The long awaited consultation document on the promised statutory register of lobbyists has been published. This week, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is contacting individual members of our Public Affairs Group to seek their views on the questions it raises.
My first reaction is that government is to be commended for producing a policy consultation which makes it clear that it values lobbying and does not want to overburden the industry with excessive regulation. We also believe that the burden of registration should be minimal and it is good to see sensible proposals on the level of disclosure put forward.
Transparency is the CIPR's guiding principle in professional conduct. Public affairs professionals should disclose who their clients are and indeed many do so without the need for statutory action. We have long held the view that the public affairs profession has nothing to fear from a statutory register because, with few exceptions, there is no good reason not to disclose who your clients are. Those exceptions might be where what a client does is not illegal but meets with significant disapproval and risks a violent backlash from protestors.
For the CIPR, universality has been a key principle in this debate from the start. A statutory register of lobbyists should be just that. Exemptions based on who you work for rather than rules based on what you do would mean the register has built in loopholes. Generally speaking, as long as any register is universal, has no 'good cause' exemptions and provides a level playing field in lobbying, it should be welcomed. Partly because it would add to an increasing professionalism within public affairs activity and partly because it would help more people understand lobbying and the positive part it plays in our democracy.
The key elements we were looking for in this consultation are covered. It needed to ask questions about the definition of lobbying and lobbyists (including independent practitioners who may not work for an established lobbying agency), who should sign the register and level of disclosure they should provide. It needed to invite responses as to who should administer the register and, perhaps most importantly, it needed to ask what should happen in the event of non-compliance.
On this last point, the consultation notes that under the Australian model, non-compliance means non-registration which in turn means the offending lobbyist or firm cannot engage government in lobbying activity. I think it needs to be considered in the UK whether you should be able to access Ministers or Civil Servants and perhaps even MPs if you are not on the register. This is an area on which we will consult with CIPR Public Affairs Groups members to gain their views before we submit our response.
Importantly, the government is open to the register being delivered by an independent body. The UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC) was set up to show that the industry could provide a means of either self-registration or a statutory register. It is currently administered by a board made up of independents and industry representatives from the CIPR and the APPC, which provide its financial support. It seems to me that with an element of adaptation and perhaps a push to independence from the industry, UKPAC is a potential vehicle for a statutory register. Although the consultation does not accept UKPAC's definition of lobbying, it is clear that UKPAC has, along with the people who support it, shaped the debate around this consultation in a meaningful way.
We will now examine the consultation in detail, engage with our members and consider our response.