Lobbying parliament without the press calling foul

The government risks the introduction of a statutory register for lobbyists backfiring rapidly if they do not go a step further and require that those included in the register should also be bound by a statutory code of ethical practice. It is quite unthinkable that an agency unwilling to commit to acting ethically should benefit from the implied credibility and endorsement of inclusion in a statutory register.

The first time there is a lobbying scandal relating to a company or individual included in the statutory register, the media will generate considerable pressure for the culprit to be punished. With no statutory authority to insist on a minimum standard of behaviour, and with no scale of sanctions available, the authorities will be powerless to act. The result will be a collapse of confidence in the new system. MPs will fan the flames of outrage (if only to hide the fact that most lobbying scandals are about the behaviour of parliamentarians not commercial lobbyists) and the credibility of the register and of ministers will be shot.

Many had hoped that the new UK Public Affairs Council (UK PAC) supported by the Association of Political Consultants (APPC), the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, and the Public Relations Consultants Association, would be able to step in and shore up the principle of statutory registration through more rigorous professional self regulation. But UK PAC takes only an oversight role of the policing by the member organisations of their own codes of practice.

Historically the APPC could claim that it could fulfil this policing role effectively and impartially as a dedicated self-regulatory body, but it surrendered the right credibly to maintain that position in July when it abandoned its commitment to be solely and exclusively a self-regulatory body and took on instead the trappings of a full trade body to promote the commercial interests of its members.

No longer is it possible to belong to the APPC solely to support ethical self-regulation, member companies are now required to sign-up to policies, practices and campaigns which have nothing to do with self-regulation or the promotion of ethical behaviour.

It is perfectly legitimate for the members of the APPC to collectively decide that they wish their association to be a commercial business-promoting body; but they cannot at the same time expect unqualified respect as a self-regulatory body. The two roles are incompatible. The decision does not have unanimous support from member companies and flies in the face of a clear commitment given by the APPC to the Public Administration Committee of the House of Commons (February 2009) that:

“The APPC itself has only ever acted as a self-regulatory body....The APPC does not promote the lobbying industry or offer services to consultancies in the manner of a traditional trade association and it has no intention so to do. The organisation is purely a self-regulatory body and neither has, assumes, nor wishes to possess any additional roles of the nature described.”

This reneging by the APPC on the commitment given to parliament creates a quandary for ethical agencies such as the Whitehouse Consultancy. We do not support the direction the APPC has chosen to take, yet we are forced, in the absence of ethical alternatives, to remain members. This situation is unsustainable, but there are two ways forward.

First, as an interim measure, the UK PAC, under the chairman, Elizabeth France, must permit agencies and individuals to come directly under its remit without belonging to one of the member organisations so that they can resign from the APPC to distance themselves from its recent action.

Secondly, government should have the vision to take the step that inevitably follows the introduction of a statutory register and introduce for registering companies a statutory code of practice giving the certainty and impartiality of law to those being regulated.

Such a step is the inevitable consequence, sooner or later, of introducing a register. The sooner it is taken by government, the more scandal and controversy can be avoided to the benefit of confidence in our democratic institutions and the reputation of the profession of political consultancy. This view is actively being promoted through a Commons Motion (Early Day Motion 457) by a growing number of MPs.

Openness and transparency are essential pre-requisites for the repair in the public’s view of the tawdry image of parliament that was the legacy of the expenses and lobbying scandals of the last few years. Government should not shy away from taking the necessary action to introduce the register and necessary code simultaneously and without delay.

Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director, The Whitehouse Consultancy.