Total Politics 2010 Election Map

Total Politics - because knowledge is power

 

The good lobbyist guide

 

Keith Johnston

 

Too often, public affairs professionals are portrayed as hired guns. In fact, Keith Johnston says, they are essential for democracy

 

 

 

In the world of fiction, the lobbyist is a shadowy figure; a hired gun manipulating politicians with fat brown envelopes stuffed full of cash. It's a cool fiction some lobbyists themselves revel in. After all, who wouldn't want to be thought of as the one really pulling the strings, and charge rates will rocket if gullible clients actually believe you.

 

But the list of top 100 lobbyists in this magazine suggests a different reality. It's easy for conspiracy theorists to define those who lobby for industry, defence contractors, and multi-national pharmaceuticals as "bad lobbyists". But our list contains those who lobby for cancer charities and old soldiers. These must be the good lobbyists. The trouble is that you cannot just have lobbyists for the things you agree with, and deny the opportunity for lobbyists on the other side to present their case. Or rather you can, but then your country looks a lot more like Zimbabwe than the UK.

 

The job of lobbying is a varied one, which defies easy analysis. Sometimes it's about being a persuader. Trying to understand which arguments will resonate with the politicians or the civil servants. Many of us instinctively understand this skill. I remember at an early age lobbying my mum and dad. If mum refused to give me money for the cinema, I would try dad. If they rumbled my game, I hit back with: "But all the other parents are letting my friends go." This was usually a winner. This is what lobbyists do but on a more sophisticated level: understanding the politician and what motivates them, understanding what argument will win them over.

 

Much of this is about collecting evidence to make the case. The civil service is generally an efficient machine whose professional approach means few suggestions get anywhere unless they are supported by evidence that change must happen and that it is in the public interest. It's no use convincing the politician only for them to be told by their aides that your idea is insane because it's totally impracticable or unaffordable. Lobbyists need to do their homework.

 

Sometimes an idea is right, but it is controversial or way down the priority list. You have to give politicians some reason for making a decision which is valid, even if it is unpopular with backbench colleagues or the press. There is a great story about FDR which illustrates this. The President recognised that his ability to push New Deal legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by lobbying movements. When FDR was confronted with activists who were belaboring a point, he said: "OK, you've convinced me. Now go out and put pressure on me."

 

He was recognising the political reality; that he was only the President. He needed political support if he was to instigate change, even change he was convinced was sensible. The same goes in the UK. If you believe that  rison
reform is a good thing, for example, then you are going to have to overcome the fact that politicians will take a hit from the tabloid press if they advocate it. You have to make it worth their while by providing evidence, then shouting about it to support your case. In short, the lobbyist needs to understand policy, people and process.

 

But is there a darker side to lobbying? Certainly the industry continues to be defined in the media by its mistakes and those rare occasions where lobbyists and the lobbied overstep the mark. In the debate about regulation, it is worth remembering that the 'cash for questions' scandal destroyed the lobbyist Ian Greer and his company. You don't need much more incentive than that to avoid breaking the rules. Indeed, there are strict regulations now in place on the conduct of ministers and parliamentarians.

 

Most lobbying consultancies are regulated, either by the Association of Professional Political Consultants, the Public Relations Consultants' Association or the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. But it remains true that the majority of lobbyists are outside this regulation. Some that are regulated, such as lawyers, fail the test of transparency. This is because most lobbyists are not employed by lobbying consultancies; they are employed in trade associations, NGOs such as Shelter, or in charities and private corporations.

 

 

 

 

 

This issue will come to a head this year. The regulatory bodies are coming together to form the UK's Public Affairs Council and this will simplify the regulatory process. A register will be created which all lobbyists will be asked to sign up to. It will become a badge of integrity.

 

This regulation must also apply to all lobbyists to ensure that there is not a two-tier system of those talking to government. Any system of self-regulation must be seen to have integrity, a level playing field and universality - lobbyists from whatever background or employer must be transparent and honest advocates.

 

Moreover, as I write, the government has not responded to the Public Administration Select Committee's report on lobbying, but the Conservatives have. They have done so definitively. There will be an absolute requirement to publish all client lists, and lawyers will be forced to disclose their lobbying clients.

 

Sadly, the sting in the tail for public sector bodies is that they will no longer be able to hire lobbyists to support their budget and legislative programmes. This immediately strikes me as unwise, as the private sector will not have to labour under any such restrictions.

 

If the Conservatives win the next election, then it would be the lobbyists' job to suggest legislative changes and make budget submissions which are in tune with the new administration's thinking. This is necessary to get their support. Now, those submissions, which will still be made, will not benefit from that intelligence and support. This will lead to less effective proposals and poorer budget submissions.

 

Of course one sympathises with the wider campaign against government waste. Lobbyists should not be immune from the requirement to be cost-efficient. But a blanket ban fails to distinguish between those public bodies which have been profligate and those which have been shrewd.

 

Nevertheless, we must accept that there is often a public perception that consultants and lobbyists in particular are, to paraphrase Lord Turner, "socially useless". Such allegations are a cost-free hit for politicians. The silver lining is that public sector bodies will be forced to hire in-house lobbyists, now rebranded as heads of 'stakeholder relations'.

 

Lobbying is necessary work. Indeed, a senior backbench MP recently told me lobbyists were essential, and he is right. Lobbying enables legislators to have access to expert opinion and policy proposals to be reality checked. It allows those with a legitimate interest in the political process to provide comment on proposals which affect them. When the ability to urge caution or provide expert advice is diminished, so too is the quality of legislation.

 

The widest possible consultation can only result in better policy decisions and more effective legislation. All organisations - and their representatives - deserve the right of free access to MPs, ministers, civil servants and special advisers. Any attempt to fetter that access would undoubtedly damage the political process. A properly functioning public affairs profession is therefore one of the keys to an effective consultation and political process. Lobbying is essential for democracy.

 

What this means is that being in the top 100 list of lobbyists will become invaluable, particularly to the regulator. My advice to any lobbyist is to get regulated now.

 

 

 


Keith Johnston is chairman of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations Government Affairs Group