Just another deluded lobbyist?

So, this Mr Fred Michel fellow, as he is now being called by the Conservatives, is a just a lobbyist trying to impress his boss, James Murdoch, claiming access he never had.

The 163 pages of emails released today by the Leveson inquiry are, say defenders of Jeremy Hunt, just a PR man showing off.

The emails show that Hunt’s office was in regular contact with Michel. For example, one reads: “Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow (although absolutely illegal!),”  referring to intelligence they'd gathered on a parliamentary statement Hunt was due to make. Another shows that when Hunt cancels a meeting with James Murdoch because he has received "very strong legal advice not to meet us today as the current process is treated as a judicial one", Michel reports to his boss that he can still talk to him on his mobile phone "which is completely fine"

And the government's response? Tonight Downing Street is insisting that Michel’s emails reflect “a whole series of conversations that didn’t take place ”.

Remember the government's response to the previous lobbying scandal, the cash-for-access one involving Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas. He claimed on film that that large cash payments could secure dinner with the prime minister and an opportunity to influence government policy. The government's response then was that it was a lot of bluster, that no one in the Number 10 policy unit ever met anyone at Peter Cruddas's request, and that Cruddas certainly had never been near Cameron's flat. Again, one man's boasts. Move on.

Or the scandal before that? The one involving lobbyists at Bell Pottinger again caught on film claiming access and influence with No10. A Downing Street spokesman came back with a familiar retort: "It is simply untrue to say that Bell Pottinger or any other lobbying company influences government". No truth to the claims of access and influence. Just more boasts.

What about the one before that? When attempts were made to paint Adam Werritty, the unofficial adviser-cum-lobbyist to now ex-defence secretary Liam Fox, as a Walter Mitty character, someone who indulged in fantasy, who "pretended he was something he wasn't". Another deluded lobbyist.

Will they try it again? Probably. Or will they finally face the fact that we have a problem with lobbying in this country and actually do something about it. Who knows.

Big shout for lobbying transparency

20 April 2012

Today, as the official consultation on proposals to introduce transparency regulations for lobbyists comes to an end, campaigners sent a big message to the government calling for it to rethink its plans.

Members of Unlock Democracy and 38 Degrees handed over a huge petition of over 74,000 signatures from members of the public calling for an end to secrecy in lobbying.

The petition calls on the government to create a robust compulsory register of lobbyists, which would reveal who is lobbying whom, what is being discussed and how much money is being spent on lobbying. It also calls for the whole of the lobbying industry to be covered by the new rules, not just the minority of agency lobbyists that the government currently proposes. 

Over 1,300 members of the public submitted full consultation responses to the government through Unlock Democracy's website.

Campaigners also handed over a letter to Mark Harper, the Conservative minister responsible for introducing the news rules, from a coalition of 30 charities and campaign groups, calling for the same: a robust register that includes meaningful information, covering all professional lobbyists. Many of the signatories are lobbyists themselves and expect to be covered by the register.

The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency has also just submitted its response to the consultation. It can be downloaded here.

Event: Lobby Mark Harper MP on lobbying transparency

ALT member, Unlock Democracy is hosting an evening with Mark Harper, the minister in charge of lobbying reform, and special guests from the local community to talk about opening up lobbying.

The government has been holding a consultation on lobbying which is quickly coming to an end on the 13th April 2012. Be part of the debate and tell Mark Harper what you think. He will be answering questions and listening to your views.

Sign up to the event here. 

Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:30 - 20:30pm

Birmingham Midland Institute
Margaret Street
Birmingham, B3 3BS

Google Map

David Cameron's diary won't solve the lobbying crisis

{mosimage}Only a robust lobbying register – not politicians' diary notes – can curb private interests' influence over government policy; reposted from Guardian Comment is Free, 27 March 2012.

In May 2008, just a week after being elected mayor, Boris Johnson received a an invitation from City lobbyist Roland Rudd: "Would you like to have dinner with me and a small group of senior chairmen and chief executives who would be fascinated to hear your plans for London," wrote Rudd.

