APPC response to UK PAC Issues Paper

You are here:

News, Events & Publications »
APPC response to UK PAC Issues Paper

APPC response to UK PAC Issues Paper

Background and scope of this document

In response to a recommendation by the Public Administration Select Committee in January 2009, the APPC, together with the PRCA and CIPR, is working on the formation of a UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC).

A working party of likely UKPAC founding members set out their views in relation to PASC and the regulation of lobbying in an issues paper published in the summer. This document is the APPC’s response. The comments it contains in response to the specific questions raised in the issues paper are informed by the APPC’s and its members’ general perspective on the regulation of lobbying: that self-regulation works; it ensures a degree of transparency in terms of who is lobbying for whom; it gives professional and regulated companies no advantage in access over other organisations or individuals wishing to make their case to those in power; and that, in sum, it should give everyone within institutions of central and local Government confidence that the highest level of integrity pertains to the activities of professional political consultants.

Response to specific questions in the issues paper

Because the issues paper was set out as a series of questions about the observations it contained, this response needs to be read in conjunction with the issues paper itself, available on the front page of www.appc.org.uk

Q1. Has the Working Party correctly set out a workable general definition of lobbying and lobbyist?

Yes, the APPC believes it has.

Q2. Should the ambit of the UKPAC cover those undertaking lobbying for material reward as defined above?

Yes. It should, however, also cover those who normally undertake lobbying for material reward, even though in some cases may be acting pro bono.

Q3. Should the ambit of the proposed UKPAC be limited to those lobbying the national legislature, executive and civil service or should it be extended to cover other categories of public office holder, and if so, which?

The APPC believes that it should cover those who lobby national and local government, Parliament, non-departmental public bodies and the devolved administrations.

Q4. Who should be included in the definition of lobbyists covered by the UKPAC? Should it include the senior managers of organisations who have occasional contact with public office-holders?

The definition should include anyone who seeks to influence public policy by interacting with the institutions of Government and their advisers.

Q5. Is a legally applicable definition necessary if incentives are to be offered or deterrents imposed?

Incentives and deterrents should not be offered or imposed. Membership of the UKPAC should be entirely voluntary, as befits a system of voluntary self-regulation.

Q6. How detailed a definition of those to be covered by the UKPAC should be adopted? If a detailed definition along the lines of that in paragraph 3.18 above is favoured, is that definition satisfactory? Should any of the suggested exceptions in that definition be deleted or should any new ones be added?

If all members of the UKPAC deem a detailed definition necessary, then the APPC believes that a more suitable definition would be “those who seek to influence public policy by interacting with the institutions of Government and their advisers”.

Q7. Has the Working Party correctly identified the key roles for the UKPAC? What other roles might it usefully perform?

Yes, the APPC believes it has.

Q8. Has the Working Party correctly identified the key features of the UKPAC’s organisation?

Yes, the APPC believes it has.

Q9. The Working Party would welcome comments on the contents of the register, particularly in the light of the issues raised with respect to the CIPR.

The common register should aim to include as much information as the most informative of the current registers of its members. This is the APPC register, which includes all fee-paying and pro bono clients, all staff and freelancers, and all Parliamentary pass holders (in the exceptional cases where an employee holds a pass as a spouse of a Parliamentarian or as a former Parliamentarian, and agrees not to use it in their consultancy role.)

Q10. Should derogations to the requirement to register be permitted in exceptional circumstances? How should these be defined and how should they be verified?

There should be no derogations to the requirement to register, other than in exceptional cases to avoid exposing an individual or organisation to threats of physical violence or intimidation.

Q11. Should individual career details of lobbyists be included in the register and, if so, how and for what purpose?

No, it should not – it should (as per the answer the Q9) re-state the highest standard of disclosure from among the existing putative members of the UKPAC.

Q12. Who should hold the register of lobbyists and lobbying organisations? Should it be the UKPAC or an “independent” body? If the latter, which body should this be?

The UKPAC should hold the register, and will require a small secretariat resource to do this efficiently and reliably.

Q13. Provided the practical difficulties mentioned can be overcome, would it be desirable to work towards a common Code covering all those involved in lobbying? If so, how might the practical difficulties identified best be addressed?

Yes, it would be desirable to work towards a common Code, but the APPC cannot accept a dilution of its existing stringent Code – requiring clients and staff to be declared, no Parliamentary passes to be held and prohibiting payments to parliamentarians.

Q14. Does the proposed basis for membership of the UKPAC, in particular that membership should be through affiliated member organisations, represent the best way forward? Who should be eligible for membership?

Any membership organisation where some or all of the members engage with the institutions of Government as a part of their job, should be eligible to join. There is a possibility that some organisations would be covered twice (through, for example, two different trade associations) but this is preferable to others being left out.

Q16. Is a kite mark desirable? How should it be accredited?

The APPC does not consider a kite mark to be necessary or desirable. Organisations within the membership will be able to state that they are members but any kite mark would imply a guarantee of service quality rather than of ethical practice – it is ethical practice alone that membership should vouchsafe.

Q17. Do respondents agree that some such action by Government and Parliament (i.e. by those being lobbied) would be desirable?

Government has a duty to treat all representations in respect of policy in a fair and equal way – granting a higher degree of welcome to representations from organisations within the UKPAC would go against this principle. The Government and Parliament should encourage all eligible organisations to join but should not hold out a threat against those who don’t as this contradicts the essence of its voluntary nature.

Q18. What issues should the Working Party consider regarding funding mechanisms for the UKPAC?

It is normal that regulated entities pay for the regulations placed upon them – as APPC members currently do through their membership subscriptions. APPC anticipates that the UKPAC would be funded on a similar model, with the price of membership reflecting the size of the regulatory duty to be discharged.

Q19. Are sanctions or incentives required to make the self-regulatory system universal? What sanctions and incentives can be put in place and to whom should they apply?

There should not be sanctions imposed in order to get organisations to join a voluntary system of self-regulation – this would be contradictory. Organisations should join entirely of their own volition, because they wish to be regulated according to the principles of a common Code, not because they are threatened with some or other restriction on their ability to practice.

The APPC believes that there is an overarching incentive to join in that the UKPAC will promote openness, transparency and high standards of professional conduct.

Q20. Is the Working Party’s view correct that once the issues set out earlier in this paper have been clarified, the UKPAC should be established as quickly as possible, leaving other, more detailed issues to be resolved later?

Yes, APPC believes it is.

Q21. Are there any important issues overlooked in this paper that need to be addressed now?

No, APPC considers that the working party has addressed all relevant issues.

Conclusions and next steps

The APPC considers the working party to have made significant progress and welcomes the thinking that has been done to date.

Main menu

APPC response to UK PAC Issues Paper