As I mentioned in my previous post, we discussed lobbying at this year’s Study of Parliament Group meeting. The focus of the debate was last week’s report of the Public Administration Committee in the Commons recommending, among other things, a mandatory register of lobbyists. A point made in defence of lobbyists was that, though parliamentary outreach was important, there were already a great many people making representations in one form or another to Parliament.
I drew on both points in arguing that they missed the real problem in relation to lobbying. The focus on lobbyists and requiring registration is concerned essentially with one only dimension of the activity, that is the relationship between lobbyists and parliamentarians. That is not where the real problem lies. Parliamentarians know perfectly well when they are being lobbied and can quite easily distinguish between a glossy but intellectually threadbare lobbying campaign and a compelling point made by a small group or invidual writing a letter. It is also perfectly true that a lot of people make representations and that charities and consumer groups are far better at it than many large companies. However, the focus should be on those who do not make representations. They miss out because their views go by default and they may well feel alienated as a result of the perception that there are others who do have access to parliamentarians.
We should be looking at ways to make sure that people are aware that their views can be expressed and that they don’t need great resources to do so. Lobbyists primarily advise clients on how to lobby Parliament. To be honest, if you want to make a case to MPs or peers, you don’t need to fork out a lot of money to get people to tell you how to do it. Time spent browsing the Parliament website should prove sufficient for the purpose.
For 50+ years, my family have battled with Social Services as my mentally handicapped sister grew up.
In short, no amount of communications to the Local Authorities involved, constituency MPs from across the spectrum including the then PM, a Minister of State, and a charity, were able to secure her future to our not exacting expectations. Though the MPs wrote sympathetically, bottom line the family wishes are not part of the equation – social services know best. Except for Haringey, and now Doncaster, apparently other LAs are best equipped to make decisions for the most vulnerable, in all cases.
It has cost quite a bit to get nowhere. It has cost finanically but so much more in time and emotions. It has split what remains of my family. (The details are more up the street of Baroness Murphy, if she wishes to email me.)
If I need to belong to a lobby group to get things done after my best efforts as above then, frankly, the system is wrong.
Ladytizzy: It is important to stress the limits of what parliamentarians can do. MPs and peers can question and challenge Government on those matters for which Government is responsible. A great many of the issues raised with MPs concern local authorities and other bodies outside the remit of central Government. Though the Members often pursue the issues on behalf of constituents, they are not matters for which central Government has responsibility. If statutory responsibility is vested with other bodies, then the lobbying should be of those bodies. Parliamentarians may contribute to that lobbying process, but they can only claim a formal standing to pursue the matter if it looks as if a change in the law may be necessary to remove or reform the existing statutory provision. MPs are inundated with correspondence, raising matters that in many cases could be more appropriately dealt with by more specialised grievance-chasing agencies or which fall outside the responsibility of Government.
In respect of the situation you mention, it may be the case that a look at the legislation may be necessary. Indeed, the particular Act that reformed the structure of social service provision in local authorities should be subject to post-legislative review fairly soon. It is something I am planning to raise in a debate in the House on Thursday in a debate initiated by former Education Secretary Baroness Shephard.
I completely respect your comments, Lord Norton, and am grateful for your swift reply, especially in the light of your last paragraph.
Having had a bash at writing a constructive reply to you (on its way via Royal mail) regarding the Local Democracy Bill I am probably showing the scars. I’ll send the case notes to you tomorrow.
First of all, thanks so much for your help last year.
Just a couple of points about the PASC report on lobbying. So far as the unrepresented or underrepresented are concerned, the report does consider the danger that small groups may find registration too burdensome but concludes that while this needs to be guarded against, the risk can be over-stated. There is certainly evidence from other nations that no drop-off in participation by small groups occured following introduction of lobbying regulation. In any event, the report goes on to say that small groups and only occasional lobbying would not need to be registered.
One suggestion which might be helpful is that the report advises lobbyists to set up within 6 months a new organization which is able to be fully representative of the industry. Such a body would have a number of functions – some of them detailed by the PASC, and others which would naturally emerge over time. In this latter category could very usefully be that the group would undertake to provide regular training sessions targeted at voluntary groups which want to better equip themselves to engage directly with the policy-making process.
Regulating contact between large, well-resourced, lobbying groups and policy-makers is not unimportant, though. The point of the committee’s proposal seems to me to be that while MPs may be very aware of when they are being lobbied, the public doesn’t see what contacts go on. There is an element of fostering public trust and confidence at the core of the PASC recommendation, which ought to be welcomed. It’s up to the industry now to use this report as an opportunity to drive forward into a new phase – more regulated, but more accepted by the public.
Conor McGrath: Thanks for your comments. I was not disagreeing with the Committee’s recommendations, but rather arguing they did not address what was the real area of concern, and that is those who are outside the scope of the inquiry. I was not thinking of small groups who may have trouble registering but rather those interests that are not organised at all or groups who are not aware of how to make their voices heard. I would argue that we need to address that aspect; ensuring that there is a register of lobbyists may or may not be of some value, but I am not sure it gets to the heart of my concern.
Something that has concerned me today is seeing Lord Tebbit, it could have been another peer, on a TV show stuck for words when he was challenged by the anchor on how peers that serve in government are accountable to the people.
So I have some lobbying of my own to do.
Firstly, would you consider a post on accountability, apologies if you have already done this, and the difficulties that it presents? I feel sure most would have a view on this.
Lastly, I really do want to see a live BBC Parliament Channel dedicated to the House of Lords. Today we have seen a peer asked to attend the house with only fifteen minutes notice to account for what is happening in government. It was high drama.
The media will no doubt record what the peer said but it will not dwell overly on how the peer was challenged or the subsequent debate on what was said. What does please me is that the house through its obligations in government does find an opportunity to discuss money matters.
Hansard is such a dry medium. It does not record body language or intonation.
Senex: I have touched upon the concept of accountability in relation to the political system as a whole. I have not done a post on the accountability of ministers who serve in the Lords, but I will consider doing one.
I agree very much with what you say about a channel dedicated to the Lords and what you say about Hansard: as you say, it does not record body language or intonation. You need to be present, or to be watching, to grasp the nuances of the occasion. The written record does not convey the enthusiasm, or lack of it, of the speaker, nor does it capture hesitancy. Irony can also be lost. It also usually does not record the reaction of the House. If it does, the entry of ‘Noble Lords: Oh!’ does not necessarily convey whether the reaction was one of surprise or laughter!
Lord Norton: Given your reply I would also lobby the Speaker’s office in both houses and subject to your discretion, that you present them with the following petition:
That they look again at ownership of unedited video and sound media recorded by the BBC in Parliament with a view to assigning its copyright to the public domain and the British people in a similar way to that done by the C-Span network in America.
Ref: C-SPAN Copyright Policy
http://www.c-span.org/About/Copyright.aspx