1. Summary Scope of APPC interest Role of local authorities Role of consultants What is a lobbyist?...

Transcription

1 Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity Response by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) to the CLG consultation 10 November 2010 The Association of Professional Political Consultants is the representative and self-regulatory body for professional political consultants. APPC s main role is to ensure the highest standards of honesty, integrity and professionalism amongst its members. The basis for APPC s self-regulatory regime is set out in its Code of Conduct, which sets detailed rules based on two principles: transparency and an absolute ban on any financial relationship with politicians or their advisers. The APPC has 63 members, roughly accounting for over 85% by turnover of the UK`s political consultancies. Membership is open to any individual or firm that offers political consultancy services relating predominantly to the institutions of UK government, undertaken for clients on a commercial basis.

2 CONTENTS 1. Summary Scope of APPC interest Role of local authorities Role of consultants What is a lobbyist? Is the proposed Code sufficiently clear to ensure that any inappropriate use of lobbyists, or stalls at party conferences, is clearly ruled out? Use of lobbyists Stalls at party conferences

3 CODE OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICE ON LOCAL AUTHORITY PUBLICITY Response by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) to the CLG consultation 1. SUMMARY 1.1. In the view of the APPC, the Government s proposals to prevent the use of outside public affairs consultants by local authorities would be likely to lead to authorities undertaking legitimate functions less cost effectively, giving council taxpayers less value for money contrary to the Government s stated objectives Further, we: i. Note that the Department s consultation makes clear that Councillors lobbying Members of Parliament or Government Ministers is wholly legitimate. ii. iii. iv. Believe that the Government s apparent justification for control over the use of outside consultants by local authorities that this leads to a lack of transparency or accountability is mistaken. Believe that for the Government to require local authorities not to use consultants where to do so would be more cost effective would be arbitrary, potentially discriminatory and inconsistent. Note that the Government s proposals appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the role of consultants and a confusion of the terms lobbyist and consultant and are thus inherently flawed We are concerned that this consultation may already be pre-judged. The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP said on 29 September 2010: The rules around council publicity have been too weak for too long allowing public money to be spent on frivolous town hall propaganda papers that have left many local newspapers looking over the abyss weakening our free press or to use hired-gun lobbyists that operate in the shadows to bulldoze special interests through. [Our emphasis] 1.4. This terminology, repeated publicly on the DCLG website, does not provide confidence this consultation will be held in a fair and balanced way SCOPE OF APPC INTEREST 2.1. The APPC s interest in the proposed new Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity relates principally to paragraph 26 of the proposed Code and connected issues. Paragraph 26 states that: 1 3

4 Local authorities should not incur any expenditure in retaining the services of private specialists, contractors or consultants ( lobbyists ) with the intention of the publication of any material designed to influence public officials, Members of Parliament, political parties or the Government to take a particular view on any issue Allied to this is paragraph 27 of the proposed Code: Local authorities should not incur any expenditure to have stands or displays at conferences of political parties to issue publicity designed to influence members of political parties to take a particular view on any issue We do not, therefore, address three of the four questions proposed by the consultation, but limit ourselves to the one central to our interest: Is the proposed Code sufficiently clear to ensure that any inappropriate use of lobbyists, or stalls at party conferences, is clearly ruled out? 2.4. Here we are competent to comment as a result of experience of advising clients in the private, public and third sectors; and our work with other standards organisations and as a voluntary regulator of our member companies. 3. ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES 3.1. We believe that the role of local authorities is a matter for Parliament and the Government to decide, and do not express a view here. However, our experience is that many local authorities (and other public bodies) understand part of their role to be to represent the interests of their electorate and others within their boundaries to Central Government, as well as to a wide variety of other bodies and agencies. These may include ALBs (arm s length bodies) and executive agencies of national government, or international organisations including, for example, the European Commission Indeed, we note that the Department s consultation makes clear that Councillors lobbying Members of Parliament or Government Ministers is wholly legitimate 2. We assume that this may be read to mean that it is legitimate for local authorities to lobby Westminster or Whitehall since it seems evident that councillors would be acting on behalf of their authority It appears clear, therefore, that the Secretary of State s concern is not about the role or function of local authorities in lobbying, but merely that they should not use external support in doing so. The reasons for this concern appear to relate to what the consultation document portrays as a lack of transparency or accountability when local authorities employ external support ROLE OF CONSULTANTS 4.1. This is an inaccurate portrayal of the role of public affairs or government relations consultants. In this case, it is local authority members and officers who are the lobbyists, to use the definition implied in 2 Paragraph 5 of the consultation document. 3 Paragraph 5 of the consultation document states that Meetings between politicians are matters of public record and where public bodies engage with Government there is transparency as these matters are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Lobbyists, as private organisations, are subject to none of these rules. Taxpayers money should not be spent on lobbyists with no public accountability. 4

