Lord Soley raises the important question of lobbying, that is, making representations in order to achieve a change in public policy. Lobbying is often used as a perjorative term, but it is intrinsic to a free society. In the USA, it enjoys constitutional protection.
Lord Soley rightly identifies transparency as crucial to parliamentary lobbying: it is important to know who is making what case and to whom, and what interests parliamentarians themselves have. I would also add that a healthy political process, one that enjoys public confidence, has to have – and to be seen to have – some equality of access, and some degree of detachment on the part of those being lobbied.
Anyone who wishes to make representations to ministers and parliamentarians should be free to do so. It is important that they know how to do so and that they will be treated the same as others. I have argued before that a campaign that is glossy and well financed, but lacking in substance, will be less successful than someone writing a letter making a compelling case. I have received some heartfelt letters and e-mails from individuals that, on the face of it, merit some consideration. They will get priority over the glossy brochures.
Parliamentarians also need to be detached in considering representations. Peers do not speak in a representative capacity, but can indicate that others agree with them. If they have expertise in the field that is fine – that expertise is declared, well founded, and can inform the debate. They are barred by the code of conduct from accepting any financial inducement for seeking to influence the legislative process, and quite rightly so. The crucial principle – as it should be in any legislative chamber – is that the members are there to benefit the work of the House, not the other way round.
When the ‘cash for questions’ story broke in 1994, I was contacted by the Sunday Times in my capacity as an academic expert on Parliament. I was asked if I thought MPs accepting money for tabling questions would constitute a breach of privilege and what I thought of any MP who might accept money for tabling questions. I said I thought any MPs who accepted money for doing such a thing were stupid. I also added that I thought anyone who offered them money to do so were stupid. (The paper published the first observation, but not the second.) If someone has a valid question, or a valid suggestion in respect of legislation, then parliamentarians will recognise it is valid and pursue it. They do it because of its intrinsic merit. Similarly, there is little point in paying parliamentarians for advice on what happens in Parliament and how to lobby on an issue. As I have said before, it is not difficult to obtain that information from public sources. There is a very good Parliament website, both Houses have splendid information offices, and there is no reason why constituents cannot ask their local MP how to go about it.
The more we make the public aware of these points, and ensure that the points reflect the reality, the better for the health of our political system.
Lobbying is often used as a perjorative term, but it is intrinsic to a free society.
Yes, lobbying is intrinsic to a free society. For example, from time to time I write to my MP, reply to government consultations, etc. I do this because I care about the issues involved; I am not paid to do so.
What’s potentially very wrong is lobbying when money changes hands. This is not just overt corruption, which because it is so obviously wrong probably doesn’t happen very much. What’s more important is the subtele corruption that people can convince themselves isn’t corruption at all but which is likely to affect their thought processes in the direction of the wishes of the people providing the money. Larry Lessig campaigns against this sort of corruption in the USA, but of course the same problem occurs in all societies.
I have argued before that a campaign that is glossy and well financed, but lacking in substance, will be less successful than someone writing a letter making a compelling case.
Maybe. But maybe also the glossy brochure should have to say how much it cost, who paid for it and who got the money. Better still, if anyone is paid by a lobbying organisation to write articles or glossy borchures, they should have to pay a higher rate of income tax on sure activity — that means that if they don’t declare it they are automatically guilty of tax fraud and can be thrown in prison.
Maybe we should go further than this and make paid lobbying illegal. Do we want this country to be governed in the interests of the British people, or the interests of Russian billionairse?
[Peers] are barred by the code of conduct from accepting any financial inducement for seeking to influence the legislative process, and quite rightly so.
I was under the impression that Lord Soley is (quite legally) paid by Future Heathrow to lobby for expansion of that airport. My recollection is the amount is £29,000 PA. Am I misinformed?
