APPC submission to inquiry into All Party Groups

You are here:

News, Events & Publications »
APPC submission to inquiry into All Party Groups

APPC submission to inquiry into All Party Groups

Response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards inquiry into All Party Parliamentary Groups and the Public Affairs industry

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Commissioner’s inquiry into the regulation of All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs). The APPC is the representative and regulatory body for UK political consultants and public affairs professionals. Membership of the APPC is open to any political consultancy providing services to the UK institutions of central, regional and local government and/or other public bodies. The APPC represents approximately 80% of the industry. The APPC’s Code of Conduct applies the principles of openness and transparency and that there should be no financial relationship between political consultancy and Parliamentarians. In the view of the APPC, it is inappropriate for a person to be both a legislator and a political consultant.

1.2 The APPC has three main roles:

(i) To ensure openness and transparency of activities and dealings by member consultancies. The APPC maintains a register of political consultants, together with a list of the fee-paying clients that they represent. Members are required to update their register entry every six months. The register is published on the APPC’s website and is easily accessible. Members are also required to disclose the identity of their clients and not misrepresent their interests when making representations to institutions of government.

(ii) To enforce high standards of ethical and professional behaviour by requiring all members to adhere to a Code of Conduct in their dealings with institutions of government. It is a condition of membership of APPC that the member firm, its staff and its non-executive consultants should accept and agree to abide by this Code. Where members already operate their own internal codes, they are obliged to incorporate the APPC code and its provisions may not be overridden or materially amended.

Members are also required to submit to the APPC procedures to ensure compliance with the code, including an annual statement of compliance with the recommendations on professional practice that was produced for the APPC by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and Nicholas Purnell QC. Members are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their staff in relation to the Code. Regulated political consultants are required to endorse the Code and to adopt and observe the principles and duties set out in it in relation to their business dealings with clients and with all institutions of government.

(iii) To promote understanding amongst politicians, the media and others about political consultants and the public affairs sector, as well as the contribution made by political consultants to a properly functioning democracy

1.3 Political consultants are employed by a wide range of organisations which need to understand and engage with the policy making process, including charities and campaigning groups, trade associations, professional bodies, trade unions and public sector bodies. Consultants are also employed by local government and central government agencies and departments, as well as international governments. Analysis of the APPC register shows that approximately 40% of APPC members’ clients were non-commercial organisations in 2005. All of these organisations pay for the services of a political consultant to provide public affairs advice, in the same way as they might hire an accountant or lawyer to provide accountancy or legal advice.

1.4 It is important to note that many organisations and bodies - commercial, voluntary sector and local government – directly employ one or more public affairs professionals in-house to provide similar services as those provided by political consultancies. The APPC does not represent, or attempt to regulate, the activities of in-house public affairs practitioners.

2. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER

We turn now to the specific questions set out in your letter of 31st January 2006. Conduct of the Office for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

2.1 We believe that the current rules relating to APPGs which require that, inter alia, “where a public relations agency provides the assistance [to an APPG], the ultimate client should be named” work very well in the vast majority of cases. We have no criticism whatsoever of the manner in which the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has administered or interpreted these rules over the last 20 years.

2.2 It would be unfortunate and, in our view, unnecessary to amend the existing rules simply because a small minority of public affairs consultancies, who operate outside the APPC and PRCA Codes of Conduct, have failed to comply with their obligations under the current rules.

2.3 In our view, the current rules should only be changed or strengthened if it is necessary or desirable in order to ensure transparency of interests and continued public and parliamentary confidence in the value of APPGs as an independent forum for cross-party discussion and debate.

Should members of umbrella organisations be listed separately?

2.4 We do believe there is some merit in listing members of umbrella organisations individually on the APPG register. One would presume that such information would be readily available in the public domain via other means anyway, but given that the overarching objective is to demonstrate transparency in relationships with APPGs, we can see no logical reason why the “ultimate client” should not be so named on the Register of APPGs itself. A number of APPC members already provide this information for the APPC register. Therefore, both the APPG and APPC register are complementary and encourage transparency. However, it would perhaps be cumbersome to require the register to list the entire membership of a trade association providing financial or “in-kind” support to an APPG. Again such information is readily available in the public domain.

Is it appropriate for lobbyists to write reports on behalf of APPGs?

2.5 In our experience, it is not uncommon for the organisation providing secretariat support to the APPG to draft correspondence, reports or materials for the officers of the group to consider and approve. Indeed, we are aware that APPG officers expressly request this kind of support. MPs or peers, however seriously they may take their APPG obligations, simply do not have the time or resources to draft their own reports. As stated above, however, the secretariat organisation might be a charity, a commercial organisation, a trade body, the TUC or a political consultancy. The APPC would encourage complete transparency and ensure that all reports include full reference to those who contributed or helped write a report for an APPG by stating for example, “This report was prepared by XXXXXX for and on behalf of the APPG on xxx” and/or “This report is the confidential and intellectual property of the APPG on xxx”

2.6 Where we would be concerned, however, is if any non-parliamentary secretariat – including a political consultancy or other intermediary - sought to issue reports in the name or under the auspices of an APPG without the parliamentary officers concerned having seen or approved the content. All APPG-related materials, correspondence and reports should be vetted and approved by the parliamentary officers before being published or circulated.

