APCO                                                Martin Sawer

B2L Public Affairs

Champollion

Cherton

Grayling

Helen Johnson Consulting

Mandate

Portland

Positif Politics

PPS

 

The Chair thanked Citigate Dewe Rogerson for hosting this meeting.

 

The Chair introduced the speaker, Professor Justin Fisher, Director of the Magna Carta Institute at Brunel University and Specialist Adviser to the PASC Inquiry.

 

Professor Fisher stressed that he had been an adviser to the PASC Inquiry but had not written the report. The main elements of the report for political consultancies were the recommendations for a single regulatory body and for a mandatory register; he spoke about how this had come about and how political consultancies might respond. Professor Fisher then took members’ questions, and the following points were made:

 

·        The likelihood of the Government implementing any of the recommendations

·        How the recommendations would run against the “better regulation” agenda

·        The lack of definition of “lobbying”

·        The difficulty of deciding what organisations and individuals would be covered

·        The fact that APPC was not comprehensive in including all “lobbyists”

·        How the evidence submitted, including an admitted lack of any problems, had resulted in the Report’s recommendations

·        How the lack of complaints to APPC had led to criticism of the APPC Complaints & Disciplinary Procedures

·        The contrast between the Report and the view of the Committee on Standards in Public Life

 

The Chair thanked Professor Fisher, who then left the meeting.

Gill Morris outlined the results of the recent survey of members’ views of the PASC Report, which had focussed on three main themes – statutory register, single body (either independent or statutory) and the APPC Complaints & Disciplinary Procedures. Overall, members had felt that the APPC self-regulatory regime was working well and there was a view expressed that there could be some benefit if the single body and the mandatory register would include all who lobbied, eg legal firms. Not all members had yet responded to the survey and more replies were hoped for to give a clearer picture.

 

Looking at the PASC Report proposals for regulatory reform, 84% of respondents had felt that it would be impossible for all individuals and groups involved in lobbying decision-makers to implement the proposals in six months. Over 65% of respondents had thought that the proposals for a single umbrella organisation, covering all individuals and groups involved in lobbying could work, but only 42% thought the recommended “kite mark” covering ethical, structural and service quality issues would work.

            The Chair reported that he had arranged a meeting with Tom Watson MP, Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet Office, the following week, together with other members of the Management Committee. Mark Adams suggested that APPC could respond well to the recommendations, citing joint working with PRCA and CIPR GAG, the independence in the Complaints & Disciplinary Procedures, the fact that APPC existed solely for self-regulation, and the regular training seminars. Warwick Smith outlined proposed changes to the APPC Complaints & Disciplinary Procedures which would, inter alia, enhance the independence of the process.

 

·        The importance of the APPC Code of Conduct

·        The work on the Guiding Principles, which would not detract from the Code

·        The cost of the recommendations if implemented

·        The difficulty of implementing a mandatory register

The Chair said that the Management Committee would take account of members’ views in preparing for the meeting with Mr Watson.

 

16 March 2009 at 5.30pm at Connect, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP