As I have repeatedly said since the government first published its consultation on the subject, this is a poorly thought through piece of nonsense that will achieve little but restrict democratic rights. Sadly some in the lobbying profession, while agreeing with me privately, are backing regulation in the mistaken belief that it will happen anyway.

I am increasingly confident that the government now realise the folly of this madcap Liberal Democrat scheme, hastily inserted into the coalition agreement. I can perfectly understand that the Minister wants to avoid announcing a U-turn. So what better than to kick it into the long grass?

Hopefully the issue is not simply in the light rough just off the fairway, but well and truly buried.

In any event, I have been keeping a careful eye on the government’s action – or rather inaction – on lobbying regulation. In the circumstances, it is fair to conclude that our side of the argument is winning without having to try too hard, presumably as the government discover for themselves the folly of their plans.

That said, we clearly need to be cautious, especially when another so-called “lobbying scandal” breaks. So I obviously read with great interest the story in the Telegraph this morning, “Councillors for hire who give firms planning advice“. The first thing, I obviously noticed is that the article identifies elected councillors as the culprits, rather than “lobbyists”. Indeed, unlike the oft-represted claims that “lobbyists” abuse their supposed privileged place in society, the piece focuses on potential abuse by elected representatives.

But, wait a minute, what exactly is the abuse that they have identified? Interestingly, the online piece, linked above, is rather watered down from the published version. I wonder if some of the more fanciful claims in the Telegraph article have already been successfully rebutted (potentially with the threat of legal action).

What remains is a weak claim that the consultants offering their services may know someone on the local council; and that they suggest there may be ways “around” lobbying restrictions in planning law.

Frankly, that is hardly a shattering revelation. Rightly or wrongly – and I believe wrongly – clients seems to think they have a better chance of success if they hire a consultant who knows someone on the local authority. Their assumption is that a consultant can tap up a mate to encourage them to agree to something that they would otherwise oppose. This would be tantamount to corruption; I find it highly unlikely; and I have not seen any evidence that it exists.

Furthermore, the article suggests that the consultants make use of their “inside knowledge” of the planning system. The article suggests that this knowledge extends to issues like which councils have not yet adopted their new framework plans; or which ones are more interested in “green” issues. Shock horror. How outrageous that someone knows this and offers to advise those who don’t know it. This is of course the essence of consultancy in all works of life. A client hires a consultant with expertise they do not have themselves. Unless the expertise is acquired inappropriately – and there is NO suggestion of that in this case – it cannot possibly be wrong.

And what of the claims that there are “ways around” the planning laws. This seems to refer to the fact that the consultants explain that there is a proper way to lobby on planning cases, which they offer to advise on, and which avoids the improper routes. Quite right to. A scandal? Don’t be daft.

Of course I understand why journalists return to the “lobbying scandal” time after time. But yet again, closer examination discovers that this is just another lobbying non-scandal.

It is clear that the debate over Leveson is over whether the excesses of the press justify state intervention, which would, however argued, inevitably mean an end to the totally free press. The argument goes that, although the press has always been free, freedom must come with responsibility for not abusing such freedom. There undoubtedly have been abuses of press freedom, documented at considerable length in the inquiry report.

Rightly or wrongly, David Cameron has concluded that, despite the clear evidence of excess, this cannot justify state intrusion into press freedom.

How does this read across to regulation of lobbying? Clearly many are concerned about the “excesses” of lobbyists and argue that regulation is essential to address these. However, despite two recent Parliamentary inquiries into lobbying, and an extensive government investigation as part of their work, not one example of “lobbying excess” has been produced.

Wouldn’t it be curious if the government refused to regulate the press, despite clear evidence of excess, but did regulate lobbying, despite the absence of such excess? Still I suppose the government worry more about what Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere think of their policies than what Peter Bingle and I think.

Tamasin’s critique of our approach focused on the fact that we have not placed transparency at the heart of our objectives. Tamasin and her organisation are absolutely obsessed with transparency (the clue is rather in their name). They seem to think they have some kind of right to know my business and the business of my fellow lobbyists. Well I have news for them. Not only do they not have that right, but us lobbyists actually have a right to privacy.  It’s laid down in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is of course incorporated into domestic law.

Now quite rightly the Convention recognises that there will be circumstances when the right to privacy must be limited, but that these circumstances have to be properly justified. I have yet to see any justification for the kind of transparency that the ALT call for, other than that it would reveal what lobbyists are doing (er, yes, although only up to a point). But what is the justification for any of this?

