Is Tristram Hunt a Tory stooge?

A headline in the PR Week daily e-bulletin caught my eye this morning.  Apparently an MP was arguing that the government’s plans for lobbying regulation were flawed because the BSkyB lobbyist, Frederic Michel, would not be caught.

Er, hang on a moment. I thought the wrong doing that had been identified at the Leveson enquiry this week was to do with the actions of Jeremy Hunt and his Special Adviser, Adam Smith. Indeed, Mr Smith has now had to resign and Jeremy Hunt’s position looks distinctly shaky.

However step up Tristram Hunt, Labour MP for Stoke, to suggest that Frederic Michel is the rascal in this tale. What poppycock. So far as I can see, Mr Michel is guilty of nothing more than exaggerating the precise nature of his discussions with government.  But by asking to see something? What’s the wrong doing there? If Adam Smith sent out something that he shouldn’t, he rightly had to go.

So what game is Tristram Hunt playing? Why is he suggesting that the blame might lie somewhere other than with the government?

Surely it is not because, yet again, when there is a political scandal, politicians try to suggest that it is instead a “lobbying scandal”?  As I said, poppycock.

The Denial of the Lobbyists

St Peter famously denied he knew Our Lord three times before the cock crowed. He recovered from this betrayal to become the first Bishop of Rome (Pope).  I suppose it allows me to make a small Anglican dig at the concept of Papal infallibility.

However us lobbyists know that we are fallible.  We are after all only human. However we now have a new phenomenon of lobbyists denying they are lobbyists, before and after the cock crows.

Peter Bingle is now laughably claiming that he is not a lobbyist. He argues that he never lobbies, his client do the lobbying.

On one level, this is mere semantics. On the whole, I let my clients lobby, rather than me, but it still makes me a lobbyist.  In my book, professional advisers on lobbying are lobbyists.

But there is a more important point. Bingle is frankly lying when he says he never lobbies. I know political figures who have been lobbied by him.

He should withdraw his ludicrous claim and stand up for his profession as I am doing. But in the unlikely event that he intends to stick to his claim, he must sue me.

But his legal team should be warned.  I have a phalanx of political figures lined up to contradict him when he claims under oath never to have lobbied.

Bring it on, Peter. Or are you, as your political hero would put it, frit?

Dear, oh dear, Cabinet Office

Thanks to my friend Mark Ramsdale for pointing out the confusion in the Cabinet Office over the consultation on a statutory register for lobbyists.

If you read the consultation paper, as I obviously have done, you will see that the deadline is tomorrow, 13th April. I have been struggling to get my response completed in time, partly, I will admit, because I suspect that the chances of the government actually seeing sense and agreeing with me are very limited.

However, if you look at the page on the Cabinet Office website, the closing date is stated as the 20th April. I think I can manage that, so would prefer to stick to that deadline.

But what does this tell us about the people driving this policy forward? I have already expressed my dismay at the lack of rigour in the policy analysis. Now I see that basic organisation is beyond them as well.

If you get invited by the Cabinet Office to a party in a facility for the manufacture of beer any time soon, my advice would be to decline.

Come off it, CBI, part 2

So the deadline to respond to the government’s consultation on lobbying is tomorrow.  I hope organisations will publish their response.

I will particularly enjoy reading the CBI’s response to see what self-serving nonsense they advance to argue that they should not register. I wrote about this subject last week, but I am prompted to do so again today by this excellent blog post from my good friend, Francis Ingham.

Now Francis and I disagree on many things – he is a Tory, for a start. But we tend to agree more often than we differ. He is absolutely spot on about the CBI – and he should know, as he once worked there.  Of course the CBI lobbies the government, to be fair, usually very effectively. So of course they should be on any statutory register.

So do please send me a copy of your submission, dear CBI. And let’s have a good laugh.

Mark Harper’s double standards on lobbying

I hope you are all aware that the deadline for responding to the government’s consultation on a statutory register for lobbyists expires on Friday.  I must admit that I haven’t started writing mine yet, but I think it is clear what the basic thrust of it will be.

