25 July 2013
The Conservative Party's latest effort to quieten the row surrounding its election strategist, Lynton Crosby, and his secret commercial lobbying clients, appears to suggest that Crosby has given up his role as a lobbyist.
In an attempt to reassure the public that no conflict of interest exists, the Party has issued a set of 'Principles of Engagement' hastily drawn up in recent days. This includes the assurance that Crosby won't use his position as an advisor to the Tories, or his access to Ministers to further the interests of his clients, or to lobby for changes to policy on their behalf.
How is a commercial lobbyist to operate under such rules? The lobbying industry is full of political insiders because they have access to ministers. Half of a lobbyists' job is to get the ear of government for clients. The other half is to pass inside information from government to clients. A commercial lobbyist would not be doing their job were they not to do this.
If these rules were to apply, it may reassure the public, but be disturbing news to clients.
In other news
The government has chosen the Australian model for its register of lobbyists (but with even slightly less disclosure). Different versions exist in various countries, but the very minimal register covering only consultant lobbyists is only in place in Oz.
Coincidentally, the UK government's weak rationale for opting for such an incomplete and inadequate register is nearly identical to the reasons given by the Australian government when it brought in a public lobbying register in 2008.
In introducing the measure in 2007, Australian senator John Faulkner said: 'There is a legitimate concern that ministers... who are the target of lobbying activities are not always fully informed as to the identity of the people who have engaged a lobbyist to speak on their behalf.'
In other words, or in UK Dept Leader of the House of Commons Tom Brake's words: 'What will change is that when ministers are lobbied by companies that specialise in lobbying, people will be able to see who those companies are representing.'
This is a phoney argument. It seeks to paint the problem as one of a lack of transparency in who ministers are meeting and in who agencies are representing. As the figures show, of the nearly 1000 ministerial meetings last year, only 2 were with agencies. If this is the problem, surely better to get the minister to declare the ultimate client not the consultant on the meetings list?
The justification for excluding the very many more in-house corporate lobbyists from the register (those that work directly for Tesco, G4S, Wonga etc) is also identical to the line taken by the Australians: 'It does not apply to [lobbyists] in major companies... as the very nature of their employment means that it will be clear... whose interests they will be representing,' said Faulkner.
Tory minister Chloe Smith put it this way: 'Including in-house people is not necessary. If they meet with a minister, it’s clear to the public whose interests are being represented.'
This is an attempt to limit transparency to knowing who is lobbying. We are to know nothing of whom they are lobbying in government, or crucially, what they are lobbying for. Something that is far from obvious in the case of most corporations.
Why would the UK follow Australia's lead when it is the least effective transparency model out there?
23 july 2013
The government must really not want us to see its behind-the-scenes dealings with commercial lobbyists.
Its proposed transparency rules for lobbyists - in the form of a register - will reveal nothing of what goes on behind closed doors in Westminster and Whitehall. They are a sham.
As published in a Bill last week, the register will exclude 4 out of 5 paid lobbyists; and those that do have to register will have to reveal less than they voluntarily do at the moment. There are also significant loopholes for those that wish to keep their lobbying secret.
In his pitch to the electorate in 2010, David Cameron appeared to show that he understood people's concerns with lobbying: 'I believe secret corporate lobbying goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics... with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We can't go on like this.'
'We don't know who is meeting whom. We don't know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don't know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence,' he said.
And, as these proposals stand, this will remain the case.
15 July 2013
Tomorrow's Bill outlining the government's plans for a register of lobbyists is a case of about time. Over three years on from David Cameron declaring lobbying the 'next big scandal' and saying 'We can't go on like this', the Coalition is honoring its pledge. But, if tomorrow's Bill follows the government's proposals to date, the proposed register will be a sham.
If David Cameron sticks with these proposals, the government's register will be like a mechanic using gum to mend the radiator, handing back the car and calling it fixed. And when it breaks again – when another lobbying scandal comes along – the public will be rightly angry that they bodged it.
The government is predicted to cut and paste from plans it published last January. These were widely derided by the industry and public. They proposed that only third party agency lobbyists should be forced to register, and then only declare their clients. This is not a register of lobbyists in any real sense. It would force Lynton Crosby to reveal his corporate clients, but exclude over three quarters of the industry, including the tobacco companies that have fiercely resisted public health measures. In addition to excluding the majority of lobbyists, such a minimal register would contain no information on their activity: whom are they lobbying, what are they seeking to influence, and how much are they spending trying to bend the government to their will.
The graphics below illustrate why the government must include all commercial lobbyists in the UK's £2billion industry, and then require them to disclose basic information on their lobbying activity and their interaction with government: who is lobbying whom, about what, and how much are they spending. Without this, how will the public be able to scrutinise the influence industry? How will it help us to hold our politicians to account for their decisions? The truth is, it won't. It will be a sham.
Tamasin Cave, 23 June 2013
Right, we've got it. We know how lobbying works. Commercial lobbyists are paid to try and influence the decisions of government. That is their job.