As it happens, I agree that some transparency is justified.  I think it is right for lobbyists to be expected to be clear on the identity of the organisation they are representing. And I am very happy to be transparent about how our campaign is funded (so far entirely out of my pocket, but with some membership fees now starting to come in).

But other than some limited information, I expect my right to privacy to be upheld. Does this mean I have something to hide? Of course not; it just means I don’t see why my business is Tamasin Cave’s business.

We are now open for new members to join. Please DO all rush at once and let’s see how many members we can achieve before the official launch this afternoon.

From about 4pm this afternoon, you will be able to join the debate live through twitter, either by tweeting us @su4lobbying or using the hashtag for the event #su4llaunch. We will be attempting to answer questions posted by twitter during the event. Please keep them clean!

For anyone who is unable to make the launch itself, we will be meeting in The Clarence pub, 53 Whitehall, from about 6.15pm onwards

My dear friend, Paul Flynn MP, has already suggested to me that this is very bad timing, following the publication on Sunday of another so-called “lobbying scandal”, involving retired Generals offering special access to the MoD. In fact, the story underlines yet again precisely why we need a new campaign to demonstrate the real value of professional lobbying and to ensure that it is always carried out with integrity.

Professional lobbying has long been misunderstood. Lobbyists have often taken the view that our chosen vocation is so unpopular that we should keep our heads down and hope the critics move onto something else. I think it is quite clear that they won’t, nor should they. Concerns about professional lobbying are entirely legitimate, even if often misplaced. They should be addressed and, I believe, they can be addressed.

When I ask members of the public if they think politicians listen to them too much or too little, no prizes for guessing what they say. We need more lobbying, not less. And where it is done professionally, we need it done more professionally. That is what Standup4Lobbying will be attempting to achieve.

So please support our campaign. Or, even better, join and get involved. The future of the lobbying profession depends on it.

This issue was actually raised in an email I received from a senior member of the lobbying profession, who told me:

“Personally, I feel quite strongly that the profession needs to be regulated on a statutory basis – years of self regulation have failed and so a charter that accepts self regulation will not, in my view, take us forward. We need a clear line (not a dotted one) to be drawn under the past.”

My colleague having taken the trouble to write, I felt I should reply and would like to reprint my reply here:

“You actually raise a very important point. With the creation of Standup4Lobbying, I have been very careful to try to appeal to those who believe in voluntary regulation and those who believe in statutory regulation.

As a public affairs professional yourself you will certainly understand that if we move towards a statutory regime, it is even more important that we have an effective voice for the profession. We certainly don’t raise the white flag and accept whatever the politicians throw at us. We make sure we shape the regulation so its impact promotes rather than undermines the objective of improving the professionalism of lobbying.

The Lobbyists’ Charter, at the heart of what our campaign will be about, includes the following:

§  Professional lobbyists should be subject to a rigorous Code of Conduct, whether on a self-regulatory or statutory basis, designed to enshrine high professional and ethical standards to the benefit of all

The full Charter is here.

I have certainly made clear my personal view that the case for statutory regulation has not yet been made. I know some colleagues in the profession disagree with me, which I believe is an important debate to be had. However, we need to be having the debate and representing our profession to the government, not sitting on our hands.”

When we open for membership tomorrow, I genuinely hope that we will include those who believe in some form of statutory regulation, or at least statutory underpinning of the voluntary system. And I would welcome an early debate on precisely this issue.

Let me be clear, demanding cash in return for undue influence over the policy process is obviously wrong. Most so-called lobbying scandals have featured former insiders who have sold their contacts with former colleagues in a totally inappropriate way.

Whatever form statutory regulation of lobbying takes, I am extremely doubtful that we will ever completely end attempts by some to exploit their contacts in an inappropriate way. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations have rightly pointed out that the retired generals would not be required to sign up to the government’s proposed statutory register. But that misses an important point. Even if they were required to sign up, it certainly would not have forced them to behave differently.

No amount of statutory regulation can change the culture of our political process. Those of us who believe in democracy – and the role of legitimate lobbying within the political process – have to work together to change the culture. It is too important to leave to politicians.

UPDATE: For more information and to apply for a ticket, please click here

This blog only covers issues to do with lobbying and the debate about its regulation.