---

Lobbying (Whitehall/Westminster)

I am grateful that we are able to resume the debate, Mr. Williams. I will canter through my speech as quickly as I can. Before we were interrupted, I was drawing attention to the Public Administration Committee report that was published on 5 January. It calls for a mandatory register of lobbyists. It was published before the dreadful revelations in The Sunday Times article, ““Labour lords change laws for cash””. It is worrying that people out there think that Parliament is a den of thieves. Revelations and allegations of sleaze are a spreading stain that contaminates Members of Parliament and peers alike. Something must be done. The House of Lords Committee for Privileges is looking at the allegations. However, what I have heard with my own ears—not mediated by the media—is appalling, such as the comment that rules are meant to be bent. The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall, talked of the possibility of suspending or even expelling peers who are guilty of wrongdoing. She was right in saying that the revelations were ““deeply shocking””. Sam Macrory of The House Magazine—our internal journal—said:"““Cash for questions is one thing; cash for changing the law scrapes a new low in the annals of political scandal.””" Why did the fake lobbyists target the Lords? In the same article, Sam Macrory quotes Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit at University college London:"““Since 1997 the government has suffered four legislative defeats in the House of Commons, and nearly 500 in the House of Lords””." I know colleagues who have been lobbied by bona fide organisations such as housing associations to press an amendment in the House of Commons. They have been told by Ministers that hell will freeze over before the Government will accept the amendment. The same amendment goes to the other end of the Palace and is accepted in the House of Lords. That is where legislation is changed. Lobbyists understand that. Professor Hazell goes on to say that"““it is no surprise that lobbyists and interest groups focus on the Lords: the prospects for getting legislation changed there are so much greater.””" According to the Financial Times, more than 40 peers have given passes to people who work for lobbyists, PR firms and other organisations such as the National Farmers Union and the TUC. That list can be accessed at the website, FT.com/lobbyists. My friends on the Public Administration Committee and I take the view that transparency is essential. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has changed everything. It has changed the way in which we think about information and our rights to it. For Parliament and its procedures still to be shrouded in mystery is anomalous in this day and age. I think that we need a mandatory register, and so does Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who is at the apex of the ethical pyramid. Yesterday, he told the Public Administration Committee that he agrees that there should be a mandatory register of lobbyists. The report has its critics. I think that it is good, but it has not received universal acclaim. Lord Bell said:"““It is an incompetent report which contributes nothing—either in its analysis or in its recommendations—to help people who are concerned that the Government comes under undue influence.””" At the other end of the spectrum, George Monbiot told The Guardian that our proposals were ““timid and dated””. I do not know which planet George is on at the moment, but it is not planet Earth. Our proposals are radical and quite revolutionary. The report recommended that there should be changes to the ministerial code. The independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Philip Mawer, cannot initiate inquiries into ministerial conduct and must wait for a direction from the Prime Minister. Sir Christopher Kelly told the Select Committee, and stated in his annual report, that it is a serious weakness that the independent adviser cannot initiate inquiries. Until that is possible, newspapers will continue to run stories about members of the Cabinet meeting Russian oligarchs. Such stories will not go away. The Prime Minister is committed to constitutional reform, so I would like to see him change the ministerial code and consider a mandatory register of lobbyists. I was given some encouragement today when I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time. I get the sense—I am looking at the Minister as I say this—that we are pushing at an open door. The climate of opinion has changed. Lobbying is not always bad and can be very good. It is an essential part of our democracy. People want to influence decisions, and doing so can be malign or benign. My views are influenced all the time by people who lobby me. My views on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill changed after I read material from the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and others. Lobbying can be positive, but those on both sides of the argument must have equal access. We are being lobbied on the third runway at Heathrow; we should hear the arguments against the third runway. We are lobbied on genetically modified foods. Is that a good thing? We should be lobbied on the alternative viewpoint. There should be a level playing field.