19 August 2009

Some six months on, the government is still wrestling with how it's going to reform the lobbying industry.

It could force lobbying into the open with a statutory register of lobbyists, as recommended by a Committee of MPs in January and supported by a further 200 backbenchers. If so, we could soon know who is lobbying whom in government and which areas of public life they are seeking to influence, whether it's defence procurement decisions, climate change policy, private healthcare contracts, tax breaks for the super-rich, etc.

Or the government could rely on the industry to voluntarily open itself up to public scrutiny.

As we wait for the government's decision it's worth taking a quick look at the progress of the industry's voluntary alternative to statutory regulation: the three lobbying trade bodies want to establish an umbrella group for all lobbyists, provisionally called the Public Affairs Council. All lobbyists that sign up would adopt a 'kitemark'. According to the proposals: 'organisations not kitemarked could be presumed not to be compliant with standards. Those seeking to use the services of a lobbyist could be guided accordingly.' The proposed Council would also look after a voluntary register of lobbyists and their clients.

So how much support do these ideas command among lobbyists? Mark Adams of the trade body the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) told the Public Administration Select Committee in July that responses to an industry consultation on the proposals were "broadly in agreement with the approach we have set out," adding: "We're very pleased with the relatively unanimous agreement for the overall approach that we are adopting."

The written responses have just been published by the APPC. Of the 13 organisations that responded, four are openly hostile to the plans, and a further two express serious reservations. So that's just under half who have a problem with them. Even lobbying consultancies you would expect to be supportive – as members of the APPC – are against. One declares: "We remain so far from having consensus that it would be premature to establish a timetable for creating a Public Affairs Council", citing the suggestion of a kitemark as "not one with which we are at all comfortable", and the introduction of a new category of parliamentary pass as an idea they are "vehemently opposed to".

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those broadly in support of the proposals include Darren Caplan and Gavin Devine – both members of the APPC's Management Committee.

So, why did Mark Adams mislead the Public Administration Committee when he said agreement was "relatively unanimous"? Is there perhaps a silent majority of lobbyists rooting for these proposals? Or is this the APPC papering over the cracks in self-regulation to present a united front to the government? Who knows, but it doesn't bode well for an industry-led voluntary system, should the government choose to support one.