AS Biss & Co (Gordon Mead)

Citigate Public Affairs (Rex Osborne)

College Public Policy (Warwick Smith)

Connect Public Affairs (Gill Morris - Chair)

Consolidated (James Page)

Edelman (Michael Burrell)

Fleishman Hillard (Aiofe Kilkenny)

Foresight (Mark Adams)

Hill & Knowlton (Rod Cartwright)

Lexington (Gidon Freeman)

Morgan Allen Moore (Darren Caplan)

Morgan Allen Moore (Ele Collington)

Precise Public Affairs (Robbie MacDuff)

Quintus (Charlie Napier)

Weber Shandwick (Luke Akehurst)

APPC in Scotland (Illiam Costain McCade - by phone)

APPC (Mary Shearer - Secretary)

 

APCO

EUK Consulting

Fishburn Hedges

Helen Johnson Consulting

Lansons PA

Outlook

Politics International

PPS

Whitehouse Consultancy

 

Members approved the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2006.  Matters arising and not otherwise on the agenda were as follows:

 

Warwick Smith reported that he would be organising a seminar for all members’ compliance officers in the new year.

 

The Chair was pleased to report that Advocate, College Public Policy, Portland and Stratagem had joined APPC since the last meeting.  She reported on contacts with prospective members and urged all members to encourage other firms to join.

3.1 The Chair reported on ongoing liaison with CIPR GAG and PRCA and reported that PRCA had now changed clause 9 of their Code of Conduct.  Rod Cartwright explained the background to the new PRCA clause and noted that PRCA was still retaining its ban on payments to legislators.  Whilst acknowledging that the PRCA’s position was now much nearer that of APPC, the Chair proposed that the APPC Code should remain unchanged as the differences between the two were reasonable in view of the different memberships.

 

3.2 The Chair referred to the draft generic guidance attached to the agenda and to the PRCA draft circulated before the meeting.  She recalled that the ultimate intention was to provide a set of guiding principles that could be adopted by all those who worked in public affairs including; charities, trade associations, etc, Therefore, the APPC would like to circulate an agreed draft for consultation with a number of bodies, including the TUC, CBI, Charity Commission and others. 

 

Members welcomed the PRCA draft in principle but felt that it might be too long and detailed for its purpose and too aligned to commercial purposes.  It was noted that the PRCA draft specifically focused on “public affairs practitioners” rather than all those who interacted with the institutions of government, for example, lawyers or management consultants.

 

It was agreed that Mark Adams should liaise with Rod Cartwright with a view to producing a draft acceptable to the APPC, PRCA and CIPR GAG. In the meantime, members were invited to send comments on both drafts to Mark Adams before a drafting meeting in early January.

It was noted that, like APPC’s Code, the guidance would be for both organisations and individuals and could also be used by those lobbied to assess the approaches they received.  It was envisaged that some organisations, such as the TUC, could use the guidance as a basis for developing codes applicable to their own sector. 

3.3 Robbie MacDuff explained the background to commissioning academic research into standards of lobbying and status of regulation around the world.  The first stage report had just been received from Professor Justin Greenwood and members of the management committee had been asked to comment by 8 December as to whether APPC should ask Professor Greenwood to continue with the second part of the study.  It was hoped that the study would demonstrate that the UK self-regulatory regime worked well and compared favourably with other regimes.

The Chair reported that she and Gavin Devine had had a meeting with John Grogan MP at his invitation.  He was particularly concerned about lack of disclosure and was enthusiastic about APPC to the extent that he wished to table an EDM early in the new year, supporting APPC, encouraging Parliamentarians to be transparent and encouraging public bodies to require membership of APPC as a contract pre-requisite. 

 

Members agreed that the exact wording of the proposed EDM would be important to avoid it being opposed by MPs or used to encourage statutory regulation.