Johnson was "pleased to accept" and duly cycled to Rudd's grand house in Kensington for a 7.30pm "meet and greet". After 25 minutes, the guests were seated, and at precisely 8.05pm, starters served. Ten minutes passed before Rudd made introductions, and at 8.20pm Johnson said a few words ("standing at the table"). At 8.25pm, the mains arrived. Boris was away by bike at 10.30pm. This much we know (from documents released by the mayor's office under freedom of information). What we don't know is what was discussed in the course of the three-hour dinner: what information was shared, and on which policy matters the mayor was lobbied. Were any promises made or deals struck?

And now we are to know the supper arrangements of the prime minister, who has offered to publish quarterly his dinners with donors. Don't be fooled. We will similarly learn very little of consequence from such disclosure. More importantly, this small offering of transparency is being served up by the government at a time when it is actively engaged in limiting public scrutiny of lobbying.

Read more: David Cameron's diary won't solve the lobbying crisis

Cash for Cameron

24 March 2012

Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency on today's Cash for Cameron scandal:

"The filming by undercover reporters for the Sunday Times sheds light on a state of affairs long understand by the public, and frankly admitted by Cameron two years ago:

"Lobbying – we all know how it works", he said in a speech on rebuilding trust in politics. "The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear... helping big business find the right way to get its way... with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest."

But, the government's current plans to regulate lobbying are a joke, compared to the scale of the problem as revealed by Cruddas. As they stand, the proposals would touch only a quarter of the lobbying industry (and not the lobbyist, Sarah Southern, hired by the journalists, as she points out); and would require lobbyists to reveal no meaningful information.

Surely now Cameron can see the sense in bringing in real transparency in lobbying with a robust register. We urgently need to see who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.

An end to this secrecy

6 March 2012

DOWNLOAD ALT's BRIEFING: Bringing Transparency to Lobbying.

{mosimage}Lobbyists are paid to influence government decisions. There are some 4000 people working professionally in the UK's £2billion influence industry.

Many lobbyists are former MPs, some are Peers, or ex-senior officials, partners and neighbours of Cabinet Ministers, former flatmates and old colleagues of current politicians.

The biggest spenders on lobbying are large companies, for whom lobbying is a tactical investment: the aim of it is to benefit their bottom line, often against the public interest.

This much we know. But, at the moment in the UK, we've no right to know who is lobbying whom, and for what.

This could be about to change. The coalition government has agreed in principle to open up lobbying with a compulsory register of lobbyists. But their current proposals, published in January, are a sham.

We now have a rare opportunity to expose the influence industry, and help change the back-room deal nature of politics. Find out how.

Government lobbying reforms in disarray

29 Jan 2012
Reports this morning that the Cabinet Office official in charge of government efforts to clean-up of lobbying has stepped down after posting a message on Twitter saying she hoped a group fighting for better regulation of the industry “would die”.

The remark appeared in a series of tweets by Eirian Walsh Atkins, who resigned as head of constitutional policy at the Cabinet Office on Friday. She now faces an internal investigation into possible breaches of the civil service code of conduct.

According to the Daily Mail: 'Walsh Atkins will be asked to explain the tweet she posted on December 22, saying: “I wish Unlock Democracy [the campaign group] would die. I am prepared to help it along.”

 Asked to explain her comment about Unlock Democracy, she replied: “That I don’t like them,” and hung up.

However, more important than her apparent dislike of transparency campaigners is the fact that Walsh Atkins has held regular meetings with lobbyists seeking to influence the government's proposed statutory register of lobbyists, which she was responsible for preparing. She has met with the UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC), a lobby industry body promoting self-regulation, on at least four occasions since September 2010. At the same time, transparency campaigners have been denied access.

The government's proposals for a statutory register, published last week, were widely seen as a whitewash, with lobbyists' fingerprints all over them.

The fact that the lobbying industry's lobbying of Walsh Atkins would remain a secret under the government's current proposals, will not do the government's case for minimal reform any favours.

Proposed statutory register has lobbyists' fingerprints all over it

20 January 2012

Response from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency to government proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists.

Tamasin Cave of ALT says: "As anticipated, the government's plans for transparency regulations for the influence industry have lobbyists' fingerprints all over them. The proposals lack both breadth and depth: they would reveal on only a tiny proportion of the industry, and then no meaningful information. The lobbying industry has triumphed here. This is what they want; a partial system of minimal disclosure.

