Thank you for giving the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC), the self-regulatory UK body for public affairs consultants, the opportunity to comment on the OECD’s draft principles for transparency and integrity in lobbying.

 

Our overall view is that there is merit in having such a set of principles, that these are, for the most part, appropriate and that they should be of assistance to member governments.

 

We welcome the paper’s understanding that lobbying is part of the policy-making process in modern democracies around the world and that it can improve decision making by providing valuable insights and data.

 

We also welcome the recognition that actual lobbying practices are deeply embedded in a country’s democratic and constitutional contexts.

 

However, we do take issue with the way in which lobbying for “vocal vested interests” is contrasted with “the wishes of the whole community” and would argue that this way of looking at things has a particular provenance in the member state in which the OECD happens to be headquartered. We would suggest that it is more accurate to think of civil society as a network of different stakeholders, all of whom have the right to make their case to have it listened to by governments and Parliaments.

 

We welcome the paper’s recognition that different countries will choose different ways of dealing with issues around lobbying and that self-regulation has a part to play. It is interesting to note that the member government to have considered this issue most recently (ie the UK) chose to reject a call from a Parliamentary committee for statutory regulation in favour of self-regulation by lobbyists.

 

Our specific comments on each of the OECD’s proposed nine principles follow:

 

1.         Governments should provide a level playing field by granting all stakeholders fair and equitable access to the development and implementation of public policies

            We consider this to be the most important principle. Whenever public authorities make rules about lobbying, it is essential that they do not discriminate between different types of stakeholder, but allow all citizens to lobby in the same manner.

 

2.         Guidelines and rules on lobbying should proportionally address the perceived problem and risk, be consistent with the wider policy and legal frameworks that foster good governance and respect the socio-political and administrative context

 

3.         Countries should clearly define the terms “lobbying” and “lobbyist” when they consider or develop guidelines and rules on lobbying

            We think that simple definitions are best. So, for example, lobbying could be defined as communication with public officials to influence legislation, policy or administrative decisions. We agreed that guidelines or rules should primarily target those who receive compensation for carrying out lobbying activities, such as consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists. However, we also believe it to be very important that guidelines or rules should not discriminate against any citizen who wishes to exercise their right to lobby and should not provide special privileges to any particular class of lobbyist.

 

4.         Countries should provide an adequate degree of transparency to supply public officials and citizens with sufficient information on lobbying that aims at influencing government decisions

            We welcome both the emphasis on transparency and the recognition that what is required is not total transparency about every detail, but enough transparency to serve the purpose. We note the suggestions about what should be disclosed, but note also that in the UK, for example, there is a broad consensus in the consultancy context that identification of the client and of the staff who are lobbying is sufficient. We agree that the information disclosed should be contained in a registry.

 

5.         Countries should enable civil society organisations, the media and the general public to scrutinize lobbying activities

            In our experience, the role of a free media in operating as a watchdog provides a crucial safeguard and operates as a powerful deterrent to unethical behaviour.

 

6.         Governments should foster a culture of integrity in public organisations and decision making by providing clear guidelines and rules of conduct for public officials contacted by lobbyists

            As the paper correctly notes “it takes two to lobby” and so it is important that governments should take seriously their responsibility for establishing clear standards of conduct for public officials who are lobbied.

 

7.         Lobbyists should follow standards of professionalism and transparency; they share responsibility for fostering a culture of integrity, transparency and propriety in lobbying

            We agree and note that one of the advantages of a self-regulatory approach is that it encourages peer pressure and compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of rules for lobbyists.

 

8.         A coherent spectrum of strategies and mechanisms should carefully balance incentives and sanctions, and involve key actors to achieve compliance

            This is the only principle with which we, in part, take issue. The description of strategies and mechanisms for effective implementation and compliance is appropriate and sensible. However, we do not agree with the concept of special incentives or privileges for good behaviour applicable to a narrow class of lobbyists. We think this is wrong in principle, since it stands in contradiction to principle 1. (a level playing field for all stakeholders), with which we agree. All citizens have an equal right to lobby and governments and parliaments have a duty to be accessible to all, not just some.

 

9.         Countries should review the functioning of guidelines and rules related to lobbying on a periodic basis and make necessary adjustments in light of experience with implementation

 

  

27 November 2009