 

The Chair referred to discussion at the previous meeting and to the report of EPACA’s meeting with the Commission, circulated to all members on 7 November.  Of particular concern was the Commission’s proposition to require the publication of financial information (undefined but presumed to be disclosure of fees) which had not been mentioned in either of APPC’s meetings with Commission earlier in the year.  It is likely that this may have been called for by NGOs in the course of the consultation process, despite not having been mentioned in the ETI consultation document.  Whilst disclosure of some financial information would be acceptable (as in published company accounts) disclosure of fees would not be acceptable, and members of the management committee would be discussing with EPACA how best to oppose the proposal.

 

This requirement was of considerable concern, not only because of its immediate impact on business in Brussels, but also because it would almost inevitably lead to similar requirements in the Scottish Parliament (which had already discussed this option) and then in Westminster.  Robbie MacDuff recalled that the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee had dropped this idea, partly on the basis of counsel’s opinion obtained by PRCA, to the effect that to treat different classes of consultants differently would be a breach of human rights.  Rod Cartwright confirmed that PRCA would be willing to work with APPC and EPACA to oppose the EU proposal.

 

It was agreed that it would be appropriate to invite John Houston of EPACA to speak to a future members’ meeting.

 

Robbie MacDuff reported that the event would now be held in late January or early February 2007, possibly linked with the publication of the Hansard Society’s “Friend or Foe” report on lobbying or with the academic research commissioned by APPC.

 

In the absence of Illiam Costain McCade, the secretary reported that the next APPC(S) would be held on 8 December, when it was hoped that most members would be present as recent meetings had been quiet due to work commitments.  Topics for discussion would include the progress members had made with scouting for new membership targets, as well as the APPC(S) strategy for briefing new Parliamentarians after the May 2007 elections.

 

In the absence of Gavin Devine, the secretary reported that the re-designed website was now online and that the Register as at 30 November would be up-loaded as soon as it was ready.  More content was needed for the site and members suggested a link to PA News for access to articles placed by APPC, a page on voluntary self-regulation, and client endorsements of APPC.  Members were invited to send comments and suggestions to Gavin Devine.

 

The secretary relayed a report from John Mills of PPS, who had discussed the subject with the Town and Country Planning Association, with planning lawyers and with the DCLG through their regular meeting with the Law Society.   Lucy Burns had been progressing the matter with the LGA and the ACSeS.   Possibly as a result of some of this (or quite possibly, purely co-incidentally) there had been some signs of movement.  In November’s Local Government White Paper, the Government had proposed dropping the prohibition on councillors giving their view on a planning application in advance of the committee meeting to determine it, and it was hoped that this would make them a little less reluctant to engage.

 

Members agreed that what was needed was a level playing field for both developers and objectors and an easing in the constraints on councillors, which might result from the White Paper.  It was agreed to ask Lucy Burns and John Mills to prepare a statement on the impact of the White Paper.

The Chair recalled discussion at the last meeting and noted that the media coverage on Think Tanks and “access” had not re-emerged.

Members noted the following meeting dates, including an extra meeting early in the year:

Monday 5 March, 14 May (AGM), 10 September and 3 December

5 March 2007 at 5.30pm at Connect, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP

 

Immediately after the meeting, members welcomed Sir Philip Mawer, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who gave a short talk

 

Sir Philip began by describing his role as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in three parts; advising Parliament and Parliamentarians on conduct, maintaining the registers of interests and investigating complaints.  He aimed to determine complaints impartially and confidentially, maintaining a balance between the interests of the public and of Parliament, and using lessons learnt to improve systems and processes.

 

Sir Philip felt that lobbying was a legitimate activity and the approach adopted in the UK - self-regulation for consultants and regulation by the House of Parliamentarians’ conduct – was generally working well.  In particular, the registers of members’ interests had improved transparency in both Houses of Parliament.

 

After an interesting and lively question-and-answer session, Sir Philip concluded by thanking APPC for the opportunity to speak to members and emphasising that his door was always open to firms or individuals seeking advice.