Will the government act?

February 16th 2009

How seriously will the government take the recommendations in the PASC report? Ian Hall asks the question on everyone’s lips

When the long-awaited lobbying report was released by the public administration select committee (PASC) on 5 January, it set the clock ticking for the government to respond.

The department responsible for cross-government policy on lobbying is the Cabinet Office, and Tom Watson, a minister there, is leading on the report. He has said in his regular PAN column that he plans to let his Labour MP colleague Tony Wright and the rest of the PASC know what the government plans to do within two months. Watson intends to report back to the committee before anyone else gets a sniff of what the government thinks of it.

The killer question

Select committee reports are churned out regularly in Westminster – some gather dust, rarely to be heard of again, while others’ recommendations are embraced wholeheartedly, and implemented, by the government of the day.

Alex Bigg, UK public affairs MD at global public relations firm Edelman, explains: “Throughout Whitehall one can imagine piles of select committee reports gathering dust. But that measure of a select committee’s influence is, to many intents and purposes, false. Where they do play a significant role – one that can lead to policy change – is in choosing high-profile issues to investigate, which then generate significant media coverage.”

Bigg cites inquiries into the Rural Payments Agency, and the fiasco over Standard Assessment Tests (SATs) in schools, as two examples of where a committee’s determination to shine a light on bureaucratic incompetence led to action.

The killer question for public affairs professionals is: where does PASC’s lobbying report fit? Most of those canvassed for this article believe the bulk of the report (but not all of it) is towards the ‘gathering dust’ end of the spectrum, although a minority disagree. Alex Challoner of the consultancy Cavendish Communications is one such dissenter from the majority view, saying: “Select committee report recommendations tend to be implemented if they are easy to implement and non-controversial. PASC’s recommendations are fairly neutral in terms of politics and easily implemented, so I think they will be implemented.”

And Tim Fallon, who oversees the UK public affairs team at global PR giant Hill & Knowlton, points out: “A surefire way to prompt action is to publicly claim ‘it’ll never happen’ or ‘it’ll gather dust’!”

Manifesto commitments likely

Few lobbyists know the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure as well as Lionel Zetter, author of the recently published book Lobbying: The Art of Political Persuasion, who tells PAN: “Select committees have no power – only influence.

Despite the fact that they have an in-built government party majority, their recommendations are often in conflict with government policies – and priorities. In fact, select committees are simply lobbyists, seeking to inform and influence the agenda of government, but with no real power to do so.”

Asked how seriously he feels the PASC report into lobbying could be taken, Zetter says: “I don’t think that there is time in this Parliament to introduce a ‘Regulation of the Lobbying Industry Bill’ and push it through, even if the current government is minded to do so. Nor do I think that the recommendation that contacts between lobbyists and politicians and civil servants should be noted and minuted will ever be implemented, because they are impracticable.”

But he warns: “I think that it is quite likely that proposals to regulate lobbying will appear in all three of the main parties’ manifestos – in which case, statutory regulation is now pretty well inevitable in the next Parliament. Like most people in the industry I do not believe that there is a real problem, but if the people who we are trying to lobby – MPs – think that there is a problem, then there is indeed a problem.”

Graham McMillan of the public affairs and comms consultancy Open Road agrees with the consensus that – as recommended in one of the report’s less controversial passages – imminent reform of the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) is likely, as well as action on the ‘revolving door’ between politics and business. He adds that last month’s scandal in the Lords means that reform there is “almost certain”.

But in respect of the PASC report, McMillan cautions: “I don’t think the government will want to use political capital in forcing a new regulator and a new code when the widespread view persists that there isn’t much of a problem here to require such a big and costly solution.”

Placing the PASC lobbying report in the context of other inquiries, he says: “There are a huge number of select committee reports produced and in many cases the government fobs them off with a long list of what the government is already doing on a given subject and says it will ‘consider’ the other recommendations.

“The exceptions to this are when you have a powerful select committee chairman who is well-connected and supported in government – for example, John McFall of the Treasury select committee. Then people really do listen to what the report has to say and some reports are really important in shaping policy.”

‘Not very topical’

Jon McLeod, chairman of UK corporate communications and public affairs at Weber Shandwick, questions whether the political climate is ripe for getting genuinely stuck in to implementing PASC’s suggested reforms. He says: “Tom Watson is very politically astute, I’m not sure he would see any political advantage in committing time to this. There is no clear benefit to either party in committing to any reform of lobbying. I don’t think lobbying is a hot political issue – unlike in the US.

“The inquiry itself was a bit slow, not very topical and seemed to be rather low priority. The recent issues in the Lords are a matter of Peers’ conduct rather than that of lobbyists.”

Pete Digger, head of government relations and external affairs at AstraZeneca, partly shares McLeod’s view, saying: “One got the impression that this was not a high-priority inquiry given the length of time and lack of urgency that surrounded it. The recent reports regarding the Lords may change this. Labour will be keen to nip in the bud the sort of sleaze allegations that engulfed John Major’s administration and may now legislate rapidly. We will also be looking for a sensible industry response.”

Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) chief executive Andy Sawford, who describes the report as “drawing bold conclusions based on a fairly flawed process”, says: “The minister [Tom Watson] will have to be persuaded that this is the right way forward. And then, in terms of legislation, the leader of the House and the chief whip would have to be persuaded that this is more important than, say, criminal justice reform or legislation that aids economic recovery. I think that is unlikely, although the recent allegations surrounding members of the House of Lords has created a fresh impetus for the debate, and will heighten media interest in lobbying for the foreseeable future.”

Sawford continues: “My instinct, though, is that ministers will take a ‘holding position’ on the report, either just saying that the issues it raises will be ‘kept under review’, or announcing further consultation.”

Hill & Knowlton’s Fallon has a similar opinion. He says: “I am fairly sceptical about either a full implementation of the report, or a speedy one. There are too many other issues happening in the world that need attention. I don’t think we’re [lobbyists] that important – despite the protestations of certain industry representatives.”

He adds: “I guess the only bit that might have more immediate resonance with legislators is the ‘revolving doors’ issue, particularly regarding ex-ministers – for ‘public consumption’, this is the one that will do most to paint a picture of greater transparency.”

Recession is the priority

So, many do not seem to believe the more radical suggestions in the report – for example, the suggestion that all minutes of meetings between lobbyists and the lobbied are made publicly available – will be implemented any time soon.

As was the case throughout the 18-month inquiry, most lobbyists continue to be much more concerned about the dreadful state of the economy and getting on with their day-to-day work than with fallout from the PASC inquiry.

The consensus is that the government will be, too. As Edelman’s Bigg argues: “With the UK facing its worst recession in a generation, it is hard to believe that this report – which came nowhere near to finding a smoking gun –will jump to the top of the government’s in-tray.”

Open Road’s McMillan agrees, concluding: “The overwhelming thrust of government policy this year will be dealing with the recession. One of the problems with this report is that it doesn’t fall into this category. But we shall wait and see, as there could be further surprises yet.”

IAN HALL