Not so easy, Mark, is it?

When I was involved in the process to create the UK Public Affairs Council, we were heavily criticised by some for the slow pace with which the process moved. Personally, I always believed that we acted with rather impressive haste.

Mark Harper, the Cabinet Office Minister responsible for the government’s plans for a statutory register of lobbyists, is himself discovering now that it is not as easy as it might first appear. After all, what could be simpler than a provision to force all lobbyists to sign a public register. It’s hardly splitting the atom, is it?

Except the government quickly realised they were trying to answer questions that seem simple but are, in reality, spectacularly difficult. Who exactly is a lobbyist? And what activity are they undertaking that requires them to register?

The sharp focus of the problem in my mind was the realisation that, under the government’s initial plans, the register might actually have no-one on it.  If only multi-client “lobbyists” had to register when they lobby government, and if, as is indeed is usually the case, such lobbyists get their clients to do the lobbying, will anyone actually be required to be on the statutory register? Hmmm, interesting.

So today’s PR Week story, Comms bosses accuse the Government of dragging its feet on register, reports what all of us in the profession know. The government is struggling over this policy.

I am sure we will still get government proposals for a register, not least to fulfil the coalition agreement commitment. But I’m not convinced they will ever make it to the statute books. And I hope the PRCA and the APPC, who have welcomed the plans for the register, will then go back to what they should be doing; the self-regulation of our profession.

A rare occasion when I agree with Michael Gove

I fundamentally disagree with Michael Gove’s views on education. I view his politics as firmly on the right of the spectrum with little other than superficial concern for “hard working families”.

However I have found something to agree with him on. His instincts are against regulation of the media. I agree that it would be a perilous step that should be taken with great caution. A free press is a fundamental part of a democratic society.

I trust that Michael Gove will be arguing equally hard against regulation of lobbying. Lobbying is also a fundamental part of a democratic society. It is about time that senior Conservatives stood up against this grossly illiberal policy proposed originally by the “Liberal” Democrats.  Come on Michael – let’s make it two things we agree on.

How we will know our campaign has won

I’ll let you into a little secret. Politicians don’t like taking the blame. What? You knew that already? Yes, silly me.

It is indeed the case that politicians are always on the lookout for someone else to blame than themselves. Who is responsible for the collapse of the banking system in the UK? (Sir) Fred Goodwin of course. Or perhaps Hector Sands. But certainly not Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling. Perish the thought.

And so it is whenever politicians are caught in a political scandal, like Jeremy Hunt using his Special Adviser to communicate with News International. It was suddenly the fault of a man called Fred Michel, who most of us had never heard of before. And politicians even manage to get political scandals conveniently rebadged as a “lobbying scandal”.

This is not a left or right issue – politicians on all sides are guilty of scapegoating innocent bystanders. And sadly some of the NGOs active in the debate conveniently help let politicians off the hook. When I exposed the activities of the criminal Peter Cruddas, Tamasin Cave blogged to say that it proved the government were not being hard enough on lobbyists!

The Conservative Party was caught red-handed touting for illegal foreign donations but, according to dear Tamasin, it meant that “surely now Cameron can see the sense in bringing in real transparency in lobbying with a robust register”. For goodness sake. Why don’t you go round to No 10, Tamasin, and say to the Prime Minister, “here you go, mate, blame sleazy lobbyists like we do and we’ll get you and Peter Cruddas off the hook.”

As I keep saying, dodgy lobbyists can only succeed if dodgy politicians are willing to be corrupted.  They are the real scandal.

And we will know that we have succeeded when politicians who are caught red-handed being corrupted, are correctly referred to as the culprits in a “political scandal” plain and simple. And the likes of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency will have failed in their bizarre efforts to let politicians skip the blame.

REVEALED: Tory’s top donor is a criminal

The Conservative Party have criticised the Liberal Democrats for refusing to pay back the donations made by convicted fraudster, Michael Brown. I wonder if they will now agree to pay back the donations they have received from (yet to be convicted) criminal Peter Cruddas.

As regular readers will recall, I had a part to play in the exposure of Mr Cruddas attempting to pervert the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 by seeking to secure an illegal political donation for the Tories. As Mr Cruddas has so far declined to sue me for libel for calling him a criminal, I remain confident in repeating the charge.

When Cruddas was forced to resign as Tory Treasurer, the Prime Minister described his actions as “totally unacceptable”. I hope the Prime Minister now has the courage of his convictions and repays the money the Conservatives accepted from this criminal. Such people have no place in public life and any donation cheques from them should be sent back uncashed by return.

Cameron dodges funding inquiry

When I broke the scandal of Tory party fundraising, fist reported by the Sunday Times on 25 March, it was clear what the public concern focused on. How could it be right for the Prime Minister to offer secret dinners to individuals donating more than a quarter of a million to the Conservative Party? And what exactly was on offer to donors, in terms of policy commitments, from these dinners.

The Prime Minister’s response to the public outcry, with many calling for a full independent inquiry, was to set up an internal Tory inquiry. Together with many others, I expressed huge scepticism at the time that such an inquiry could possibly be expected to shine the required amount of transparency on the murky world of Tory funding. It would be rather like asking the Kray twins to investigate claims about gangland crime in the East End.

I was right to be sceptical. I have now been invited to give evidence to the Tory inquiry, under Lord Gold. With my invitation came a copy of the inquiry terms of reference, which I believe have not yet been published elsewhere.

The terms of reference (available here in full) specifically exclude the actions of the Prime Minister and Downing Street. The Inquiry is asked first to “consider how the Conservative Party handled these proposed donations”. It is asked to examine:

• The report in the Sunday Times newspaper
• The conduct of the Treasurer’s Department
• The application of the compliance procedures

The Inquiry will also look at the handling of donations more generally, examining:

• The process by which donors are introduced to the party
• People authorised to solicit funds on behalf of the party
• Conversations with donors
• Compliance checks applied by the party

So the Inquiry will produce a report full of waffle about the way the Tory Treasurer’s department works. It will no doubt confirm the condemnation of poor Peter Cruddas who has clearly been told he has to be the fall guy. But the real questions, about how much the Prime Minister was involved and how much secret government policy was discussed – and even influenced – by the Tories’ significant donors.

So what I suspected all along turns out to be true – only a full independent inquiry can get to the bottom of the true scale of this scandal. Until the Prime Minister himself comes clean, the Gold Inquiry can only possibly be a whitewash.

Read the report in the Independent on this by clicking here

A partial victory over the Electoral Commission

I have had a confirmation of receipt of my appeal to the Electoral Commission. One issue I had raised is that complainants should be informed of their right to an appeal in the decision letter. The Commission responded to say they normally do, and apologised for the oversight in the letter to me.

Here is the reply:

Dear Mr Adams

Thank you for your e-mail. Your appeal has been passed to [the Chief Executive].

[The Chief Executive] is on leave this week, however we anticipate he will be able to respond to your appeal during the week commencing 28 May.

I can confirm that it is our usual practice to notify complainants of their right to appeal when we notify them of the initial assessment decision. I apologise that I did not do so on this occasion, which was an oversight on our part.

Yours sincerely

[Name removed]

Investigator

The Electoral Commission

BREAKING NEWS: Adams asked to give evidence to the Gold Inquiry

I have just been asked to give evidence to the Gold Inquiry, established by the Prime Minister in the light of the allegations in the Sunday Times about Conservative Party funding. The story arose from information I passed to the paper.

I will post a reaction later.