5 the consultation paper. The role of external consultants will almost always be to advise their local authority clients. They are likely to advise on strategy, including whom their clients should meet or to whom they should write; they will help their clients build their case and arguments; they may help with the logistics of meetings with politicians and officials; they may even attend those meetings. But it will be local authority members who will argue their case in meetings and in correspondence The concept, inherent in the consultation document, of consultants actively arguing their local authority clients case to politicians and officials is wrong. Even if it were to happen, it would be no less transparent than meetings between councillors and MPs or ministers: i. Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act would still apply since consultants write reports of meetings to their clients, and these could be discovered. ii. iii. MPs or ministers contacted in this way would be in the same position to make the meeting a matter of public record. Most, and an increasing number of, public affairs or government relations consultants register their clients on-line, along with in-house lobbyists. These registers are being brought together into a single site by the UK Public Affairs Council, in liaison with the Cabinet Office. This is a precursor to the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists planned by the Cabinet Office for It appears, therefore, that the mischief identified by the consultation paper to justify the proposed presumption against using third party advisers is mistaken. We submit that, should local authorities decide to engage with central government or other similar organisations, it would be rational and consistent with the Government s localism agenda for them to be allowed to decide the best way to undertake this activity; though we would argue that, in doing so, they should have regard to the principles of publicity set out in the proposed Code, which we support: ie, that the publicity should: Be lawful Be cost effective Be objective Be even-handed Be appropriate Have regard to equality and diversity Be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity 4.4. Our experience is that it is frequently more cost-effective for local authorities (and other public bodies) to avail themselves of external consultancy support than to attempt to undertake this sort of activity using in-house resources. It is frequently the case that the right level of expertise to lobby effectively does not exist within local authorities, and that it is less costly to buy it in as and when needed than it is to hire full time expert staff. Without external advice and support, local authorities activities may well be less cost effective. It is certainly our experience that any local authority accepting the Secretary of State s advice to make a phone call or write a letter outside of any well-judged strategic approach would be wasting their council taxpayers money We are of the view, therefore, that it should be for local authorities to decide how best they undertake these activities, perhaps with particular reference to cost effectiveness. We believe that it would be arbitrary and potentially discriminatory for the Secretary of State to seek to deny local authorities the ability to take that judgement in the best interests of their electorates. Whilst it is clearly Parliament s intention that the Code of Recommended Practice should apply to what activities might be undertaken 5

6 and how, we do not believe that it was Parliament s intention to limit who should undertake those activities, effectively discriminating between in-house and consultancy staff performing the same functions. We believe that requiring this form of discrimination may be subject to legal challenge It would also be inconsistent to include a presumption against the use of consultancy support in the proposed Code. We note that, when considering cost effectiveness, the consultation specifically states 4 that Local authorities should consider whether it is appropriate to seek advice from economic analysts, public relations experts [our emphasis] or other sources of expert advice before embarking on a publicity campaign involving very large expenditure. This is exactly the type of role played by those to whom the consultation refers as lobbyists and whose advice the proposal seeks to deny local authorities. 5. WHAT IS A LOBBYIST? 5.1. The consultation appears to equate consultant with lobbyist. This is a misplaced association. Those that advocate or practice statutory registration or regulation of lobbying rightly take a much wider view: i. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee in its report into lobbying 5 made much of the fact that a statutory register should apply to all who lobby, and not just consultants. The Committee also noted in its report that Lobbying should be and often is a force for good. ii. iii. The relatively recent European Commission transparency register 6 applies to all who lobby the Commission. Only 207 of the 3207 interest representatives registered are public affairs or government relations consultants, law firms or similar compared with 1619 in-house lobbyists. The US Federal register 7 held by the Senate similarly includes all those who interact with the Legislature or the Executive The defining requirement for registration in the view of these bodies is contact with politicians and officials and not whether the lobbyist is employed in-house or in consultancy. A company CEO or trade association director general is every bit as much likely to be registered and regarded as a lobbyist as a government relations consultant or a lawyer. Rightly, it is the function that is defined and regulated, and not the status of the person undertaking that function It is also important to recognise, and reflect in the proposed code, that public affairs or government relations consultants perform a variety of roles. As we comment above, it may be to advise a client how to lobby (to help devise the strategy, conduct the required research, to plan any campaign); to help with the process by drafting documents or managing the logistics; or occasionally to take part in meetings with politicians or officials But consultancies undertake a range of other activities, such as strategic communications or stakeholder engagement. These are not, as the Secretary of State has suggested, euphemisms for 4 Paragraph

7 lobbying 8. They are discrete and different services of which local authorities and other public bodies may wish to avail themselves, often in order to meet statutory requirements for consultation. We have already seen one example where a public body has been criticised by the Department for using a lobbyist when they had, in fact, used the consultancy concerned to undertake community engagement on a major road infrastructure construction project and previously to write the public body s community engagement handbook a statutory requirement. 6. IS THE PROPOSED CODE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO ENSURE THAT ANY INAPPROPRIATE USE OF LOBBYISTS, OR STALLS AT PARTY CONFERENCES, IS CLEARLY RULED OUT? 1.1. USE OF LOBBYISTS It is clear from the consultation that the Government believes that it is legitimate for local authorities to lobby Government and MPs and, by implication, other organisations. We believe that it is wrong for the Government to seek to dictate to local authorities how they should undertake that lobbying, outside of a rational application of the publicity principles set out in the code, and in particular cost effectiveness. Decisions of how lobbying should be undertaken and by whom are rightly matters for local authorities, properly applying those principles It is therefore clear that, where it is legitimate for local authorities to lobby, it is appropriate for them to retain the services of private specialists, contractors or consultants where to do so would be a more cost-effective solution than using in-house resources. The effective ban on the use of outside consultants proposed in paragraph 26 of the proposed code is, therefore, misplaced and risks local authorities undertaking legitimate activities in a less cost effective and less effective way STALLS AT PARTY CONFERENCES We do not have a particular view on the use of exhibition space by local authorities at party conferences, save for the need for decisions to be taken according to the principles for publicity set out in the proposed code. 8 A spokesman for the Secretary of State quoted in Public Affairs News on 7 September