A Short Tribute to Sir Simon Milton

On the day that I joined many members of the public affairs industry at the memorial service for Simon Milton, there really was only one possible subject for my blog post today.

Put simply, Simon Milton was one of the kindest, most thoughtful, inspiring, genuine people I have ever met.  I first met Simon when I was leaving Downing Street for the strange world of public affairs.  I worked for him for eighteen months and found him an exceptional mentor.  I cannot remember him losing his temper or raising his voice in the office.  I would often notice him at the photocopier, far too down to earth to interrupt a busy junior colleague to do it for him.  When I separated from my first wife, Simon was compassionate, sensitive and full of practical advice.

After our paths went in different directions, I would see Simon from time to time.  Despite the impressive heights he was reaching, he would always show great interest in what little triumphs I had achieved at a much more humble level.  Through Simon, I got to know Robert, two men who always seemed so happy together.

The world of politics is definitely poorer for the passing of Simon Milton.

The Battle for the Chilterns

For my post today, I give an example of a campaign we have been working on, which is in the news today.

The Sunday Times’s headline is “Labour courts Tory voters with new high-speed route”. (P14).

Basically Labour will come out tomorrow in support of the route option for HS2 via Heathrow and away from the most unspoilt part of the Chilterns. On behalf of our client, Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside, we have argued that if HS2 is to go ahead (and the case is far from made yet), a route via the widest part of the Chilterns makes little sense.

We are pretty much the only group arguing for a different route to be considered (others are either in favour of the government’s preferred route or against HS2 altogether). It is therefore a satisfying outcome for us.

How did we do it? Not by buying lunches for MPs or by shady deals behind closed doors. We did it by putting together a strong case and presenting it effectively. The Labour Party agreed that the current proposed route makes no sense.

This will put pressure on the government to think again. And, as the line is not due to start being built until after the Election, the issue of HS2 has just been thrown wide open.

It Takes Two To Tango

Broadly speaking – and I know there are some exceptions – sleazy lobbyists can only be successful if there are sleazy policymakers. A lobbyist handing out brown envelopes stuffed full of used fivers will acheive nothing unless a policy maker is willing to take the bung and change behaviour in return. This point strikes me as so blindingly obvious that I am always amazed how rarely the significance is understood.

I am a lobbyist. In that role, I have no “public” duty to anyone (although as a private individual, I feel I have all kinds of social obligations). I am answerable to my clients, my Chief Executive and the partners at Lansons. I am not answerable to Parliament, to the Head of the Civil Service or to the Crown.

However all those whom I lobby are answerable and accountable for their actions. I am mystified that more attention is not focused on tougher measures against the relatively small number of policy makers who are answerable, rather than the much larger number of external lobbyists. If politicians and civil servants are prepared to do favours for a lunch or on behalf of a “friend” were always hounded from office as effectively as Liam Fox was, much of the perceived problems of lobbying would disappear overnight.

That said, I do accept that lobbyists have a duty of propriety and transparency. I voluntarily subscribe to the industry Code of Conduct and I voluntarily list my clients on a public register. However I think policy makers need to remember that it is they, not I, who have the public duty.

Why GO’D is not infallible

Sir Gus O’Donnell (GO’D to some wags) is, in my view, the most successful Cabinet Secretary in modern times (apologies to Robin Butler and Andrew Turnbull, both of whom I admire greatly). However even someone as august as GO’D occasionally gets things wrong.

After promising myself that I would read the report into the Liam Fox affair, I finally did so sitting up in bed last night (yes, I really am that sad). Overall it is the typical forensic examination of the matter that one would expect.

However buried away on page 8 of the ten page report is the astonishing throwaway claim that Adam Werrity is “not himself a lobbyist”. Now Mr Werrity seems to have made large sums of money introducing his clients to Liam Fox and others in the Ministry of Defence. If he is not a lobbyist, then Gus O’Donnell is not a Manchester United fan.

Does this fundamental error matter? Of course it does. In a few weeks time, the Cabinet Office will finally get around to publishing a consultation paper on the coalition’s plans to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists. Clearly it will be fundamentally important to get the definition of lobbyist right in the legislation to create the register. If someone like Adam Werrity is let off the hook by not being seen as a lobbyist, it will be a huge mistake. Let’s hope that GO’D's staff don’t make the same mistake as him.

Farewell Peter Bingle’s Blog

For my second daily posting, I had intended to blog on a subject that will now have to wait until tomorrow.  Instead I would like to devote my post today to my sadness that Peter Bingle has decided to stop blogging.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to say that Peter and I rarely see eye to eye.  Our debate last February at the CIPR was robust, even fiery.  His cheeky tweet last week to ask “Who is Mark Adams?” was borderline offensive.  However anyone who knows Peter knows that deep down his heart is in the right place.  Him and I differ on many things – I simply do not share his vision for the framework in which lobbying should take place and he does not share mine.  But we passionately agree on the importance of lobbying and the fundamental right of everyone to lobby.

Having started my blog only yesterday, it is additionally sad that Peter is ending his.  I think I would have enjoyed the almost inevitable sparing that might, no would, have taken place.

And one last thing, referred to by Peter in his last posting.  I greatly admire his strong faith and commitment to the Catholic Church.  I share his faith, although a different flavour.  My commitment to the Anglican Church would surely have led to theological debates between us as vigorous as the policy debates.

So I will miss Peter’s blogging.  I genuinely hope it is not the last we hear from him.

Spectator’s incoherence on lobbying

The usually meticulous James Forsyth published a strangely incoherent article in the Spectator this week, which condemned lobbying simultaneously for being “a cancer on the body politic” and “a massive ruse at the expense of the lobbyists’ clients”. His article is on the Spectator website:

http://tinyurl.com/6fs9syx

The article highlights a common dilemma for the critics of lobbying, who wish to argue both that lobbying is all powerful but, worried that they simply push willing new clients in the direction of lobbying companies, try to question their supposed effectiveness.

Some lobbyists, desparate to boost earnings in these difficult economic times, themselves overclaim their importance and influence in the political sysytem.  This was of course the height of Derek Draper’s folly in the lobbying scandal that he caused.

I am afraid that the reality, like so much in life, is much more mundane. Helping the organisations they work for to present their case effectively – it is important to remember that lobbyists can be employed either ”in-house” or in a consultancy – is a perfectly respectable activity.  If any influence is achieved over the policy process, it is because lobbyists make an effective point that policy makers have previously overlooked.  And thank goodness they do – there are complaints enough about the burden of regulation on us without it being designed regardless of the comments of those it will impact.

It is about time that more of us recognised the value of lobbying on our democracy and stood up to point it out.

For the record, I have written to the Spectator in response to their article.  I reproduce my letter below.  Time will tell if they publish it.

Sir,

James Forsyth’s article “Liam Fox is not the only politician to become entangled in the lobbyist’s web” was a fascinating insight into the minds of those who fail to understand the lobbying profession.

Apparently “lobbyists for special interests are a cancer on the body politic. They distort our democracy, skewing it in favour of those who can afford their services.”  I could almost sense the nodding heads of his readers.

But hang on a moment.  Read on and he argues, “all of this is, in many ways, a massive ruse at the expense of the lobbyists’ clients. They end up picking up the tab for drinks and dinner for people who just pretend to listen to them.”

So do lobbyists “distort our democracy” or is it all “a massive ruse at the expense of the lobbyists’ clients”.  Clearly both positions cannot be right.  In my view, neither are.  The right to lobby was set out in the Magna Carta and is an important cornerstone of our democracy.

Mark Adams

Head of Public Affairs

Lansons Communications