Lobbying rules ‘too lax’
Ministers are taking advantage of lax lobbying rules to exploit political contacts for private gain, MPs have found.
The public administration committee called for greater transparency and tighter regulation of the industry.
“We are strongly concerned that, with the rules as loosely and as variously interpreted as they currently are, former ministers in particular appear to be able to use with impunity the contacts they built up as public servants to further a private interest,” the report said.
“We think that this is unacceptable, particularly where they continue to be paid from the public purse as sitting members of parliament. The rules need to reflect this.”
Activists warn of a ‘revolving door’ between Whitehall and business, with many former politicians earning significant income from sitting on the executive board of businesses.
“Gordon Brown must follow the recommendations of this report and reform lobbying to bring it out of the shadows,” said David Miller of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT), a coalition of civil society groups.
“The public has a right to know which groups are bending the government’s ear to influence policy.”
The report, which took 18 months to write, is contemptuous of industry arguments against regulation, saying its fears are “overstated”.
It also highlighted regulation in many other developed countries, including Canada, Australia and Brussels and the United States, where Barack Obama made the issue one of his central themes.
Committee chairman, Labour MP Tony Wright, said: “Lobbying enhances democracy, but it can also subvert it.
“Transparency is key here. There is a public interest in knowing who is lobbying whom about what.”
The committee called for a strictly enforced ban of several years before former ministers use their political contacts for private gain.
“Lobbying the government should, in a democracy, involve explicit agreement about the terms on which this lobbying is conducted,” the committee said.
“There seems to be a culture of secrecy in some parts of government beyond that which is strictly necessary, and beyond that seen in some other countries.”