In the Sunday Times' latest sting, this included 'mastermining' a House of Lords debate to push a paying client’s agenda; writing the debate's opening speech that was then delivered by a peer almost word for word; drafting parliamentary questions and early day motions; and setting up an All Party Parliamentary Group.
This is run of the mill stuff for lobbyists. It is how the industry works every day, year round, in a £2billion industry. The lobbyist in question, John Stevenson, of Freshwater Public Affairs, claims to have done "nothing wrong". A more useful way of looking at it is that he did nothing out of the ordinary. He was another commercial lobbyist doing his job, who happened to have been taped talking about it.
That it is mundane doesn't make it any less shocking, though. It is deeply concerning that commercial interests can direct and dominate the proceedings of Parliament to such a degree. But, if we are seeking to blame someone for this state of affairs, we need to look to our politicians.
They won't be surprised by the latest revelations. Politicians have kept secret the role that lobbyists play in our system of government: lobbyists are embedded in it. Politicians have a firm grap on the influence lobbyists have on the decisions made by them. Yet they refuse to act.
Now, we too understood that this is how our system works. If we suspected it before, we can be sure of it today.
Which is why the only credible response from government is that they show us the detail: who is lobbying whom, what are they seeking to influence and how much money is being spent in the process. This is why we need a robust register of lobbyists, not the pale imitation that the government is proposing.
There's no excuse anymore. People are clear-eyed about how lobbying works, what they get up to on a daily basis, and something of the scale of their activities. We must now be allowed to fully understand the impact it is having on the decisions taken by our government. And for that, we need complete transparency.
Tamasin Cave, 4 June 2013
If reports are to be believed, the register of lobbyists favoured by the government, which will be fast-tracked through Parliament will NOT be a register of lobbyists in any meaningful sense. It will not open up Britain's £2bn influence industry to scrutiny.
According to Downing Street the register that the government is planning to introduce will require any body which is paid to lobby on behalf of a third party to register, along with details of whom they are lobbying for. This is likely to mean a register of lobbying agencies who will be required merely to list their lobbyists and clients.
Tamasin Cave, 3 June 2013
The government has announced that its proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists are to be bundled up in a Bill with a clamp down on union funding of election campaigns. As one Tory MP rightly asks: “Can anyone tell me if it was concerns about trade union activity that prompted demands to deal with lobbying? Did I miss something?”
The decision to bolt on a number of tangential party funding reforms onto the lobbying bill, and the targeting of unions, shows a worrying lack of seriousness on the part of the government. They appear to be cynically playing party politics with a issue that there is genuine concern to people about outside the Westminster village. Labour has, I think rightly, called it "shabby" politics. "Grubby" was the word chosen by one senior Liberal Democrat. It is just not serious.
As important, however, is the form the register will take. Details are thin on the ground, but according to Downing Street the register will require any body which is paid to lobby on behalf of a third party to register, along with details of its client list. So, a register of lobbying agencies and their clients.
Just to be clear, this is NOT a register of lobbyists in any meaningful sense.
It is like a mechanic using gum to mend the radiator, handing back the car and calling it fixed. And when it breaks again – when another lobbying scandal comes along – they will point to their 'register' and say 'but we fixed it gov', when it is obvious that they didn't.
Such a register would cover less than a quarter of the lobbying industry (scroll down to the graphic). And then it would tell us nothing of what they are doing: whom are they meeting in government; which areas of policy are they seeking to shape; which laws and regulations do they want delayed or watered down; which taxes do they want cut; which multi-million pound contracts are they gunning for? None of that. Nothing that a statutory register of lobbyists is designed to capture.
When in January 2012 the government first put forward this proposal for a limited register – which amounts to little more than a marketing tool for lobbyists-for-hire – the plans were widely panned.
Let us just hope they don't try the gum trick this time.
Tamasin Cave, 31 May 2013
Patrick Mercer is the latest Conservative MP to quit the party amid reports he has been caught up in a 'major lobbying scandal'.
Mercer is understood to have been covertly recorded by BBC reporters posing as a fake lobbying firm seeking help in parliament for a fake client, believed to be related to Fiji.
Parliamentary records show that Mercer tabled a parliamentary question and put down an Early Day Motion calling for an end to Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth.
The South Pacific Island faces accusations of human rights abuses. According to the Independent, its Government has been accused of subverting the rule of law, rounding up and arresting political opponents and disregarding Fiji’s constitution.
The responsibility for this mess, however, lies fully with David Cameron.
Three years ago the Prime Minister said that lobbying was the 'next big scandal waiting to happen'. Since then we have seen countless controversies, one of which led to the resignation of former defence secretary Liam Fox, but also involving former ministers, peers, ex-generals, special advisers and some well-connected commercial lobbyists.
In May 2010, the coalition government pledged to tackle secretive lobbying, promising a statutory register of lobbyists. Nothing of value has happened since.
There is a culture inside British politics where cash for influence is deemed acceptable. Politicians know all too well that we have a problem with commercial lobbying in this country. The scandal is that they refuse to do anything about it.
