Reform in the USA

So what will happen to lobbying in the UK going forward? Will they follow the United States' lead where following the Jack Abramoff financial and political corruption scandals in 2006, the political parties proposed various lobbying reforms. This lead to the Senate passing the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act 2007 in January 2007.

The Act covers travel, gifts and lobbying activity and increases disclosure. However, it stopped short of creating an independent ethics panel and requiring big dollar grassroots lobbying campaigns to disclose their spending. The decision on these now moves to the House of Representatives http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4086/9/.

The EU, following the announcement of the European Transparency Initiative in 2005, is also undergoing a review of lobbying which could signal that a review of UK lobbying is on the way http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4031/9/.

And what about in-house?

Of course, membership of the APPC only extends to public affairs consultancies and doesn't include practitioners who work in-house for organisations. The CIPR and PRCA do have public affairs arms which practitioners are able to join but again, this isn't mandatory. All three bodies are currently working together to provide a standard code of conduct for all practitioners to work to and this is due for publication in the next few months.

However - and I think this is the regulator in me - there is always this question of voluntary membership which continues to irritate me. In an ideal world there would be an independent body which would cover the whole industry and there would be one Code of Conduct that all practitioners would have to adhere to. Any breaches of the Code would then be dealt with effectively in order to put an end to unethical practices and to be a deterrent to those thinking of breaking the rules. The ultimate punishment would be to be struck off, in the same way that a doctor would be, and to not be allowed to practise as a lobbyist again. This would also bring the industry in line with other professions and industries that already have more stringent regulatory bodies.

As to whether I think this will happen? Probably not in my lifetime but I think the industry will continue to be scrutinised and with the work of the APPC I think it will be successful in its bid to have all UK public affairs consultancies registered with it.

APPC to the rescue?

So following yet another scandal "Drapergate" in 1994, five public affairs consultancies joined together to form the Association of Professional Political Consultants. The aim of the APPC is to be a self-regulatory body, with its own code of conduct, a publicly available register of clients and complete ban on any financial relationship with politicians. Gill Morris, pictured, is the current Chairperson of the APPC and recently came to talk to our public affairs class.

We had an interesting discussion about the state of lobbying in the UK and what could be done to improve its reputation. Obviously, as Chair of the APPC, Gill would like to see all public affairs consultancies registered. There are consultancies like Bell Pottinger who simply refuse to become members and this isn't helping the industry's reputation.

It seems that one of the clauses in the APPC's code of conduct is possibly stopping some consultancies from being able to enlist. It states that there shouldn't be any MP or Peer on the books of a public affairs consultancy. This is obviously difficult for BPPA as their Chairman is Lord Bell. However the APPC are looking to amend this clause which will mean there is little to stop all consultancies registering their interests with the APPC. BPPA, however, still maintain that they wouldn't join even if this clause was amended as they don't see the point. In my opinion, this seems more like they have something to hide.

Gill Morris has managed to enlist John Grogan MP in her battle to raise the standard of the industry. He has raised an Early Day Motion to make APPC membership a prerequisite for public affairs consultancies wishing to deal with government departments and it will be interesting to see how successful this will be.

Thank You for Smoking?

The tobacco industry has in one way or another played a large part in the reputation of public affairs.

Despite their promise to clean up politics, in 1997 the Labour Party was forced to return a £1 million donation to the Formula One mogul Bernie Ecclestone. Following the Government's agreement with the EU on a ban on tobacco advertising, the Government surprisingly gave Formula One a temporary exemption from the ban until they found alternative funding. The media found out about the donation and the Government were hit by sleaze allegations although there was never any proof to back up the allegations.

In the USA front groups are set up by tobacco companies to target American smokers to lobby against anti-smoking laws.

In the film Thank You For Smoking (2005) Nick Naylor, the film's protagonist, is Vice-President and chief spokesperson for the Academy of Tobacco Studies which is responsible for researching the links between smoking cigarettes and health. The group, which is funded by cigarette companies, never finds any evidence that tobacco damages health and Nick Naylor has to battle with his conscience when it comes to his son. The film certainly doesn't help the lobbying industry's reputation.

