| Synopsis: |
This report takes a new look at lobbying, in the first parliamentary inquiry on the subject since 1991. Lobbying is about influence, and influence is impossible without access. Lobbying is publicly associated with the activities of consultancies on behalf of their various clients. But it is also carried out by other kinds of professional representative, such as lawyers, as well as in-house by a vast array of organisations with an interest in public policy and decisions. Lobbying should be and often is a force for good. But there is a genuine issue of concern that there is an inside track, largely drawn from the corporate world, who wield privileged access and disproportionate influence. Because lobbying generally takes place in private, it is difficult to find out how justified concerns in this area are. This is why there have been demands for greater transparency, and why lobbying has been regulated in a number of jurisdictions, generally through registers of lobbyists and lobbying activity. A further issue of concern related to access and influence is the transfer of staff in both directions between Government and (predominantly) the business world, the squor; revolving door'.In this country, public affairs consultancies and in-house lobbyists are subject to virtually no regulation and as the Committee found, very little self-regulation of any substance. Those who are lobbied are subject to various behavioural constraints and transparency requirements (eg. the Freedom of Information Act and the Ministerial and Civil Service Codes), but these have developed piecemeal and without a specific focus on lobbying. Ministers and civil servants leaving office are subject to the Business Appointment Rules, monitored in the most senior cases by an unpaid part-time Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA). Lobbying can be regulated. While there is no squor; off-the-shelf' solution, the system in the United Kingdom could be and needs to be improved. Regulation carries a number of risks, not least that it could constrict the democratic process by excluding the less professionalised and least experienced and that it could stifle input into the policy-making process. The solutions the Committee propose aim to avoid these risks. |