When is lobbying not lobbying?

The Coalition is committed to introducing a statutory register of “lobbyists”.  Clearly a vitally important part of the puzzle they have set themselves is the definition of lobbying and lobbyists.  Any statutory regime must obviously be absolutely clear about what it is that requires an individual or organisation to register, or face legal sanction for failing to do so.

I have always been bemused by the tendency of some involved in the debate about lobbying to try to distinguish between “good lobbying” and “bad lobbying”.  On the whole, good lobbying is seen as that undertaken by charities, voluntary bodies and other worthy causes.  Bad lobbying is of course that undertaken by corporate organisations.  Quite why some organisations should be impugned so harshly for simply exercising their democratic right beats me.  However that is essentially the argument as I understand it.

However, it will be very difficult to achieve a distinction in statute between good and bad lobbying.  Disturbing news is reaching me that some are seeking to distinguish between “lobbying” and “advocacy”, and arguing that only lobbying needs to be regulated.  Now I have not myself seen a proper attempt to define the difference, so I’m having a stab at it.  Lo and behold, lobbying is apparently done by corporate, but advocacy is what cuddly, worthy organisations do.  I am going to be very interested to see how the definitions successfully distinguish.

The government is now behind schedule on publishing their consultation paper on the statutory register of lobbyists, as confirmed in this story on the PR Week website.  Frankly I am not surprised.  When I used to be involved in discussions with government, I know they were as aware as me about the huge definitional problems they will have.  If they even attempt to set out a distinction between “lobbying” and “advocacy”, I hope all will see it as pure sophistry.

If the government are so set on regulating lobbying, they must make sure they apply a universal framework to all involved in making representations to government, whether that activity is called lobbying or advocacy.  Anything less would be an unjust travesty that should be roundly condemned.

Lobbying and the Autumn Statement

Tomorrow the Chancellor will present his Autumn Statement.  The media have been speculating for days about the content and also have been carrying comments from a wide range of organisations keen to give their views on what the Chancellor should be saying.

Nothing strange about this, of course.  Except the organisations who have been commenting are, essentially, lobbyists, setting out what they would like to see the Chancellor do, from the standpoint of their particular interests.  At other times, the media would be heavily criticising such “lobbyists” and suggesting, at best, that they should be regulated to control what they do, or, at worst, prevented from operating altogether.

What nonsense.  I for one would much rather live in a democracy where everyone has the right to make representations to the Chancellor about what he should be doing, rather than one where companies or individuals are constrained.  Of course the Chancellor must make up his own mind on what advice to follow, assisted by his team of Treasury civil servants.  But at least we know that, if he gets it wrong, we can punish the Coalition at the next election.

It’s called democracy.  I’m all for it.  And us lobbyists help enrich it.

Gloves off from Glover

I’m afraid that I am not a reader of the Daily Mail, so I had to rely on Lionel Zetter for drawing my attention to a simply dreadful article from Stephen Glover in yesterday’s Daily Mail (and available here).  I would like to say that this article is not typical of Mr Glover’s style of writing, but I have read enough of him to know that would be untrue.

But enough of that – criticising the Daily Mail really is too easy.  Just like, Mr Glover supposes, criticising “lobbyists”.  He says “If I had my way, every lobbyist would be incarcerated in the Tower of London until he or she promised on pain of death never to carry out any lobbying again.”  Brave words from a member of a profession currently being torn apart by the Leveson Inquiry into the power of the media.  But that is perhaps too easy a debating point for me to make.

Now I will be extremely generous to Mr Glover.  I will suppose that he DOES realise that, in a democracy, the right to lobby – to try to influence policy – is a fundamental right.  He simply could not possibly believe that policy makers should be left to get on with setting policy immune from the views of those of us in the outside world that have to live with the consequences.  Indeed the Daily Mail itself lobbies for a wide range of policy changes.  Few are to my taste, but I wouldn’t condemn Paul Dacre to the Tower for daring to do so.

So what could Mr Glover be driving at?  Well there is actually one sentence in his article that sets out his case.  He writes about lobbying as follows:

 “It is a profoundly undemocratic activity in which special interests with lots of money are granted special, secretive access to plead the cause of their paymasters who often have less than scrupulous motives”.