The key flaws in the government's plans are:

• It would only cover lobbying agencies: the plans are for only 'those who undertake lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client' should be covered, ie lobbying agencies. This would exclude the thousands of people who work in-house for large corporations, trade bodies, charities and others. This is non-sensical when in-house lobbyists outnumber lobbyists-for-hire by at least 4 to 1. It would mean, for example, a supermarket with a team of 10 in-house, full-time lobbyists wouldn't have to register, but if it temporarily took on an agency to increase its lobbying firepower, only the agency would have to register its lobbyists. 

• It would reveal little meaningful information: It is one thing to know who is lobbying for whom, but without disclosure of what they are lobbying for, it would be impossible to scrutinse the influence they are having. The register must reveal their activities: we need to see which policies, legislation, regulation and government contracts they are seeking to influence. Imagine the case of defence company X: It hires lobbying agency Y. This much would be recorded on a public register under the government's plans. What would not be revealed is that defence company X is lobbying for a government contract worth millions of pounds. Or supermarket X is hiring agency Y. Are they lobbying on tax issues, planning law, food or alcohol policy? Without this being revealed, the information on the register would be meaningless.

In addition, ALT considers the following key to a robust register:

• Financial information: the government acknowledges the call for financial information to be included on the register, but appears luke-warm on the details. We need public scrutiny of how much money is being spent trying to influence our politicians. If we knew, for example, how much money was being spent by the private healthcare industry for the current NHS reforms, it would change the debate entirely.

• Independent of the industry: ALT agrees with the government that the register should be held by a body independent of the industry. However, it should be publicly funded with adequate resources to monitor and enforce it.

Today's announcement is long overdue. Nearly two years ago David Cameron warned that lobbying in this country had got 'out of control'.  Now is the time to shine a light on those that seek to influence our politicians. The government must now listen to a public that feels shut out of decision-making and allow real public scrutiny of lobbying. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending on lobbying. Anything less and we can assume that they are willing to put the interests of their friends in the influence industry above public demands for full transparency."

The Cabinet Office's consultation document can be downloaded here.

Time for a robust register of lobbyists

19 January 2012

The government is expected to announce its plans for a statutory register of lobbyists tomorrow (Friday 20 January). Ahead of publication of its consultation, Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency said:

"The devil will be in the detail. We need a robust, compulsory register to reveal: who is lobbying whom, what they are lobbying about, and how much is being spent trying to influence our politicians. And it needs to be overseen by a body independent of the industry.

Anything less and we can assume that the government is putting the interests of its friends in the influence industry above public demands for full transparency.

David Cameron has voiced deep concerns about lobbying in the UK getting 'out of control'. The government must now tackle this £2billion industry and bring their activities into the open. Britain needs to catch up with other countries and allow real public scrutiny of lobbying with a robust register of lobbyists. Only then will we be able to fully understand the impact they have on the way this country is run."

The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency is calling for a robust statutory register, which would require lobbyists - whether companies or trade unions, lobbying agencies or law firms, and larger charities (above a minimum financial threshold) - to regularly declare on a public register:

• Names of individual lobbyists;
• The special interest lobbying (either the employer or agency clients);
• Public body being lobbied;
• Information on any public office held by lobbyists within 5 years (to reveal the 'revolving door')
• Area of policy they seek to influence, whether legislation, regulation or 
public contract;
• Amount of money spent on lobbying (good faith estimate). This will reveal scale, disparities and trends in lobbying.

Government now only block to lobbying reform

9 Dec 2011

In the wake of this week's lobbying scandal involving Bell Pottinger, one of the lobbyists' key prepresntative bodies has dropped its opposition to full transparency, and backed calls for a statutory register of lobbyists.

Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency said: "Lobbyists have finally recognised the public's legitimate demand that they operate in the open.

"The government is now the stumbling block to reform. It must publish its plans for a statutory register of lobbyists without delay, and appoint a senior government figure to push the policy through.

The industry wants this, politicians now need to make it happen. Lobbying that's shrouded in secrecy leads to scandal. But it can be legitimate, so long as its in the open and we can see who is lobbying whom, about what, and how much money is being spent in the process." 

By the industry's own admission, its attempt to provide an alternative to an independent statutory register  "lacks credibility and competence". This failure has delayed a statutory register by 18 months. The government must delay no more."