I was recently sent the UK Public Affairs Council’s response to the exercise.  Easter holidays prevented me from even opening the document until this afternoon, for which I can only apologise.  However I was unsurprised, when I read the conclusions, that there is much I can agree with. I have the greatest respect for the three independent members of the Council and the representatives of the public affairs profession.

Many things have amused me during this process, but none more than the Minister responsible, Mark Harper, saying that he wants to see evidence in the responses.  A noble ambition, but what a shame that the evidence was lacking in the consultation paper itself.  We still don’t know what it is that the government believe the problem to be.  The Minister said that the government needed to address the public concern over lobbying and the consultation paper claims that MPs and members of the public have written to the government to express concern.  However the Cabinet Office don’t even know how many letters they have received, as revealed in an FoI Act reply to me.

So, Mr Harper, you want evidence from us (and you’ll get it from me); but you can’t provide it yourself.  Is anyone surprised to find the government so clearly guilty of double standards?

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism speak out on Bell Pottinger

After my complaint about Bell Pottinger breaking the public affairs Code of Conduct was rejected, I have seen new evidence about Bell Pottinger’s possible offences.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the organisation that ran the sting operation, has written to PR Week with more details.  In the interest of openness, I reprint their letter below. Should the PRCA now reopen the investigation?

Dear Mr Rogers,

Hello.  I am the editor of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.  As I am sure you recall, we carried out that story on Bell Pottinger last year with the Independent.

As your magazine has reported, the Public Relations Consultants Association cleared Bell Pottinger last week of breaching its Code of Practice, following a complaint from Mark Adams of Standup4Lobbying. 

The complaint related to the Bureau’s undercover investigation into Bell Pottinger’s representation of regimes with poor human rights records.

I am writing to you as I am unsure how the PRCA reached its conclusion.

First, I was never approached for comment by the inquiry board.  As our journalism was one that did not rely solely on our undercover work – and as such used other sourced evidence to stand up or knock over any exaggeration made by BP in the pitch.  So there is much of what we were told by BP as prospective clients that is not public.  And as such much that could have informed the PRCA’s decision.  Had they approached me I would have made this available to them (with conditions).

Second, we feel that we did report sufficient evidence that shows BP breached the PRCA code.

The Code, for instance, states that political consultants must not ‘propose or undertake any action which would constitute an improper influence on organs of government, or on legislation or on the media of communication’. 

It goes on to state that they ‘must not make misleading, exaggerated or extravagant claims or otherwise misrepresent the nature or extent of their access to institutions of government or to political parties or to persons in those institutions.’

But the firm’s boasts about its ability to ‘get the message across’ to the Cabinet have been well aired, most recently on Newsnight.

During our undercover meeting Bell Pottinger’s David Wilson also said he could help arrange a meeting between the Uzek president and David Cameron.

“It would need to happen via the ambassador into the government,’ he said. ‘We can facilitate that and make sure it goes into the right channels, that the right answers are already being given before the request comes through.’

Was Wilson exaggerating his ability to arrange the meeting or was he really able to pull strings to make it happen? We’ll never know, but either way – improper influence or exaggeration – the Code would appear to have been broken.

Then we have Tim Collins describing at length how the firm persuaded David Cameron to complain about Chinese rip-offs of Dyson Airblade fans to the Chinese premier within a few hours of Dyson asking Bell Pottinger to act. ‘On the Saturday David Cameron raised it with the Chinese prime minister and showed him the photos of the products,’ Collins said.

A Number 10 spokesman told the BBC this was a ‘gross exaggeration’ and that Bell Pottinger had ‘totally misrepresented’ its relationship with Downing Street.

Again it appears that the code was breached.

There were other instances of exaggeration.  Amongst the MPs Collins boasted he knew was Cumbrian MP Rory Stewart. Stewart claims he’s only met Collins once.