Wow.  Strong language.  So let’s unpick it a little, shall we?  Surely lobbying is not “profoundly undemocratic” in principle, as I argued above.  Ok, well no, but perhaps it is when practiced by “special interests”.  Hmmm, what are they?  Aerospace companies who care about the future of aerospace?  Car manufacturers who care about the future of car manufacturing?  Developers who care about the future of development?  Of course these are “special interest”.  I have a “special interest” in the education of my children, the future success of Blackheath Rugby Club, and the plans for cycling in London.  Mr Glover, I suspect, has a “special interest” in the outcome of the Leveson inquiry.  We all have special interests.  That doesn’t mean they are automatically wrong and certainly doesn’t mean that they should not be heard.

All right, maybe he would give me that.  So perhaps it is the fact that they have “lots of money” that is the problem.  Well, I have already dealt with this point elsewhere but, in a nutshell, people and organisations with more money do buy themselves privilege, including, in the case of the Rothermere family, ownership of a newspaper group.  I might have more sympathy for Mr Glover’s view if he joins me in calling for a more equal society.

Yes, but what about the “special, secretive access”?  Really?  I’ve never known it.  I have never achieved a meeting for a client for any other reason that they have a legitimate point to make and policymakers have a legitimate need to hear it.  If it does go on, surely it is best tackled by imposing strong rules on policy makers, not by limiting the rights of the rest of us.

And finally, dear reader, you wonder about the “less than scrupulous motives” that those lobbying government have.  Should we make Mr Glover custodian of access to weed out those with such motives?  Of course not.  What is less than scrupulous to Mr Glover may be perfectly acceptable to me or the next person.  And we should rely on our policy makers to identify such motives and take an informed decision based on the fullest information from all sides.  But, I ask Mr Glover, how on earth will the government be able to do that if all us lobbyists are locked up in the Tower?

End of the Day for Early Day Motions?

For some time, I have been meaning to respond to Chris Heaton-Harris’s views on Early Day Motions (EDMs) recently carried on the PoliticsHome website.  You can read his views for yourself by clicking here.

For those of you who who are not political anoraks, you might like to read the excellent summary of EDMs to be found here on the Houses of Parliament website.  Essentially they are motions that can be tabled by as few as a single member of Parliament, supposedly for debate on an “early day”.  In practice, they are rarely debated and are generally used simply to draw attention to a particular cause.

Chris Heaton-Harris argues that EDMs are largely pointless and that the system should be reformed.  Broadly I agree.  I hope I have never been guilty of “sitting in a meeting room trying to work out how to justify [my] Client’s retainer” believing that if I can get a few signatures on an EDM then I have done my job.  In my time in lobbying, I have only once recommended an EDM, which was to raise the plight of democracy activists in Azerbaijan.  We achieved around 100 signatures and I believe it was an important way to show solidarity from the mother of Parliaments to nascent democrats in that country.  I wonder if Chris Heaton-Harris would agree.

PR Week were kind enough to place my views amongst two of my professional peers last week, as you can see here.  I suppose the shortness of quotes and the inclination of the media to suggest division where there is none polarised the debate.  As it happens I do agree with Jon McLeod’s views on the possible advantages of EDMs.

But overall, Chris Heaton-Harris is right.  Reform is needed.  A minimum of ten signatures before an EDM can be published seems sensible (we certainly achieved that BEFORE the EDM I was involved in was tabled).  And clients who sit through a presentation from their public affairs advisers on how EDMs will be the cornerstone of the strategy should look around for new advisers.  I would be happy to make a recommendation.

A Discourse on Justice and Democracy

Don’t worry, folks, it’s just a rather pretentious title for a few random thoughts I wanted to share with you today.  As part of my “staycation”, which I thoroughly recommend by the way, I spent the morning today at the Stephen Lawrence trial, or rather Regina v Dobson and Norris in Court 16 at the Central Criminal Courts, more commonly known as the Old Bailey.

It was my first time sitting in the gallery of a criminal case, since some of my student activist friends were before Cambridge Magistrates in 1981.  As I looked down on the rows of lawyers for the prosecution and, particularly, for the defence, I did wonder, as I have before, about the different way we approach questions of justice and democracy.  I have no idea how Dobson and Norris are financing their defence, indeed they may be on legal aid for all I know.  But if they are self-funded, questions obviously arise about the source of the funds.  Of course it would be libellous for me to suggest that the families of Dobson and Norris – or indeed the men themselves – have access to funds raised illegitimately.  It is however a matter of public record that Gary Dobson is a convicted drug dealer (thereby inflicting more pain on young people and their parents to add to that allegedly inflicted on Stephen Lawrence and his family).

