'Unintended consequences' warning over lobby register

Cabinet Office

With the Cabinet Office consultation on the statutory lobbying register due to – finally – be published this month, George Eustice MP has argued that publishing details of all meetings with lobbyists could have downsides.
Speaking at a Westminster Hall debate on 2 November, Eustice described himself as “very nervous about going down the route of trying to disclose every meeting”. He said he agreed with the need for a register, but that one implication of publishing details of all meetings was that it “suggests we [politicians] base our opinions on the basis of the number of people who have lobbied and who we meet, rather than exercising our own judgement, which is what we actually do”.
Eustice – a former press secretary to David Cameron who worked for Portland PR before being elected last May – also argued that publishing such details “may have an unintended consequence” because lobby groups would pore over meeting details and feel they were “entitled” to meetings if they saw rival or indeed complementary organisations had already secured meetings. He said: “People could say, ‘Well, you’ve met the ‘People’s Front of Judea’, why not meet the ‘Judean People’s Front’?”.
Another Conservative backbencher, Tracey Crouch MP, writes in the November edition of Public Affairs Newsthat declaring all meetings is ‘completely impractical’, primarily because of the difficulty in defining a ‘lobbyist’.
Separately, the chief executives of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and Acevo have written to Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper MP – who is in charge of the register plans – calling for a ‘roundtable’ to discuss what they also described as a register’s ‘potential for unintended consequences’.
Sir Stuart Etherington and Sir Stephen Bubb’s joint letter said that they were concerned that a register could ‘unintentionally prevent, impede or dissuade charities from doing the vital work they do in informing government policy.’
Last week’s Westminster Hall debate was secured by Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the public administration select committee (PASC) which examined lobbying between 2007-2009. Flynn used the debate to pressure Harper to hasten the register’s introduction.
Separately, PASC had already announced in the run-up to last week’s debate that it would be ‘announcing details of an inquiry into the Government’s progress on the establishment of a statutory register of lobbyists, following up on the recommendations of the committee in the last Parliament.’
The renewed pressure on the Government to get cracking with its long-awaited consultation followed weeks of bad press for ‘lobbying’ caused by the resignation of defence secretary Liam Fox after revelations that he allowed his close friend Adam Werritty access to high-level meetings. It has been widely suggested that the self-styled ‘adviser’ used those meetings to promote corporate interests.
The Coalition government committed to a statutory register last May. Harper told last week’s House Magazine(a Public Affairs Newsstablemate) that ‘we [Cabinet Office] were very close to publishing a consultation document even before any of this stuff [Fox/Werritty] blew up. This was a clear commitment in the Coalition Programme, so it’s not like we invented it after [Fox/Werritty]. We said we would do it, we will legislate, and I think people will find it pretty robust’.
Interestingly, an investigation by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell said that Werritty was not a ‘lobbyist’. At the Westminster Hall debate, Labour’s Chris Bryant MP said: “Isn’t it one of the ironies that Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report said that Mr Werritty was not a lobbyist.”
But many have disputed this, including within the public affairs industry. Mark Adams, who last month launched a blog called ‘standup4lobbying’ (standup4lobbying.wordpress.com), blogged on 26 October: ‘Buried on page eight of [Sir Gus O’Donnell’s] 10-page report is the astonishing throwaway claim that Adam Werritty is “not himself a lobbyist”. Now Mr Werritty seems to have made large sums of money introducing his clients to Liam Fox and others in the Ministry of Defence. If he is not a lobbyist, then Gus O’Donnell is not a Manchester United fan.’
Adams continued: ‘Does this fundamental error matter? Of course it does. In a few weeks’ time, the Cabinet Office will finally get round to publishing a consultation paper on the Coalition’s plans to introduce a statutory register. Clearly it will be fundamentally important to get the definition of lobbyist right in the legislation to create the register. If someone like Adam Werritty is let off the hook by not being seen as a lobbyist, it will be a huge mistake.’
This view that Werritty could be described as a lobbyist had a different nuance to a statement put out by CIPR president, Jane Wilson, who said: “Adam Werritty is not a lobbyist in the way that the vast majority of PA professionals would recognise.” She said that the CIPR would “engage with the Government’s consultation on a register of lobbyists, but I believe that informal lobbying of ministers by undisclosed interests through opaque networks of party backers, former ministers and political friends will not be eliminated by registering or regulating PA pros.”
Following last week’s Westminster Hall debate, one PA pro – Bell Pottinger Public Affairs (BPPA) chairman Peter Bingle – said: “The debate was, for the most part, rational, sensible and balanced. The public affairs industry has nothing to fear from Paul Flynn or [Labour MP] John Mann [who also spoke at the debate]. It simply needs to believe in itself and have the courage of its convictions. The two best speeches were from Chris Bryant (as always) and George Eustice, who knew what they were talking about from experience. I welcome the public, political and media debate that will happen when the Government finally starts to consult later this month. If we are smart and make our case well we will win the day.”
The Westminster Hall debate saw repeated mentions of an industry-related incident that also gained media prominence last month: that Eric Pickles had failed to declare a dinner at the Savoy with BPPA because the communities secretary claimed he was eating ‘privately’ and not ‘ministerially’. Flynn told the debate: “We can’t deal in silly excuses any more”.
In a further twist to emerge in the past few days, Labour’s former Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson MP –  a former PAN columnist – told Radio 5 Live on 23 October why he did not push through the statutory register when Labour was in power. He said: “It was very, very difficult to get it right. We were persuaded by the industry that they would set up their own code and we’d put them on a final warning. I think they’ve probably missed it now and we need a statutory register... as quickly as possible.”