As for the rule against improper influence on the media: how about this, again from Collins:

“There are a lot of people in Parliament who can’t stand Channel 4 and can’t stand Dispatches. So if there are any inaccuracies even if they’re fairly minor you can work with some people who have a track record of not liking Channel 4, wanting to score points against Channel 4 and say here is another instance of Channel 4 overreaching themselves and putting out stuff they haven’t properly checked.’

And here’s Wilson talking about how to head off a negative story: ‘You need statistics – you baffle people with statistics and people love statistics so you say then in 80% of the country these reforms are already in place, we are still working through the last twenty per cent, whatever the statistics might be.’

The Code also says that in making representations to government, consultants must ‘be open in disclosing the identity of their employers and must not misrepresent their interests’.  But David Wilson said on camera: ‘In our work for Belarus nobody knows who pays us.’

And as for ethics… look at this dialogue that occurred between the Bureau, David Wilson and Tim Collins:

The Bureau: “The President is not particularly happy with his wikipedia entry or the Uzbek government’s wikipedia entry. You did mention earlier that there might be ways to – would that be something that we could deal with?

David Wilson: Yeah

The Bureau: Yeah. OK.

Tim Collins: We’ve got all sorts of dark arts. I told him he couldn’t put them in the written presentation because it’s embarrassing if it gets out because he’s so good at it.

Do you think that a piece about the PRCA’s ‘inquiry’ and it’s [sic] lack of engagement with the above facts is warranted?

Yours,

Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Come off it, CBI

According to this report in PR Week, the government is rethinking its initial view that in-house lobbyists should be excluded from the statutory register of lobbyists. This potential shift is being criticised by the CBI, trade associations and, it seems, think tanks (at least by the Institute of Economic Affairs’s Mark Littlewood).

The argument goes that it is obvious whom in-house lobbyists are lobbying on behalf of, so they do not need to register. Well, putting aside that the need to register is not just about identifying whom we are lobbying on behalf of, this hardly helps the CBI. I was lobbied by the CBI when I was a civil servant. Now, on the whole, those I dealt with were honourable people and openly revealed where they were coming from. But it is hardly obvious is it? In fact, one of the reasons it is difficult to “read” the CBI is that their remit is so huge. If they lobby on a competition issue, for example, are they lobbying for one side or the other, or neither? We should know that.

Which of course brings me back to one of my criticisms of the government’s approach. A simple register will not reveal who any of us are lobbying on behalf of in a specific case. If the CBI are required to publish a full list of their members (which strikes me as unlikely), how would anyone use it to understand their motives in a specific case? As I have said before, the industry’s Code of Conduct, requiring lobbyist to be transparent about whom they represent when they lobby, is much more powerful.

I hope that the changes that the government are making will eventually force them realise that they have got their whole approach wrong and abandon the plans for a statutory register altogether.

Is Tim Bell a Millwall Fan?

You have to admire Tim Bell. Those who saw his performance on Newsnight last night will have seen his Millwall fan approach: “no one likes us, we don’t care.”

I do care about the reputation of lobbying and I believe such an approach damages it. That is why I complained to the PRCA about Bell Pottinger.

I read the Independent’s reports on their under cover meetings with Bell Pottinger very carefully. I also watched the video footage of the secret filming. I shuddered when I saw what Tim Collins, in particular, had been saying. Anyone in my employment speaking in that way would have been severely reprimanded. It is probably unrealistic to expect Tim Bell to have subjected Tim Collins to such treatment.

Instead I can imagine the smirks today at Bell Pottinger, now that they have been cleared by the PRCA. No doubt they will interpret this as vindication for their unique style of public relations and public affairs. If so, that would be a bad day for my profession of lobbying.

Personally I would like to think that Bell Pottinger were lucky to escape on a “technicality”. The PRCA have concluded “on the basis of the evidence available to it” that the code had not been broken. Clearly as the accused, Bell Pottinger deserved to be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Even under a statutory system, verdicts will from time to time “raise eyebrows”.

So enjoy your relief for now, Tim Bell. I will continue to watch Bell Pottinger like a hawk. If I see any evidence of wrong doing again, I will be straight back to the PRCA to complain.

