The Lobbying Act: how's that working out?

27 January 2015

It's been a year since the Lobbying Bill passed into law – amid howls of protest from charities, derision from transparency campaigners, and warnings from Parliament. Is it delivering on its promises to clean up politics?

First, let's recall what the government said the legislation was going to do. It all began with a pledge made in the Coalition Agreement of May 2010: a commitment to 'regulate lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists and ensuring greater transparency.'

Four years (and one too many lobbying scandals) later, the government came up with the Lobbying Bill. Except, by this stage, it had ballooned into the ‘Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill’. Out of nowhere the Coalition had decided to couple a transparency measure targeting professional lobbyists with regulation of charities and trade unions. It had become ‘the gagging bill’.  

Not only that, the register of lobbyists as drafted in the Bill was a sham. The government’s stated aim of the register, according to Andrew Lansley who pushed it through for the Tories, was ‘to make it clear who is lobbying the Government and for whom’. You'd have a better idea of who is lobbying government if you were to stand on the corner of Whitehall with a clipboard.

Only a fraction of the UK’s lobbyists will be required to register; and these few will only have to state the names of any clients that have communicated with a minister (or permanent secretary, which is next to no one). So, the register will read: lobbying agency X has registered clients Y and Z. This quite obviously will not ‘make clear who is lobbying the Government and for whom’, so ‘ensuring greater transparency’ in our political system, as promised. This, instead, is government ticking a box.

Part 2 of the Bill – on non-party campaigning (the 'gagging' bit) – is also not turning out as promised by ministers. Tom Brake, who steered the Bill through Parliament for the Lib Dems, said at the time that the law was necessary to ‘stop our political system going the way of America’s – where wealthy and unaccountable millionaires can spend small fortunes trying to deliver specific electoral outcomes through so-called “Super-PACs” and alike... It is absolutely not going to restrict charities or campaign groups campaigning to change public policy.’

Unfortunately, the law has not rid British politics of unaccountable millionaires who wish to see specific outcomes. £50,000 a year can still buy you dinner with the Prime Minister. The Conservatives are still exploiting a loophole in the rules, which allows donations below £7,500 to “unincorporated” local party associations to remain anonymous. Last year 40% of the Tories’ funding for key marginal seats came from these secret clubs (a massive rise on what they provided in 2010).

And what of the promise to not restrict the ability of charities to campaign on public policy? A report out last week found the opposite: ‘Charities and campaigning organisations are feeling the chilling effect of the lobbying act and are not speaking out on important issues before the general election’, it concluded. Charities have become cautious about campaigning on politically contentious issues because they fear breaking the new law or the reputational risk of receiving vexatious complaints.

Dealing with the consequences of the Lobbying Act and the accompanying lengthy guidance on the law, which has been criticised as "incomprehensible" is also eating into charities’ resources. This is a sign of a bad law. It also afflicts part 1 and the statutory register of lobbyists. The new Registrar, Alison White, who has been hired to implement the register, is faced with similar challenges and is busy writing guidance (for the handful of lobbyists affected) to 'alleviate the ambiguity'. White, though, has had to resort to asking lobbyists to voluntarily provide additional information on the register, because, as written, the Lobbying Act is incapable of delivering even the very narrow aims of the government. The lobbying industry are, quite justifiably, calling for the introduction of the register to be stalled. It needs to be scrapped. 

For a law that was designed to take big money out of politics; that it was promised would not place restrictions on charities; that began as a means of opening up the UK's £2bn commercial lobbying industry to some public scrutiny, the Lobbying Act has failed. Box ticked. 

The week in lobbying

17 October 2014

"Dear World's Greatest Campaign Manager"

Further evidence this week that Lynton Crosby lobbied the government over tobacco regulations. 

Last month it was revealed that Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party’s election campaign manager, lobbied Lord Marland, then Intellectual Property minister, against the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. Crosby had shared documents with Marland making the case that such a move had no basis in law. The move by Crosby came just days before it was announced that he was to become the Tories’ election guru. 

