This is not a lobbying scandal

I am not exactly sure what Patrick Mercer has done. He has clearly been up to no good, not for the first time. Whether he has been corrupt, well we will have to wait for the morning’s Telegraph to provide us with the details to help us form an opinion. However, the one thing I am clear about is that whatever has or hasn’t happened, it is not a “lobbying” scandal.

Once again the allegations relate to the behaviour of a politician, or as we will certainly discover in the morning politicians, not of a professional lobbyist. The temptation to blame the public affairs industry will be great, and indeed the BBC has already linked the story to the Coalition’s failure to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists.

But let me be clear the only way that the existence of a register could have stopped what Mercer is alleged to have done  (which for those of you aren’t aware is to have been paid to promote the interests of Fuji in parliament, specifically advocating for its re-admittance into the Commonwealth), is that he could have checked the identity of the “consultants” against the register and might have found they were not bona fide consultants. But then again the journalists involved in the sting might have thought about that and covered their tracks.

A statutory register will not stop politicians being stupid and/or greedy. And that is what this episode reveals. Indeed all the recent so-called “lobbying scandals” have been about politicians either being incapable of resisting filthy lucre or of being guilty of hubris, mainly the former.

It has been a long time since an actual lobbyist has been found to be corrupt. That is because the profession is well regulated and goes to great lengths to train new entrants to understand what is acceptable and what isn’t. I am not sure that MPs and Peers get the same training.

p.s.

As I have written before, I am happy to support a statutory register but am a firm believer that it should not be limited to public affairs consultants working in agencies but to all those who engage in public affairs activities including in-house practionners.  

Lobbyist and proud of it - part II

I have just completed the Sport Relief three mile challenge - ok I know it isn't that challenging but while I love sport, I eschew physical activity. So walking three miles is something of an achievement for me, especially since I was walking with an over-excited eight-year old and a very stroppy teenager. But the purpose of this post is not to boast (although you are welcome sponsor me). No, I want to have a bit of a rant about lobbying (yes, again). What has this got to do with Sport Relief? Well Comic/Sport Relief is one of the most effective lobbying organisations. It does a brilliant job of engaging with organisations of all kinds (government, private sector and voluntary) to achieve its objectives. And it is, quite rightly, applauded for its efforts. Compare this with the increasingly hostile attitude political parties and the media are adopting when it comes to lobbying companies. We are being portrayed as, at best, unnecessary and, at worse, responsible for the ethical decline in politics. What utter nonsense. Yes of course organisations don't have to use political consultants, they could do it themselves, just as they could do their own legal work, accounts and advertising. But let's be honest, to do it effectively needs knowledge and experience which is why they call in the professionals. As for our corrupting the system, it has been politicians themselves who have done that. The greed and poor judgment of a significant minority have reduced the levels of trust and faith in the body politic so low. Today's Sunday Times/Dispatches story is about politicians selling access and favours not professional consultants. Don't confuse the two.

Lobbyist and proud of it

It has been an interest week, with David Cameron turning his attention to my industry, when he warned about the dangers of political lobbying and the "far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money". Interesting indeed. Now, I know what I am about to say will be tinged with a touch of "well, she would say that, wouldn't she?" but that doesn't make it less true. So here goes - there is nothing wrong with lobbying per se. Lobbying plays an important and fundamental part in the workings of our democracy. We lobby when we sign a petition, write a letter to our MP, go on a demonstration, or give a local councillor a hard time about rubbish collection times. In my experience the most effective lobbyists are in the voluntary sector. Macmillan Cancer Care, Royal British Legion and Oxfam - all brilliant at it, all know who to speak to and want to say to make their point, getting their funding, change the policy. And no-one objects to it - and nor should they. They are just doing their job. It is the work I do that some would have you believe is inherently wicked. Somehow, helping organisations understand how policy is made and how best to influence it, is being positioned as a bad thing. I don't agree. With so few politicians having experience of the world beyond politics, I see it as essential that organisations, be they PLCs or NGOs, help them understand the implications of their policy thinking. That is why disgraced MPs quitting the Commons following the expenses scandal like Andrew MacKay (a member of Cameron's inner circle) are being employed by political consultancies. Yes, I know there have been one or two cases of bad behaviour in the past - cash for questions being the obvious example - but in the vast majority of cases the work that lobbyists like me do is ethical, open and for the good.