PS Both Tim Bell and I were sent the PRCA ruling yesterday afternoon and asked to keep it confidential until the announcement at 9am this morning. I did so. Tim Bell did not. Which one of us had acted honourably in this episode?

The collective problem of lobbying self-regulation

At the PubAffairs event last week, I got into a conversation with a civil servant about government’s plans to introduce statutory register of lobbyists. Mark Adams, the main contributor to this blog, had condemned the consultation paper published in January. He is particularly concerned that, should this policy go ahead, many companies will leave the self-regulatory bodies which impose a Code of Conduct on its members. As a result, lobbying regulation would actually be weaker, contrary to the proposed policy objective.

Finding a definition of lobbying that will at the very least satisfy most of the parties concerned will be a rather difficult task, but this is not what I want to discuss. For all the glory and effectiveness that self-regulation of lobbying industry represents, there seem to be some issues that can only be resolved from the outside.

The civil servant pointed out to me that it will be hard for lobbying companies to promote themselves as neutral agents who facilitate democratic process by making the complex process of policy creation easier for both governments and interest groups, when they have an unfortunate habit of hiring former cabinet ministers and high-ranking civil servants the moment their political careers end (either voluntarily or with a little help from the media). Though there is nothing inherently wrong with employing a person with (presumably) superior knowledge of politics and policy-making, the public perception invariably ebbs towards the conclusion that it is the personal contacts and intimate knowledge of key political players that secures them a well-paid job in a public affairs consultancy.  It may be unlikely that Peter Cruddas will become a professional lobbyist anytime soon, but, should Andrew Lansley take a boot in an upcoming reshuffle, will anyone be surprised to see him on the payroll of a public affairs division in a company like United Healthcare few months later?

The case for hiring former government members to political consultancies can be argued extensively, and from different angles, but, as is often the case in politics, it’s not what’s happening that counts, but what it looks like. If professional lobbying firms want to be taken seriously by the public, they need to send a clear message that they hire the most qualified, not just the best-connected.

But here comes the problem: on their own, they cannot do it. Even if a handful of high-minded lobbying companies publicly pledge not to hire newly-unemployed politicians and civil servants for at least a year since they left their public service job, or until the next general elections, there will always be others who will happily disregard popular concern over such practices, and land themselves an employee with an impressive contact list.

This represents a classic collective action problem, a game theoretical riddle developed by social scientist Mancur Olson. In Olson’s model, a group of individual players (in our case, lobbying firms) has an interest in common (increasing their public reputation) and has the best chances of achieving that interest by acting collectively. However, if the group is self-regulated, and most members of the group do implement a collectively agreed solution (such as only employing high-ranking government officials only after a certain time gap), there will always be some who value personal benefit higher than that of an entire group, and as such will “free-ride” on the efforts of others (dipping into an increased pool of highly attractive job seekers). One of the most effective solutions to such problems, as proposed by Olson, is to make costs of “free-riding” too high, usually through a system of punishment, usually executed by an independent third party.

This idea opens a whole new plane of debate on lobbying self-regulation. If it is an agreeable proposition that public affairs consultancies are not doing themselves any favours by seeking high-profile employees with a direct influence on government, then what should be the best way to limit this practice? If it is not done through statutory regulation, it will mean that the present self-regulatory bodies will have to become more formidable towards their members, with an ability to impose large fines or inflict a serious damage on their reputation should they fail to comply. The government may not be the best source of regulation of lobbying industry, but if the industry wants to be self-regulated and taken seriously, they should start considering such issues.

Liddle on Lobbying

For those who missed my tweet yesterday, click here to watch Rod Liddle’s take on lobbying, including my good self, a rather defensive backbench Conservative MP, Andrea Leadsom, and the back of the head of one of the Insight team.  Investigative journalists cannot of course be shown on screen. But if you are a Conservative treasurer worried about tabloid stings, do get in touch and I will offer a description (yeah, right).

There are a couple of developments to report on the reaction to the cash4cameron story. I’ll update on these as soon as I can today, so do check back.