Crosby's London-based lobbying firm, Crosby Textor Fullbrook (CTF), was hired by Philip Morris International (PMI) in the autumn of 2012 as it sought to derail the government’s plans, which are designed to deter younger people from taking up smoking. The deal is reported to be worth up to £6 million.

The latest revelations show that Marland wrote back to Crosby to let him known that his staff were working hard to make sure the “legal position” on plain packaging and intellectual property rights was clear. Marland signs off his letter to Crosby: “I remain your humble servant.”

Marland addressed his letter to “the world’s greatest campaign manager”.

Lobbying register unravelling

Representatives of lobbyists have issued a clear warning to the Cabinet Office: the “flawed” register of lobbyists introduced by the government to increase transparency will do the opposite if they’re not careful. 

The Association of Professional Political Consultants, the commercial lobbyists’ lobby group, has warned that it will be "simple for any organisation to avoid the need to register" if they wish to. 

Which means that the new Lobbying Registrar has a job on her hands to define exactly who needs to register under the new law. (As the APPC points out, what precisely does ‘direct engagement’ with a minister mean, ‘direct engagement’ being the trigger for registration). 

They also have concerns that law firms and management consultancies, which provide similar lobbying services as the APPC’s members, have been handed a get out clause that will allow them to avoid registration. 

Having spoken to the registrar’s office, it is clear that they are keen to resolve these and other issues. Whether or not answers can be found is another matter. There is no getting away from the fact that, as it stands, and as the industry has consistently pointed out, far fewer lobbyists are likely to register than the Government thinks. When the office of the registrar is dependent on registrations for its funding, I am sure they are taking the matter seriously.

Labour takes the lead

Shadow cabinet office minister, Lisa Nandy, has taken up the register for the opposition and the initial signs are good. In an interview with Public Affairs News, Nandy expresses her support for lobbyists, but is clear that Labour will go much further than the coalition in opening up the industry to public scrutiny. 

Nandy appears unfazed by the usual objections to a register, such as the “impossibility” of defining who is a lobbyist. “Talking to various lobbying organisations, I think they feel there isn’t a huge problem with defining what lobbying is, there are some fairly straightforward precedents in legislation,” she says. Labour has committed to a broad register that covers all paid lobbyists, regardless of where, or for whom they work. This is good.

Her “common sense approach”, however, needs to extend to the information the register will make public. “You have to look at what we need to know about lobbying,” she tells PAN. According to Labour, this means details of who is lobbying, as well as how much is being spent by lobbyists to influence decision-makers. 

“You need to know not just how much is being spent on particular sorts of lobbying but you also need to understand who is involved too, and what the relationships are between those people. For that reason we’ve said we want financial information to be published but we also want to know who is involved in lobbying,” says Nandy.

This is a little vague. Nandy is right to say that the public needs to know “who is involved”. But for a register to make sense, it must include information on both lobbyists and those that are being lobbied. We must have information on who lobbyists are talking to in government and which issues (policies, regulations, legislation) they are lobbying on. It doesn’t have to go into much depth, but without this detail, we will be left with a list of lobbyists and nothing on their interaction with government.

In other words, it is all very well knowing who Philip Morris’ lobbyists are (Crosby Textor Fullbrook, among others), but we also need to know who they are talking to (Lord Marland and who else?) and what they are talking about (plain packaging, but also tax matters, retail restrictions, smoking in public places - who knows?). In the case of firms like Capita, or Atos, or Tesco even, whose interests span much of government, the need to know which departments and which policies and contracts they are discussing becomes even more pertinent.  

At the moment, knowledge of lobbyists’ dealings with politicians relies heavily on being able to extract the information through Freedom of Information law. Why not just require them to declare it quarterly on a register?

“Why wouldn’t we make this information available in a 21st century democracy?” says Nandy. There’s no reason why not. 

Good luck to new lobbying tsar

The Coalition has at last found someone to take on the poisoned chalice of lobbying registrar; the final stage in a tortuous, and under this government, fruitless process to shine a light on the murky world of lobbying. 

The government's preferred candidate for the job is businesswoman Alison White, who was quizzed by MPs this morning. From her performance in front of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, White is confident of her ability to act as an independent regulator of lobbyists. She described herself as 'a very resilient and determined person'. She will need to be. 