Cabalamat: There would be significant problems if one sought to prohibit paid lobbying as such. If one is employed by an organisation (a charity, school, company or whatever) and that organisation is affected by a particular policy proposed by government and that individual is given the job of letting ministers and MPs know that the proposal would have an adverse affect on the organisation, and asking for the proposal to be reconsidered, does that not constitute a form of paid lobbying? The activity is lobbying and one is undertaking it as part of one’s paid employment. The position is somewhat less problematic, but not wholly problem-free, if the proposal is confined to those whose sole or main paid activity is to lobby as a free-standing body (in effect, a lobbying company). If you try to ban or restrict lobbying firms, the likelihood is that bodies with the resources to do so will take the lobbying in-house and have a paid employee or employees to undertake the task. It would not really be possible, or desirable, to ban bodies from having someone whose task it is to make representations on behalf of the organisation to government and parliamentarians.
On your last point, as Lord Soley has pointed out, transparency is key and peers’ interests are listed in the Register of Peers’ Interests. I might add that the rules governing registration are actually tighter in the Lords than they are in the Commons.
Lord Norton,
I was reminded of an incident at a presentation at a marketing conference some years ago. One of the senior managers was on stage inflicting ‘death by powerpoint’. He was nostalgically looking back to a conversation he’d had with his boss, the Marketing Director.
The MD had indicated that he was a bit concerned that the department didn’t really have enough ‘profile’. The senior manager said that he would ‘See what he could do’. At the same time he took on a project to integrate two big marketing databases into one.
It being the way of these IT projects, it turned into a complete and unmitigated catastrophe, such that even the Olympic standard spin and PR could present it as a success, and it became widely known as a big failure.
And as the senior manager announced on stage “So I said to Mr Fred Bloggs [real name removed..] last week, ‘Well, I’ve certainly increased our profile..’ ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/30/lord-taylor-blackburn-experian-consultancy
Corruption in politics is like war. Nobody much except those who profit likes it but damned if anyone can think of a way to get rid of it, mostly because those who profit have worked out how to hitch their wagons to the causes of the national good. Like all crimes, it is impossible to eradicate entirely* no matter what preventative measures one may put in place.
On that note:
This may well be true but it’s only part of the story. It depends very much on the characters of the MPs in question, and their pre-existing biases (my MP used to be Tony Blair, now it’s Hazel Blears. I’ve long since grown used to the fact that my local MP will be unresponsive on matters of civil liberties, and write to them more for information than because I expect to make any difference).
An MP or Lord may well not be swayed by a glossy brochure, but MPs and Lords are only human, and humans have biases towards those things that are familiar to them. All other things being equal a letter-writer may win out over a glossy brochure, but all other things are rarely equal. Those with influence don’t attain it by PR, but by being part of the social group where the movers and shakers reside. Ideas and received wisdom passed through the collective social grouping of bankers, media magnates and others with wealth clustered around central London have a much better chance of being incorporated into legislation than the ideas of, say, miners in the North East. Is that “corruption” in the technical sense of the word? I don’t think so. But it’s a limit of democracy, and one with no easy workaround. My influence is necessarily limited because of my social and economic status. But were I to suddenly gain access to the kinds of influence where an audience with a Prime Minister was not only possible but something I should even expect to happen from time to time, that would only be at the expense of someone else.
Calls for transparency are all well and good, but they only work when both sides and “common knowledge” don’t conspire to make the silly things that everyone knows everyone else is doing seem reasonable.
*technically I suppose this isn’t true – one can eradicate a crime by making the criminal act legal, but you know what I mean.
From the BBC [Brian Wheeler]
“But many more, as many as one in five, list their jobs as non-Parliamentary consultant, which means they do not have to declare how much they receive and can speak in debates without declaring an interest.
And there are press reports that some have set up private companies to enable them to carry out consultancy work without revealing the identity of their clients. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7853945.stm
Shocking.
Lord Norton: This represents my last post for the near future as events conspire to require my full and undivided attention. It has been a long slog to get the site established and you are without a doubt Lord of the Blog. Its a compliment, really!
Very dark clouds are to be seen on the horizon. The political parties in our lower house have largely abandoned dogma in favour of convenient principles and a quasi middle ground. However, when thing get tough I have often found that ones principles are all that is left to support and keep one sane.
