understanding how lobbyists, particularly those given privileged access, are attempting to influence government so that other supporting or counterbalancing views can be put to government to help ministers and civil servants make best policy.” Clearly making the case for lobbying transparency regulation.

Had lobbying by the nuclear industry had an impact on the Government’s decision to support a new nuclear energy programme, the witnesses were asked by Gordon Prentice MP. John Sauven pointed to the extraordinary lobbying power of the nuclear industry just from the revolving door. Former MPs, MEPs and Ministers Jack Cunningham, Richard Caborn, Ian McCartney, Brian Wilson and Alan Donnelly are all now employed by the nuclear industry with obvious influence. By contrast, Sauven went on, the first public consultation on nuclear power had been rejected by the High Court for being deeply flawed.

One of the cases of improper lobbying Sauven recounted was the collusion that went on between the Department for Transport (DfT) and BAA over the consultation on Heathrow expansion, where the two bodies, having made their decision, then attempted to reverse engineer the outcome. This “almost fraudulent” process only came to light after sifting through a lot of requests under the Freedom of Information Act. It was only from this information that concerned MPs and campaigners were able to piece together just how embedded and how influential BAA was in the DfT.

The obvious imbalance in lobbying resources between local community groups and companies like Tesco was also raised by Espley. Quoting a report by Friends of the Earth into how supermarkets get their way in planning decisions (PDF), he described a case in Dartford where developers lobbied to change the area’s Local Plan to include specific proposals which would allow for a new Tesco. The Plan was duly changed. It was only after a Public Inquiry that permission for the new development was withdrawn, the proposals “having not been the subject of full statutory examination” in the words of the Planning Inspector.

Espley asked the Committee to remember the local communities “meeting on a wet Tuesday evening in their community centre”, without the small army of lawyers, planning specialists, PR consultants and seemingly unlimited funds Tesco and others employ. People who bother to get involved in civic matters need to know that the system is working for them too, he said. It’s not a case of corporate versus community – none of the witnesses were anti-business – merely that for the public to have faith in decision-making, there needs to be more transparency.

The sum of these two sessions finally brought some clarity to the inquiry. Back in January Paul Flynn MP, voiced his frustration with witnesses from the lobbying industry: “We’re not really getting to the truth on this,” he said. This week’s complete lack of candor from the corporates – coupled with hard evidence from experienced NGOs – exposed the Committee to some truths and the urgent need for transparency in lobbying.

The latest session can be watch on Parliament TV (available for 28 days after the session). A transcript of the session will be available on the Public Administration Select Committee’s Inquiry into Lobbying webpage.

"The public has no right to know"

tim — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:52:37 +0000

We’re now about halfway through the Parliamentary inquiry into lobbying- the first in the UK for 17 years. When it was announced, Peter Bingle (head of lobbying firm Bell Pottinger Public Affairs) made it known what he thought of the inquiry: “There is no point rehearsing in public the view that we welcome the inquiry. We don’t,” he said. “The real issue is that the industry needs a public voice with the ability to make a convincing case and to disarm the doubters.”

Bingle got the opportunity to make his case during the latest inquiry session. He was called to give evidence alongside lobbyist Mike Granatt of Luther Pendragon, both as representatives of lobbying firms opposed to greater transparency and the disclosure of clients. In a separate session, MPs also heard from Eben Black, a lobbyist with law firm DLA Piper and Richard Schofield of the Law Society. For lobbyists opposed to greater regulation, Bingle and Granatt made a good case for the introduction of transparency rules.

Both alleged (and were backed up later by Black) that the current system of self-regulation was not fit for purpose. The code of conduct operated by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC)- which, in a bid to increase transparency, requires members to disclose their clients on a register – was regularly being breached, they said. Granatt suggested that lobbying firms that didn’t want to reveal certain clients merely set up separate companies which weren’t members of the APPC. “It’s a slippery business,” noted MP Gordon Prentice.

Much of the session was devoted to the ethical conduct of lobbyists. Reputation was everything in this business said Bingle, claiming that Lord Bell (chairman of Bell Pottinger, pictured) wouldn’t allow them to do anything that might damage their reputation. He went as far as saying that it was because Bell Pottinger operated to the highest standards that they were the biggest lobbying firm in the UK. Paul Flynn MP wasn’t impressed: “You’ve worked for mass murders, racists, people who’ve oppressed their own people…Doesn’t the public have a right to know who your clients are?” he asked. No, replied Bingle, “the public has no right to know.” In contrast, Eben Black advocated the introduction of a mandatory register of lobbyists and their clients held by Parliament, it being the only way to supersede the current rules for lawyers on client disclosure. This he said was superior to today’s voluntary system, which isn’t monitored and includes no sanctions.

Former lobbyist and member of the select committee Charles Walker MP then attacked Black’s suggestion of transparency regulations with some now well-rehearsed arguments from the industry. 1) How can you have a register of lobbyists when it’s so hard to define what constitutes lobbying? Black came back with a very neat definition of ‘lobbying’. 2) The financial burden of regulation would squeeze out smaller operators in the industry. Black again: “What financial resources would we need to put our names and clients on a register?” 3) More openness and transparency would lead not to greater public trust but further scandal and public cynicism. Black, a former Sun journalist, disagreed: “If there was more openness, there would be fewer stories,” he said.

Black obviously made an impression on Walker unlike Mike Granatt who he suggested had become “rather toxic in the private sector” since his resignation over the news that he had lied to journalists while spokesman for client Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons. At the end of the session Walker approached Black and said: “If I was the Speaker, I would have hired you. Well done.”

Lobbying Inquiry: MPs Give Evidence

Tim Holmes — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:37:24 +0000

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.