By her own admission, White is new to lobbying. She has no previous experience of working as a lobbyist, nor of dealing with lobbyists. This should be seen as an asset. Here is someone truly independent of the business, ready to take them on. However, her lack of experience and knowledge of the lobbying industry, as members of the committee were quick to point out, could be a serious disadvantage. 

Did she appreciate, as Paul Flynn MP put it, that "lobbyists are some of the most skilled, the most devious, the most persuasive people in the parliamentary family. You’re going to take on some very tough customers…  What is there in your background to suggest you can take on these monsters?"

Ignore his language if you want. Flynn is making an important point. So much time has been wasted in the past five years since the coalition government promised to bring transparency to lobbying with a register of lobbyists. Its been a masterclass in lobbying, watching the commercial industry endlessly argue, shape-shift, distort and distract in a bid to hold back meaningful regulation of lobbying. They are professional persuaders. 

Tracey Crouch MP asked whether White, given her lack of previous experience of the industry, might not notice any subtle changes made by lobbyists to avoid disclosure. Would she, for example, be able to call out those who relabelled their lobbying as more general 'communications', which would exempt them from the register. Crouch is a former lobbyist. She knows how they behave.

Just as crucially, did White understand the limitations of her role as registrar, asked Mark Durkan MP. That is, did she understand the limitations of her role as overseer of a register so limited in scope that it may not be workable in practice? Was she surprised by the limited role she would play, regulating such a tiny fraction of the lobbying industry? The past frustrations of the committee of MPs was palpable. In the past 18 months, they've have gone all out to expose the serious failings of the government's proposed register.

What about the registrar's role in providing guidance on precisely which lobbyists must register? White quite rightly said it was early days and that she would be listening hard to the industry and others before determining exactly who would be covered by the transparency rules. However, she may find she has been left an impossible task. Will the register capture enough lobbyists-for-hire to provide meaningful information to the public? Will sufficient numbers of lobbyists be signed up in order to cover White's operational costs (the government's register being industry, rather than state, funded)? Will it cover law firms, like DLA Piper, and management consultants, like McKinsey, and force them to reveal their clients (I admire her optimism here)? Will it include think tanks, many of which provide the exact same services as lobbying agencies? White said her approach would be to positively 'motivate and encourage' lobbyists to sign up. She'll also need a massive stick. 

Finally, what happens if the register fails? What if it doesn't reveal all that much, which is likely; or if its obvious failings are exposed when a lobbying scandal hits the headlines, which is also likely. Will White be prepared for her Newsnight interview to defend her register? From her answers, it is clear the government has presented the role of registrar as more of a behind-the-scenes, low-key office job than perhaps the Committee envisaged. It says a lot about the quality of the legislation. It's nothing to shout about. 

This was a good introduction to the arena Alison White may soon find herself in (if her appointment is approved). For five years (and the rest), the policy has been dogged by misinformation and dishonest argument, attempts to stave off regulation by the industry, and by a complete lack of political will and seriousness about tackling the excesses and secrecy surrounding the UK's £2bn commercial lobbying business.

The government's register is designed to provide minimal transparency. We wish the new registrar luck in achieving this. The best place to start would be listen closely to this committee of MPs. 

Lynton Crosby: looking behind the curtain

As Martin Kettle writes in today’s Guardian: nothing else matters now in British politics. Yesterday’s poll showing that Scottish independence could be a reality in less than a fortnight is finally being given the space it warrants among London’s political commentators.  
Thus, yesterday’s revelation that Lynton Crosby, aka the 'Wizard of Oz', lobbied a Conservative Minister on cigarette packaging just days before taking up his role as Tory election guru, has passed almost unnoticed. Crosby must be breathing a sigh of relief.  

For Crosby-watchers – which includes anyone with concerns about the influence of tobacco and alcohol companies on policy, fracking firms on the UK’s energy strategy, and private healthcare lobbyists on the NHS – having concrete proof that Crosby lobbied the government is, though, significant.

