APCO

Champollion

Helen Johnson Consulting                    

Lexington Communications                  

Mandate                                              

Open Road

PPS                                        

Tetra Strategy

Whitehouse Consultancy

The Chair thanked Lexington for hosting this meeting.

 

Members approved the minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2009. Matters arising and not otherwise on the agenda were as follows:

The meeting noted that the new Rules had been given final approval by the Management Committee on 1 June and circulated to all members on 4 June. The Chair reported that two Independent Adjudicators had been appointed, as well as one Expert Adviser, and others were under consideration.

 

            As agreed at the last meeting, this question had been given further consideration by the Management Committee and would be discussed again at the next meeting in August.

 

            The Chair said that, together with Gill Morris, he would be considering a target of, say, 10-15 firms to approach regarding applying for membership of APPC.

Mark Adams reported that the PASC session on 2 July had focussed on the government response, which the Minister, Angela Smith MP, had said she hoped would be published before the House rose for the summer. APPC had given evidence, together with CIPR, PRCA and the PAC working party. 

 

As the government response had not yet been published, there was a possibility that it would be published by the government in August as a command paper, as it could not be published by PASC until after the summer recess.

 

Mark Adams then made a presentation on the issues raised in the recent paper on a possible PAC with a view to developing an APPC position, separate from the comments made by individual members in writing and at the workshop in June. The key issues were: scope, a common Register, a common Code of Conduct and disciplinary procedures, membership and funding, and universality

 

The working party had met on 22 June and had decided to publish consultation responses, to produce a statement of intent, to form an implementation team and to continue discussions with other organisations. This work would proceed despite the lack of a government response.

 

Members discussed aspects of the key issues:

·        Universality

·        Individual membership

·        Whilst there were funding issues, a statutory regime would be more expensive.

·        PASC had promoted the idea of a “kitemark” because it considered ethics, standards and service quality to be interdependent, which was not APPC’s view. If the government response also favoured a “kitemark”, this should be seen as encouragement and used to encourage other organisations to participate.

 

The Chair said that APPC would be meeting PRCA and CIPR in August to discuss a common Code and disciplinary procedures; it was essential to maintain independent input both to PAC and to APPC’s disciplinary procedures, and he commended the work of the three independent members of the PAC working party. He emphasised the importance of reaching an APPC position on the issues paper.

 

Mark Adams said that next steps for the working party would be a meeting in early September to develop a statement of intent (effectively the working party’s answers to the questions raised in the issues paper) and to establish an implementation team.

 

·        To involve younger consultants in APPC, initially by inviting one consultant under the age of 30 from each firm represented on the management committee to an informal discussion

·        To develop Code training, including offering more seminars in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff

·        To hold an event in December or January to coincide with the first anniversary of the publication of the PASC report.

 

 

            Further to discussion at the last meeting, Mark Adams outlined options to implement APPC’s commitment to PASC to “publish details of the annual returns of compliance”.   Members agreed a draft new page for the website (attached to the agenda) subject to re-drafting the final paragraph to clarify the conditions in respect of Parliamentary passes.

            The Chair said that, whilst all members had submitted Code compliance as at 31 May, two members’ checklists needed further clarification. The meeting agreed that the members should be advised that, unless they were fully compliant by 1 August (as specified in the Articles of Association), the Management Committee should exercise its right to suspend their membership and should publish the suspension on the APPC website.

 

            The Chair reported that the Bill had now been enacted. Clause 8(8) banned paid advocacy by MPs, which was welcome. The interpretation of a “benefit” in that clause would be determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and APPC would try to arrange a meeting with Sir Christopher Kelly.

 

The Chair reported that, with Martin LeJeune, he had had a meeting with Nick Hurd MP on 16 July. The main item had been the Conservative Party’s report. APPC had explained the range of activities carried out by PA firms for public sector organisations. APPC had also take the opportunity to explain the work following PASC and the new Complaints & Disciplinary Rules & Procedures.

 

            The Chair conveyed a report from Ross Laird. APPC(S) had held its AGM on 29 June, when Ross Laird had been re-elected as Chair and Thomas Docherty of PPS had been elected Secretary. APPC(S) would be holding a Code training seminar in October, as well as a seminar on the new Planning Act. APPC(S) were continuing to liaise with ASPA.

 

            There was no further business.