David Miller 21 April 2008

The lobbyists lobby group

As a result, the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT) found a receptive audience at a busy debate in Belfast on the 3^rd of April.  Organised as a fringe meeting at the Annual Delegate Meeting of the National Union of Journalists, the event was co-sponsored by the Northern Ireland Government Affairs Group (NIGAG) is the lobbyists lobby group formed in 1999 following the Good Friday Agreement.

David Gordon of the Belfast Telegraph addressed the meeting by telling the story of the role of investigative journalism in the downfall of Ian Paisley Jr.  In effect operating as a lobbyist for key business interests Paisley was forced out from his ministerial post in February 2008.  This welcome reminder of the power of the press to unearth corruption and make it pay was followed by the Telegraph launching its 'Open Stormont' campaign – another welcome sign of democratic politics in the North. The five proposals of the campaign are:

•        A review of the Assembly's current approach to publishing MLA pay and expenses, focusing on the much more detailed disclosures issued by the Scottish Parliament.
• That MLAs should publicly declare in the register of interests details of family members on their payrolls. This reform has been favoured by the Assembly's Standards and Privileges Committee, but there are concerns that it will not take effect until 2009.

The Belfast Telegraph sees no reason why it should not be introduced immediately on a voluntary basis by the parties, pending a formal rule change.

• A review of constituency office rental arrangements, with independent rental valuations for offices that have been rented from family members and political parties.

This review should also focus on phasing out the practice of allowing MLAs to claim rental expenses for premises owned by relatives - bringing Stormont into line with the House of Commons.

• A pledge from all the Stormont parties that the secrecy surrounding their donations will finally end in 2010, with no further slippage on the target date.
• A commitment by all the Assembly parties that there will be no dilution of the Freedom of Information Act.[1]

All of these would help to open up Stormont, and the Telegraph and its investigation editor Gordon are to be applauded for helping to bring a little light and transparency to the Northern Ireland.  Given the role of lobbying in the Paisley affair, it might also be wise to add a lobbying register to the list of demands. 

Back at the fringe meeting, lobbyist Will Chambre was representing the Northern Ireland Government Affairs Group, the lobbyists lobby group. Chambre was there to argue against transparency and in defence of the lobbying industry.  He seemed a little nervous and somewhat hesitant making his case – subverting the traditional image of the lobbyist as smooth talking fixer. Chambre undermined his case further by his nerve wracked delivery of the view that it was the ‘quality of the message’ and not the ‘size of the back hander’ which was important in lobbying. 

In the debate that followed, the ALT suggestion that lobbyists should be regulated was challenged from the floor by one of the prime movers behind NIGAG Glyn Roberts (Vice chair of NIGAG, formerly of the Federation of Small Business and now lobbyist for  the NI Independent Retail Trade Association). Roberts revealed that NIGAG had investigated such an idea when it set up and it was informed by counsel that a body like NIGAG would meet too many legal challenges to have a legally binding system of penalties.  Roberts in effect made the point for campaigners for transparency since, as I pointed out in my response, this is exactly why binding regulation needs to be introduced by a law making body such as the Northern Ireland Assembly.  The Open Stormont campaign is a sign that Northern Ireland is currently leading the charge on transparency in these islands.  The experience in Dublin. London, Cardiff and Edinburgh is that there is little appetite for transparency amongst the political class and it takes a scandal of the kind that has engulfed Ian Paisley Jr. (and latterly his father the outgoing First Minister of Northern Ireland) to move opinion in favour of effective action.[2]

Chambre learned his lobbying at the knee of one of the key fixers of the Westminster lobby scene – Doug Smith the conservative party member who runs All Party Parliamentary Groups and a string of lobby firms.  Smith once famously defended lobbyist payments to MPs by saying ‘MPs can't be expected to give us the detail as a labour of love, can they?’ Chambre runs Chambre Public Affairs a lobby company that does disclose its clients in the register of the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC).  But they don’t disclose how much they are paid by GlaxoSmithkline for example.  Nor do they tell us the techniques they use.  Do they for example use the third party technique in which respectable sounding organisations – such as patient groups for example – are used as a ventriloquist’s dummy to mouth the policy positions preferred by the corporation that funds them?

Or do they get involved in setting up fake front groups with names suggesting a disinterested approach such as institute of this or foundation for that?  We simply don’t know the answer to either question, but it is noticeable that along with the big pharma clients Chambre also works for a number of patient groups.  Chambre do not disclose which pharma companies fund their patient group clients. However, according to company disclosures, we can tell that Chambre works for

• Sanofi Pasteur MSD who fund the British Heart Foundation and Jo’s Trust,  both clients of Chambre PA[3]
• Lilly (part of Eli Lilly) which fund Rethink also a client of Chambre.[4]
• GlaxoSmithkline who fund the British Heart Foundation and Jo’s Trust both also clients.[5]
• Boehringer Ingelheim who fund the British Heart Foundation also a client.[6]

We have no means of knowing what the relationship is here or whether there is a conflict of interest – another reason why transparency is necessary.  There is a further point which is that Chambre also work for Northern Health & Social Services Board which is responsible for both health and social care in the north of Northern Ireland.  This leads to potential conflict of interest as both the patient groups and the pharma companies which pay Chambre have a vested interest in influencing the behaviour of the Board in relation to say Autism or mental health, both areas where Chambre clients have interests.