Interest Groups & Advocacy

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 105–114 | Cite as

Sledgehammers, nuts and rotten apples: Reassessing the case for lobbying self-regulation in the United Kingdom

  • William Dinan
  • David Miller
Original Article

Executive Summary

In the light of broad trends to hold lobbyists accountable by voluntary or mandatory means this practice piece reviews the United Kingdom experience of lobbying self-regulation. It suggests that there are key problems with the hitherto default self-regulatory model, and that the status quo is likely to change. Over the last few years, and spanning different political administrations, a steady drip feed of controversy and scandal involving lobbying has harmed the reputation of the political system, already undermined in other ways. This damaging publicity was one of the spurs for the recent inquiry on lobbying at Westminster, and this also had an impact on manifesto commitments on lobbying in the run up to the 2010 UK general election. Lobbying reform featured in the subsequent coalition agreement. Although pressure for some form of independent oversight of lobbying has been gaining pace in the last few years, and demands for reform have intensified in the wake of recent scandals, the precise shape of lobbying regulation at Westminster is still unclear. Debate on how to regulate and make transparent relations between government, elected representatives, officials and outside interests repeatedly throws up a number of issues that will need to be addressed in whatever regime is developed. These include: agreeing a workable definition of lobbying activity, which captures both direct and indirect lobbying; setting thresholds for registration; agreeing standards and protocols for reporting lobbying activity, including information on the resources devoted to lobbying, and where these are targeted. Whatever system is developed will have to strike a balance between securing transparency (via reporting, disclosure and possibly regulation) and ensuring that barriers to participation are not created (especially for resource poor groups and ordinary citizens). It is likely that many of those engaged in lobbying that does not involve direct advocacy will seek to be excluded from full disclosure obligations. How these issues are handled will condition the scrutiny and accountability of lobbying in the United Kingdom, and ultimately play a key role in determining whether such transparency measures can contribute to rebuilding trust and confidence in the political system.

Keywords

UK lobbying self-regulation media transparency 

References

  1. Alexander, R.M., Mazza, S.W. and Scholz, S. (2009) Measuring rates of return for lobbying expenditures: An empirical analysis under the American jobs creation act, 8 April. Available at SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375082, accessed 8 December 2011.
  2. CEBR. (2005) PR Today: The Economic Significance of Public Relations, London: Centre for Economics and Business Research Limited, http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/pr-resources/research-reports/cipr-research-and-reports#9, accessed 8 December 2011.
  3. Chari, R., Hogan, J. and Murphy, G. (2010) Regulating Lobbying: A Global Comparison. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, H., Parsley, D.C. and Yang, Y. (2010) Corporate lobbying and financial performance, 28 April. Available at SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014264, accessed 8 December 2011.
  5. Dinan, W. (2006) Learning lessons? The registration of lobbyists at the Scottish parliament. Journal of Communication Management 10 (1): 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doig, A. (1998) ‘Cash for Questions’, parliament's response to the offence that dare not speak its name. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (1): 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Economist. (2011) Ask what your country can do for you. Money and Politics, 1 October, http://www.economist.com/node/21531014?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/moneyandpolitics, accessed 8 December 2011.
  8. Flynn, P. (2011) Lobbyists’ lament. 10 March, http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/lobbyists-lament.html, accessed 8 December 2011.
  9. Hill, M.D., Kelly, G.W., Lockhart, G.B. and Van Ness, R.A. (2011) Determinants and effects of corporate lobbying, 19 January. Available at SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1420224, accessed 8 December 2011.
  10. Jordan, G. (1998) Towards regulation in the UK, from ‘General Good Sense’ to ‘Formalised Rules’. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 524–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neill Committee. (2000) Reinforcing Standards, Review of the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Vol. I, Cm 4557-I, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  12. Nolan Committee. (1995a) Standards in Public Life, Vol. I, Cm 2850-I, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Nolan Committee. (1995b) Standards in Public Life, Transcripts of Oral Evidence, Vol. II, Cm 2850-II, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  14. OECD. (2009a) Lobbyists, Government and Public Trust: Promoting Integrity by Self-Regulation. Paris: OECD, October, GOV/PGC(2009)9.Google Scholar
  15. OECD. (2009b) Lobbyists, Government and Public Trust, Volume 1: Increasing Transparency through Legislation. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  16. OECD. (2010) The 10 Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  17. Parvin, P. (2007) Friend or Foe: Lobbying in British Democracy. London: The Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  18. PASC. (2009) Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall, Vol. 1, HC 36-1, London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Rush, M. (1998) The Canadian experience: The lobbyists registration act. Parliamentary Affairs 51 (4): 516–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlesinger, P., Miller, D. and Dinan, W. (2001) Open Scotland? Journalists, Spin Doctors and Lobbyists. Edinburgh, UK: Polygon.Google Scholar
  21. Thomson, S. and John, S. (2002) Public Affairs in Practice: A Practical Guide to Lobbying, London: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  22. Zetter, L. (2009) Thursday, 7 February 2008. In: PASC Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall, Vol. 1, HC 36-1, Ev 34, London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Dinan
    • 1
  • David Miller
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social Sciences, University of the West of ScotlandHamiltonUK
  2. 2.Department of Social & Policy SciencesBathUK

Personalised recommendations