RIP Lord Nolan

Following on from my post yesterday I have since found out that Lord Nolan died recently. I have copied out the full PR Week article due to it being a subscription only site:

A former colleague pays tribute to Lord Nolan, an influential figure in the lobbying arena who died last month.

Martin Le Jeune, 7 Feb 2007, formerly assistant-secretary of the Committee on Standards in Public Life from 1994-1997.

The man who exerted the greatest influence on lobbying in the past 20 years was not himself a lobbyist. Nor did he concern himself directly with the way in which lobbyists behaved. But anyone working in PA today operates within the framework that he created.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the ‘Nolan Rules’ for public appointments, and the code of the Association of Professional Political Consultants – all owe their existence to Michael Nolan, who died on 22 January after a long illness.
Nolan was already a distinguished law lord when he was asked to head the new Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994. It was the era of ‘cash for questions’ and parliamentary sleaze, and a panicky John Major took the classic way out of a press firestorm – hand the whole issue over to a pillar of the establishment.
But if Major hoped that the result would be a dull report, he picked the wrong man. Nolan was not a showy or demonstrative figure. He had a powerful moral sense and felt that – to use his phrase – ‘a certain slackness’ in behaviour had crept in.
I worked for him at the Standards Committee. The first sign that this would not be a conventional piece of political bromide came with his decision to take evidence in public. MPs, peers, lobbyists, journalists and others turned up for courteous but firm questioning. Had standards in public life declined? Were many legislators on the take? What should be done to restore trust?
Nolan’s report recommended a serious tightening of the rules on disclosure for MPs, and a much tougher regime on paid advocacy for outside interests. The role of ministers in deciding public appointments was restricted, and their code of conduct was to be expanded. Civil servants were to be given a route for raising concerns about improper political pressure.
Virtually all the recommendations were adopted without argument.
The irony was that Nolan did not believe the system to be corrupt or rotten. But he felt that without a visible clean-up, the perception of things gone bad would cripple public life.
Did he succeed? It is true that he could not stem the decline in public confidence. What he did do was to erase many of the grey areas that had been exploited. Moreover, he prompted PA professionals to properly regulate themselves. For that, we owe Nolan an enormous debt.

MPs for Hire

Mark Hollingsworth's MPs For Hire (1992) provides an in depth look at the history of sleaze and politics in the UK. As well as highlighting individual cases and misdemeanours the book describes how UK laws have been tightened around MPs declaring their interests in the House of Commons, in particular with regards to Select Committees and All Party Parliamentary Groups. It details the growth of lobbying in the UK and in particular it questions the legalities of MPs being retained financially by lobbyists.

Following publication of the book in 1994, the Nolan Committee was established by John Major, the then Prime Minister, who asked for an investigation and report into MPs' affairs. This is now known as the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the outcome of the Committee's report created greater transparency in UK politics and lobbying.

Cash for questions

In the early 1990s, the "cash for questions" scandal created a media furore in the UK. The Harrods owner, Mohammed Al-Fayed, admitted to having paid a public affairs firm for MPs to ask questions in the House of Commons. Ian Greer Associates were paid £2000 per question and two MPs, Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, put forward the Parliamentary Questions. Mr Al-Fayed also admitted that Neil Hamilton requested - and was given - a free week's holiday for himself and his wife Christine at the Paris Ritz. As a result of the allegations, Neil Hamilton was forced to resign.

Why lobbying?

Under the public relations umbrella, lobbying is a growing industry in the UK and it is now estimated to be worth £1.9 billion and employ 14,000 people http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/node/view/707. However, it is an industry that has been marred by sleaze and scandal over the past 50 years. I'm going to look at its past, present and future existence in the UK. Will the industry continue to grow and will it lose the bad reputation it has managed to acquire?