UK Parliamentarians have a long history of lobbying for repressive regimes, dating back to the Greek Colonels in the sixties. An All Party Group of MPs in that instance were mistakenly persuaded of the junta's intention to move towards democratic government.
London's lobbying firms are also sensitive to growing concerns that this is the place to come to get reputations laundered. As the Evening Standard reported in 2011: 'Top firms such as Bell Pottinger, Brown Lloyd James, Portland and Grayling are coming under intense scrutiny because of their work for foreign governments or in regimes of dubious repute.' The secrecy that persists around lobbying in the UK is undoubtedly a contributing factor.
16 May 2013
David Cameron yesterday defended his political adviser Lynton Crosby over the lobbyist's commercial business in the UK.
Crosby is being paid by the Conservative Party to advise on its election strategy. At the same time, he runs a commercial lobbying agency, Crosby Textor, that has worked for companies in tobacco, alcohol, banking, property development and the oil industry. It doesn't disclose its clients.
Cameron denies that there is any potential conflict of interest, saying: "Lynton Crosby does not lobby the government, he does not lobby me, he gives political advice and I think that’s a very clear situation."
He added: "His work, his lobbying, the lobbying business is a matter for the lobbying business."
Which puts the ball in the court of the UK lobbying industry's representative bodies. If the firm is lobbying in the UK, perhaps the APPC, the PRCA, the CIPR or the most recent body to be set up to defend lobbying's reputation, the UK Public Affairs Council, should contact Crosby Textor to invite it to join the club of agencies that voluntarily declare their clients. If Bell Pottinger can be made to do it, anyone can.
In the absence of any compulsory register of lobbyists – a policy commitment ditched from the Queen's Speech reportedly on Crosby's advice – voluntary disclosure is what we rely on to know who is attempting to influence our politics.
Just before we voted him in, Cameron said: ‘I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country... We don’t know who is meeting whom. We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence."
He could perhaps start by asking Crosby.
Voters want more accountability and open politics; abandoning lobbying transparency is to stick with the status quo and misread why Conservatives are disaffected
Friday, 03 May 2013
By Tamasin Cave
The FT reports this morning that the government is abandoning its plan for a register of lobbyists as it seeks to focus next week’s Queen’s Speech on core policies aimed at swing voters. The shift is apparently the work of the Tories’ election strategist, Lynton Crosby.
In place of political reform we are to get new laws that aim for the Tory heart on immigration, aspiration and the economy.
The news comes as voters turn to UKIP in the local elections in record numbers, trouncing the Conservatives in the South Shields by-election, for example.
The impetus behind the shift in focus in the Queen's Speech is clearly to summon voters back to the fold. Crosby, an Australian lobbyist and spin doctor, is famous for his old-school use of “dog whistle” messages.
But, abandoning lobbying transparency in favour of traditional Tory policies is to misread both the electorate and the appetite for political reforms such as the ‘abandoned’ register of lobbyists.
To see transparency rules for lobbyists as a liberal democrat, lefty policy is a basic error, but one that is pervasive in Conservative circles. If our experience is anything to go by, Britain’s conservatives are as concerned about the undue influence of powerful corporations as any on the left.
Take the response we’ve had to a recent Spinwatch report on lobbying for the HS2 rail line. In it we expose lobbyists (closely aligned to the Tory party) whose strategy is to “shit up” opponents to the scheme, a great many of them Tory voters. People are rightly worried that their views matter little compared to the companies that hire these lobbyists and who are set to benefit from the scheme.
An initial statement by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency on the Leveson report
29 Nov 2012
Lord Leveson was never going to uncover a ‘deal’ between the government and News International over the BSkyB bid. That is not how lobbying works.
What The Leveson Report does show however, in forensic detail, is the discrete and sustained lobbying campaign undertaken by NI through a deliberate network of personal relationships, what the report describes as the “serious hidden problem” of NI’s lobbying, “where the informal, ‘off-record’ and ‘personal’ is seen as an obvious and effective means of conducting lobbying”.
Leveson clearly states: “There is of course no evidence at all of explicit, covert deals between senior politicians and newspaper proprietors or editors; no-one should seriously have expected that there would be. These very powerful relationships are more subtle than that…. But there can be no doubt that within these relationships… there have been exchanges of influence on matters of public policy which have given rise to legitimate questions about the confidence the public can have that they have been conducted scrupulously in the public interest.
“The pattern which emerges is one in which senior press / political relationships have been too close to give sufficient grounds for confidence that fear or favour have not been operative factors in the determination and implementation of policy.”
David Cameron’s claim that Leveson “rejects the allegation emphatically” that his party struck a deal with News International is a highly selective reading of the report, and one that was immediately spun by the government.
The Prime Minister must acknowledge these very clear and legitimate concerns expressed in the report: that powerful relationships between politicians and the private interests of the press can trump the public interest.
Two and a half years have passed since his government promised to bring some transparency to lobbying, through a simple register of lobbyists. Let’s hope that Leveson doesn’t have to wait quite so long to see some reform of the press.