FOX/WERRITTY AFTERMATH: MEDIA COVERAGE FROM THE PAST MONTH

DAILY MAIL– Jason Groves – 18 October
‘David Cameron was last night accused of pandering to the lobbying industry – as it emerged an extraordinary network of his own friends has taken up key positions in the sector. Campaigners claimed a planned crackdown on the industry had been delayed because of a string of powerful lobbyists, who include a number of close friends of, and former advisers to, the PM. They warned that lobbyists had successfully established a ‘revolving door’ between Mr Cameron’s inner circle and the industry, giving their clients direct access to the heart of Government. Government sources said it was ‘absolute nonsense’ to suggest that ministers had put off action because of the influence of friends in the lobbying industry.’

DAILY MAIL– Chris Moncrieff – 18 October
‘The murky activities of Adam Werritty have once more highlighted the insidious pursuits of the lobbying industry. Soon we will be told there will be a ‘crackdown’ on these activities, but what will that mean? There are many persuasive and influential people around with intimate contacts at the heart of Parliament, for whom a register would be little more annoying than a gnat-bite. The Werritty affair has been a setback to the lobbying industry, but it will blow over, and the industry will, no doubt, carry on in its own sweet way. But it would be refreshing if the Government would stop talking and start acting. Even a register, inadequate though that might be, would be a start.’

INDEPENDENT– Andy McSmith – 17 October
‘It was as difficult to walk through parts of Manchester earlier this month without bumping into a lobbyist as it has been for Liam Fox to visit a foreign capital without meeting up with Adam Werritty... .No-one is suggesting that it would be possible, or even desirable, to ban lobbying altogether. Businesses are affected by the decisions politicians make and are entitled to call on the services of experts to help them make sure that ministers understand what they are doing. From time to time, new rules have come into place when a scandal has blown up around rogue lobbyists, but too often, somebody finds a way round them. It should not be difficult to get legislation through Parliament. All it needs is the political will. If the Government suddenly finds the will, we can thank Adam Werritty.’

OBSERVER– Editorial – 16 October
‘Honour the pledge to clean up lobbying, Mr Cameron’: ‘In the wake of the phone-hacking scandal, the PM was right to introduce greater openness about the relationships between politicians and media proprietors. As a matter of urgency, he ought to do the same about lobbying. The register should be enacted. Ministers and their advisers should also be obliged to make a quarterly declaration of meetings with lobbyists and other special interests. Officials should record exactly what was said. It is time for David Cameron to be true to that speech he made 20 months ago and make good on his promises to clean up what he called ‘crony capitalism’. Otherwise he may find that it is not just Dr Fox who is shot’.

SPECTATOR– James Forsyth – 15 October
‘Former advisers offer a particular advantage: they know who really makes policy. One of the things you pay them for is the ability to tell you who to pursue and how. It may be that a company’s persuasive firepower is best directed at some little-known figure who isn’t even an MP. It is worth remembering that when Derek Draper listed the 17 people who mattered in the New Labour government, only six of them were Parliamentarians.’

7th November 2011 by Ian Hall