The government if not all our MPs are under enormous pressure and the personal strain on individuals is going to be unbearable. The government should consider employing stress councillors to assist people through their most challenging moments.
If the government is to be blamed for current events its only crime is to have given confidence to the nation that an end had come to boom and bust. Safe in this knowledge it allowed people with confidence to become indebted. People will not blame themselves for their misfortune but will blame politicians so a hung Parliament is a distinct possibility next time around.
The House of Lords has ‘failed’ us too because it is in no position to challenge the spending ambitions of the Commons or a greedy parochial minded electorate. We are to all practical purposes a unicameral democracy. The American Senate has changed, why can’t we?
It could have happened to any party in the Commons and the mistake if we can call it one took place globally. Nobody wanted to hear words of caution; there was too much faith and reliance in complexity; a pandemic loss of common sense.
Its all-very confusing; I have found perspective and some encouragement by strolling through our history. So in parting I would offer some recommendations:
Firstly to buy a series of BBC talking book CD’s based upon Winston Churchill’s history of the English Speaking Peoples called ‘This Sceptred Isle’. There are ten volumes that take you from Julius Caesar to the age of Victoria. They are a challenge to buy and collect but are thoroughly enjoyable once you have them.
Secondly, to consider joining a historical society such as ‘History World’, its chairman is Bamber Gascoigne a noted historian and celebrity. I don’t have an affiliation with them myself but they come highly recommended.
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Sceptred_Isle
http://www.historyworld.net
You could save all this fuss over ‘undercover reporting’ and journalistic entrapment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5618786.ece
Just take a leaf out of the Scottish Parliament’s book, by having your own television station !
http://www.holyrood.tv/
Am I alone in finding Lords charging £ 2, 000 A DAY completely disgusting ?? The companies are obviously getting something very juicy in return. We have to follow laws, on pain of being banged up if we break them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5619674.ece
These guys are MAKING the laws and being paid for MAKING THEM TO ORDER.
You folks really are not helping yourselves, you know…
@Senex:
I, too, had a forced time-out from here – hope all goes well for you and hope to see you back soon.
Best wishes, Tiz
One wonders how much more is ‘in the pipeline’, so to speak…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5618786.ece
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/will-the-weekend-see-erminegate-the-sequel/
I am getting mucho annoyed by this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Truscott,_Baron_Truscott
How on earth can someone who has such interests in ‘non-renewable energy’ and is simply a ‘career politician’ be allowed to be instrumental in deciding on energy policy ??
What expertise does he have in battling climate change or understanding science ? He seems a bit of a chinless wonder to me.
And that is before considering the veracity or otherwise of what Guido has written about him. If you lot don’t sort yourselves out very quickly a large rocket is going to be heading your way.
And I speak as someone who thinks the House of Lords is a good thing.
Very, very disappointing.
How we got here..
http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/sleaze-a-timeline-$1264464.htm
Well, I don’t think you can complain as much this month as last about the ‘lack of coverage’ the Lords is getting…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5627738.ece
“The lucrative opportunities for changing legislation in the upper house are legion. So hurriedly drafted are the laws nodded through by the Commons that Whitehall has to patch up its shoddy handiwork in the second chamber. In a spirit of false flattery ministers are pleased to call this process “listening to the upper house”. At this stage it is easy for an astute lobbyist to slip in an amendment or two. When legislation returns to the Commons it will be quickly rubber-stamped to make room for the next dog’s breakfast of a bill. ” [timesonline]
McDuff: I take your point and have considerable sympathy with it. To some extent, it is, as you intimate, a fact of life, though it may be possible for parliamentarians to take a more detached stance in relation to the various, and overwhelmingly legitimate, attempts to influence them. We are inundated with material and invitations. I try to read all the material but I rarely accept invitations to receptions and other events where hospitality is offered unless I already have some commitment to the cause involved.
Senex and Bedd Gelert: The House of Lords needs to act quickly – and I have confidence that it will – to ensure that strict rules are in place to maintain the highest standards of probity. Not only that, but we need to be proactive in making the case that the House does a good job in delivering considerable benefit to the political process – and a job that could not be achieved by the alternatives being suggested. We have to respond clearly to the sort of ill-informed calls for an elected second chamber that are now appearing, not least from those who seem to generalise from an N of 1.