Until yesterday we have had to accept both Crosby and David Cameron’s denials that he has been meddling in policy. We have been able to connect the dots – from Philip Morris International hiring Crosby’s lobbying firm to derail plans to sell cigarettes in unbranded cartons, to the government kicking these plans into the long grass – but never managed to see the full picture. 

Crosby has always insisted that accusations that he used his position as Tory campaign director to influence the policy were “false”. In a carefully worded statement last summer, he said: "At no time have I had any conversation or discussion with, or lobbied the prime minister, or indeed the health secretary or the health minister, on plain packaging or tobacco issues.”

Now we have hard evidence that in late 2012 – just a fortnight before the Tories announced Crosby's appointment as their election strategist – Crosby lobbied his friend, Lord Marland, then minister for intellectual property and a former Conservative party treasurer, against the introduction of plain packaging.  

Which casts doubt on the Prime Minister’s assurances just six months later that "Lynton Crosby does not lobby the government, he does not lobby me, he gives political advice and I think that’s a very clear situation.” If David Cameron had said that “Crosby has recently lobbied the government, but doesn’t anymore, now that he’s working at the heart of government,” that would have been clearer. As it is, the Prime Minister’s statements – which include an insistence that the furore over Crosby’s lobbying was a "media invention" – appear at best highly misleading. 

What other policies might Crosby have been influencing? We know that his firm, CTF Partners, works, or has worked, for companies in alcohol, banking, property development, the oil industry, and private healthcare, as well as tobacco. But, unlike most agencies in the UK, it chooses not to voluntarily disclose the names of its clients. Nor does it need to, according to Cameron: "[Crosby’s] work, his lobbying, the lobbying business is a matter for the lobbying business," he said. 

This, of course, runs counter to Cameron’s previous statements on the need to shine a light on lobbying and “force our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence”. "We all know how it works,” said Cameron of lobbying. “The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way.... I believe that secret corporate lobbying goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics,” (an issue Owen Jones alludes to in his discussion on what lies behind support for Scottish independence). It is absolutely in the public interest to know who is influencing which public servants and public policies.

CTF Partners has amassed a staff with considerable connections to achieve this aim. They include Mark Fullbrook, ex-head of campaigns for the Tories who deputied on Boris Johnson’s successful 2012 London Mayoral campaign and is married to Tory MP Lorraine Fullbrook;  David Canzini, who has a 20 year career working for the Tories including director of party campaigning; Sam Lyon, former spokesperson for Boris and a large number of other Boris campaigners, including Isabel Mackay and Robin Knight.

The chances of Crosby being forced to reveal his clients under the government’s new rules for lobbyists are almost nil. The register of lobbyists, introduced in the much criticised Lobbying Bill, which was supposed to shine a light on who was influencing whom and about what, is a sham. But, Crosby may yet have to come clean about which commercial interests have hired his lobbying firm.  

When he was first appointed as Conservative Party election supremo, Lord Ashcroft warned Crosby against “becoming the story” in Westminster. “I’m sure you’ll get on with the job and stay out of the limelight,” the Tory donor wrote. Crosby has largely managed to contain the story of his lobbying so far. 

How much longer he will stay behind the scenes – and how much more of his lobbying will emerge – remains to be seen. 

Bankers, business and lobbyists: the Tory fundraiser guest list

1 July 2014

On the eve of the Conservative Party’s annual fundraising dinner, the Guardian today reveals last year’s secret guest list and, with it, the murky world of political donations and lobbying.

The Conservative Party intended the list to remain private. Despite promises by this government to be 'the most transparent in the world', the public aren’t to know the company that they keep. 

But, as the final preparations are made for tonight’s fundraiser at the Hurlingham private members’ club in west London, documents passed to TBIJ show the web of bankers, businesspeople, foreign interests and lobbyists that twelve months ago pressed the flesh with Conservative politicians. 