Is it possible for an APPG to be compromised by commercial or charity/non-profit backing?

2.7 APPGs fulfil a valuable function, acting as important forums for cross-party discussion, debate and information sharing. They do not, however, fulfil the same policy-making or scrutiny functions of the Select Committees, nor do they exert anything like the same degree of influence as the Committees do.

2.8 In the APPC’s experience, many APPGs are reliant, to a greater or lesser extent, upon the support they receive from third parties. These are not necessarily profit-making commercial organisations, but include not-for-profit organisations and interest groups, voluntary organisations, the public sector and trade bodies. As stated above, some of these organisations might retain the services of a political consultant to assist them, whereas others might use in-house lobbyists. We do not believe it is fair or reasonable to treat a political consultant or consultancy any differently from an in-house public affairs practitioner.

2.9 Moreover, the type of support that APPGs receive can vary greatly. It can include financial support (provided either as “core” funding to enable the APPG to exist and function, or ad hoc funding to meet the costs of holding a parliamentary reception, for example), as well as administrative or secretariat support – organising meetings, corresponding with APPG members, responding to media enquiries about the APPG. Without this support, many APPGs as currently constituted would simply cease to function.

2.10 In our view, it is extremely important that APPGs are transparent and open about their sources of support (financial or otherwise) and are independent (and perceived to be independent) of any organisation or organisations which provide that support. Organisations or bodies (whether commercial, voluntary sector or otherwise) should not be permitted to circumvent the rules, or hide their support for an APPG, merely by employing an intermediary, such as a public affairs consultancy.

2.11 Provided the APPG is transparent and declares all sources of external support, whether financial or otherwise, and provided the APPG’s officers act responsibly and in accordance with their own parliamentary codes of conduct, we do not believe that the mere fact of receiving support from an external (non-parliamentary) source in itself compromises the legitimacy or independence of the APPG concerned.

3. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED FROM LUTHER PENDRAGON

3.1 Luther Pendragon is not a member of the APPC. We are pleased to note that no APPC member organisation is alleged to have failed to comply (for whatever reason) with the current rules relating to APPGs. 3.2 We are supportive of any proposals that will ensure that APPGs and the organisations supporting them operate in a transparent manner and declare their interests. However, several of the proposals from Luther Pendragon seem to involve considerable additional work and effort on the part of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, but seem to offer little or no additional value above and beyond the existing rules.

Proposal 1: Additional Information on the Register

3.3 It is our view that the current rules are sufficiently clear about the requirement to name sources of assistance. Not only do we find the questions which Luther Pendragon proposes adding to the registration form confusing and open to even wider interpretation than currently, it is not clear to us what mischief Luther Pendragon is seeking to address.

3.4 First, in order to be of any value, it will be imperative to clarify what is meant by the terms “organisation”, “consultancy company”, “clients”, “support” and “assistance” in the context of these questions. Please refer to our comments in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 above.

3.5 Secondly, by singling out “support” received from or via “consultancy companies” (which we take to mean independent political consultancy firms or businesses), there is an implication that this support needs to be declared whereas other sources of support do not. This is an unacceptable position.

Proposal 2: Appendix to the Register

3.6 For ease of reference, an appendix or index listing supporting organisations might be helpful. We do not see, however, why it should only list those organisations that provide “support” (again, it will be important to define what is meant by this term) to more than one APPG.

Proposal 3: Index of supporting organisations

3.7 This would seem to duplicate proposal 2 to a large extent, but we do not have any problem with it, in principle. Equally, the Parliamentary Commissioner will need to determine whether the need for an index of supporting organisations is absolutely necessary in order to achieve transparency and openness and/or whether this information is already available in the public domain.

Proposal 4: Power to refuse entry to the Register

3.8. We agree that the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should have the power to vet registration forms and refuse to accept any which are incomplete, or which appear to be misleading. However, it is already a requirement that one of the parliamentary officers attests as to the accuracy of the details supplied.

3.9 We find it difficult to see, however, how the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner could be expected to know if any of the information supplied is deliberately false. The onus must surely remain on the signatory of the registration form to satisfy him or herself as to the veracity of the information given in the form?

Proposal 5: Acknowledgement of support in written communications

3.10 A number of APPGs already acknowledge sources of support in their written communications. We would not be opposed to this being made mandatory, although it would seem somewhat superfluous if the registration rules are already being properly met.

Main menu

APPC submission to inquiry into All Party Groups