Monday’s Western
Mail contained this robust defence of lobbying and lobbyists from – as it
happens – a lobbyist. The article issued
a dire warning that democracy itself is endangered by any attempt by government
to control lobbying. A little over the
top, methinks.
Lobbying is, as the
author says, a long-standing part of our democratic process, and I share his
concern that a government proposal which applies only to ‘third party’
lobbyists “will not fulfil its main
purpose of increasing transparency”.
That strikes me, however, as an argument for extending the scope of the
proposal rather than opposing it.
I understand the
concern he expresses about whether a comprehensive proposal might lead to a situation where
no group, organisation, or individual could put any case to ministers without
having first registered as a lobbyist, and posing the question in that way
underlines the complexity of the issue.
But the fact that an issue is complex is not an excuse for ignoring it,
which seems to be the desired outcome of the article.
It’s worth getting
back to the nature of the concern many of us have about lobbying and
lobbyists. That concern is not about
whether individuals, groups, or companies can talk to ministers about their
concerns, and seek to promote particular approaches and solutions. In itself, that is simply a normal part of
democracy. The concern is about fairness
and transparency.
Do those who have
enough money to spend on receptions, hospitality, and professional PR merchants,
and even to employ former politicians and civil servants, enjoy an unfair
advantage in gaining access to politicians and therefore in putting their case
over and above ordinary members of the public?
And is there a danger that, as a result, policy decisions may be taken
which favour those groups rather than the interests of society as a whole?
Politicians do not
have to be corrupt to be swayed by regular contact (even if in a social environment
with no mention of the policies which the hosts wish to change) to lean in a
particular direction. The whole process
is simply relying on the social nature of people. The government’s current proposals may well
be deficient in getting to grips with the issues, but surely there can be
little disagreement about their existence.
What threatens
democracy is not an attempt to control and regulate lobbying, but the
continuation of a situation where it appears that influence over policy can be
bought.
Posts