Lord Norton,
I feel some sort of explanation of my comments is required.
Those who have seen some of my posts in the past months, praising the independence of the House of Lords when it defeats draconian legislation must be thinking..
“Well, he can’t have the penny and the bun.. ”
Or worse, that I am just trolling around to annoy the noble Lords.
I don’t think I’m doing either. My point in the past has been that the Lords have enough wisdom, age, experience and [let’s not beat around the mulberry bush] enough dosh not to have to worry unduly about ‘what people will think of them’, and they will try and do what is best for the country in a relatively benign, benevolent if rather paternalistic manner.
Much of the criticism of the Lords is misguided because it assumes that they behave rather like feudal barons, maligning the people on their land and treating them like their property, and shabbily.
This is not the place to de-bunk some of the ‘bad press’ such a system had, when very often the landowner felt duty bound to look after ‘his people’, if only in the selfish interest of being able to protect ‘his’ land from marauding neighbours..
But it is worth pointing out that replacing that feudal system with a democracy enslaved by hedge fund managers and those ‘masters of the universe’ in global finance is not without its drawbacks either.
However, and without referring to specific noble Lords, I am hugely worried that far from being a protection AGAINST Government BY the all-powerful multinational mega-corporations, many of the Lords do appear to be ‘on the payroll’ OF THOSE monolithic multi-nationals.
If you are old enough, like me, to remember ‘One Man and his Dog’, you may recall how the sheepdog, often a Scottish Border Collie, responded to its master [usually, but not always a bloke..] with intelligence and obedience and a willingness to please. Can you imagine if the programme had featured shepherds and shepherdesses with ill-trained dogs, which were Dobermanns or Rottweilers ??
The results might not have been quite as disastrous as a shepherd who had turned up to find a wolf running amok in the flock – but they would at least have been unpredictable, and may have made it rather unsuitable for tea-time viewing if the untrained dogs had been feeling rather peckish.
I feel this is what we are heading for in the Lords with those being employed by the more lupine corporations allowed to guide them on legislation. They are crossing the line between controlling the corporations, to be controlled BY them. Of course, there are many business people in the Lords. But everyone knows the Sainsbury connection which is fully declared. If one of the Lords Sainsbury tried to get a ‘tax break’ on Sainsburys Reward Cards through it would be obvious and be shouted down. But without this transparency and enforcement of proper boundaries and legislation of corporations we are going to get a ravenous pack of wolves, not a disciplined group of canines, as our ‘servants’.
I absolutely take on board what Lord Norton and Jack Straw are saying in that they want to clean up the current problems and abuse.
My point is merely that I don’t currently have any confidence that these changes will occur in a timely manner. We may take until 2011 to get the changes to expel the two ‘jailbirds’. This legislation should really have been in place at the start of this year, so we are already ‘3 years behind’.
The legislation to deal with breaches since the start of 2008 will be much further down the line. I agree that one of the strengths of the Lords is that they take a circumspect view of things and avoid ‘knee-jerk reactions’. But too much delay will simply store up huge pressure to make a huge, possibly ill-considered, step change to boot out current Lords who may well have considerable experience to offer in the areas of defence, medicine, the law, prison policy etc.
I would urge all noble Lords reading this to try and understand just how much potential ill-feeling towards the House is being stored up by this issue. Many have said that we should wait until due process of investigation has taken place. That is fine, but if that is done, many many people will have already made their minds up by watching the video and listening to the audio clips. And if the investigation takes as long as, say, the Caroline Spelman inquiry – well, I think many people will have determined their view without having given anyone the benefit of the doubt, if there is a vacuum on the ‘defending arguments’ front for a considerable period of time.
The perception that this will be dealt with by a leisurely tinkering at the edges of the rules and regulations, by which time the media spotlight will be elsewhere and ‘noble lords can carry on more or less as before’ is difficult to escape, and I currently remain unconvinced that it will be otherwise.