Dobson and Norris are entitled to a fair trial and I agree that, for now, they are innocent, until proven guilty.  That said, they never responded to the Daily Mail’s invitation to sue for libel when the paper accused them of murdering Stephen Lawrence (together with Neil Acourt, Jamie Acourt and Luke Knight).  They deserve a proper defence.  I for one will not complain if they have purchased the best QCs in town (so long as they have done so with legitimate money). 

However I am always surprised how little attention is ever focused on the ability of the rich to purchase the best lawyers, compared to the attacks on the rich if they choose to purchase the best lobbyists.  Justice and democracy are two of the key pillars of our civilisation and I see little sense in criticising the rich in one case, not the other.  In any case, as I have already argued here, the answer is not to stop rich people using their wealth; it is to campaign for a fairer more equal society.  Both justice and democracy would be served as a result.

The Good Looks and Sparkling Personality of Lionel Zetter

The BBC One Show featured a debate on lobbying yesterday evening. I hope the Beeb will forgive me, but I typically have better things to do at 7pm on a weekday evening than watch a low brow news magazine programme, but I have just reviewed it on BBC iPlayer. You can do likewise by clicking here. You will find the piece about seven minutes in.

Lionel Zetter made the case for lobbying. He argues that policymakers are influenced by the power of the argument, rather than “my good looks and sparkling personality”. I certainly agree, although I personally have always been influenced by Lionel’s good looks and sparkling personality.

The case against lobbying was put by my old sparring partner, Tamsin Cave, of the ill-named (in my humble view) Alliance for Lobbying Transparency. Tamsin conjured up an image of a series of undercover monsters, called lobbyists (although I thought her description sounded more like X-Men) who apparently “control all aspects of our lives”. As the programme was broadcast before the watershed, I imagined millions of young children going to bed last night, asking “Mummy, daddy, please check under the bed to see if there are any lobbyists hiding”. Come on!

And another thing, Tamsin. You said that “no-one knows who is lobbying who”. As part of my defence of the English language, I hope you don’t mind if I point out that it should be “who is lobbying whom”.

The Public Affairs Profession at its Best

This evening my company, Lansons Communications, will be hosting a table at the Public Affairs News awards, when the brightest and best in our profession will be recognised.  For someone like me, who passionately believes that our profession has a proud role in the democratic system of this country, it will be an enriching experience.

My own colleague, Chris Bose, has been shortlisted for rising star from an agency.  He is up against strong opposition, demonstrating that for all the recent criticism of our profession, we are still able to attract graduates of the highest calibre into it.  Lansons are also sponsoring an award, so I will be handing over the trophy for the private sector campaign of the year.

I really wish that the critics of our fine profession would come along and see the range of talent and hear about the impressive work being done.  But of course they won’t.  They will continue to carp from the sidelines based on an ill-informed view of what we do.  I will be happy to cheer tonight’s winners.  When I get to my feet to applaud the stars of the industry, I literally will stand up for lobbying.

Stephen Lawrence

I live about a mile from the spot where Stephen Lawrence was brutally murdered in 1993.  His death hangs like a shadow over my part of London, a vibrant multi-cultural area with a small ugly undercurrent of intolerance and racism.  I hope the trial that has just started brings justice at last for Stephen Lawrence.  I pray for his parents who are now forced to relive the terrible events that stole their son from them.  Of course the accused must be given a fair trial but I, for one, will be celebrating if they are convicted and imprisoned.

What is this to do with lobbying?  Well, it is an excellent example of how ordinary people have the power to change laws by making a convincing, passionate case.  To my knowledge, no professional lobbyist was ever hired to campaign on the issue.  Yet such was the power of the case that one of the most fundamental historical laws of the land, double jeopardy, was changed.

We hear too little about how ordinary people can change the world.  The Stephen Lawrence tragedy shows that it can be done.

Stephen Lawrence rest in peace.  And let justice finally be done.

We Shall Remember Them

No blog post today but in the two minutes it would normally take to read it please spare a thought or prayer for all those affected by war.

Public Affairs News Quotes This Blog

Someone out there is taking this blog seriously.  I am delighted to see it quoted so extensively in the latest edition of Public Affairs News.  Click here to read the article.

I am puzzled though why so many of my industry colleagues have leapt on Gus O’Donnell’s conclusion that Adam Werrity was not a lobbyist.  They seem to be using it to suggest that the lobbying industry is “in the clear” with regard to this episode.  Frankly I think my colleagues are profoundly wrong on both counts, as I have previously explained.  Fortunately I didn’t start this blog in a bid to be popular in the lobbying industry.