Among those that David Cameron and members of the Cabinet spent the evening with are:

• Howard Shore, a banker with interests in shale gas who sat on a table with David and Samantha Cameron and who hosted another table with the energy minister Michael Fallon.
• Russian business men tasked with improving the country’s reputation in the UK, including Vladamir Putin’s judo partner, Vasily Shestakov.
• Former Goldman Sachs banker and onetime Conservative donor, Richard Sharp, who sits on the Bank of England’s independent finance policy committee.
• Nineteen lobbyists and PRs, many of whom don’t reveal their clients, but who are known to have represented Gulf states, fracking firms, oligarchs and banking giants.

Buying a seat at a minister’s table provides these already influential and advantaged individuals – there was an estimated total wealth in the room last year of £11bn – with an opportunity to forge relationships with our politicians, demonstrate their support for the party, and crucially open discussions with Ministers about their concerns.

The consequences of such a system – one that provides private access for the wealthy and well connected, while everyone else is excluded – are all around us. 

Bob Neill: "ex-minister for hire"

27 June 2014

Here’s a little test for the government’s statutory lobbying register (when it eventually arrives). 

Former Planning Minister, Bob Neill (on the left here at a lobbing agency reception), has taken a job with a lobbying agency that has so far refused to sign up to any of the voluntary registers that the statutory register will replace. 

This means that his new employer, planning specialist, Cratus Communcations, does not currently declare its clients, which include housebuilders and developers. 

Nor would it – probably – under the government’s new statutory system given the enormous loopholes. Nearly 40% of agency lobbyists (the only section of the industry that is covered by the new legislation) say they won’t have to register and declare their clients, as they “never” have direct face-to-face engagement with ministers or permanent secretaries (one of the criteria that triggers the requirement to register). Only 9% of agency lobbyists say they meet ministers or permanent secretaries regularly. The rest only do so occasionally. 

This means that Cratus Communications, which now employs a Tory ex-minister that less than two years ago was responsible for local government and planning, is unlikely to start declaring who it is lobbying for any time soon. We’ll be as much in the dark as we are now. 

“We must be the party that sorts all this out,” David Cameron said of lobbying in the run up to the last general election, singling out the problem of ‘ex-ministers for hire”. 

What he’s done instead is give us a sham register. 

Influence of lobbyists exposed by government adviser

12 May 2014 

A businessman who spent a year advising the government has revealed his shock at the influence and access lobbyists have with ministers. 

As “entrepreneur in residence” at the Business Department, Lawrence Tomlinson had an unrivalled view of how lobbyists operate. He concluded that finance lobbyists are  seen as "indispensable" by ministers. 

What was shocking, he said, was the "influence of certain organisations, trade associations and individuals within government," singling out the British Banking Association, who he noted “have their foot through the door” of government and are capable of overwhelming attempts by others to change policies. 

Tomlinson added that, while lobbying can serve a valid purpose, the process must be transparent, and conflicts and interests must be declared. He also criticised the common practice where former senior officials and special advisors who write government policy go on to work for major corporations: “In parts of government, there is a revolving door with the large corporates who have a deep interest in government policy,” he said. 

"The conflicts of interest are plainly apparent, and the number of lobbyists and force they have, can hardly be matched by the business community. These interests need to be made more transparent to prevent these conflicts having an impact on our policy making processes.”

The laughable response from the government to Tomlinson's damning observations was to point out that David Cameron had just introduced a register of lobbyists, which he claims will shine a light on lobbying. It is widely acknowledged that the register introduced by the Coalition in January is a sham. For a start, it would not include the British Bankers Association, or any lobbyists working in-house for corporations (large or small). In fact, it deliberately excludes more than 80% of the UK's £2billion lobbying industry. And then, it requires those lobbyists that fall into its tiny net (with massive loopholes) to declare nothing of their lobbying activity.

Tomlinson, who has seen lobbyists operate from inside government, is right to speak out. His remit was how to improve policy for small firms. He has seen with his own eyes that SMEs don't have a hope in hell against the influence of big business and bankers. 

As Spinwatch's Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell set out in their new book on lobbying, A Quiet Word, large corporations have been allowed to become dominant in government. The amount they spend on lobbying and the associated influence of their lobbyists has bought them a structural advantage. They are drowning out everyone else.

A Quiet Word also notes, as Tomlinson does, that rather than being seen as parasitical, corporate lobbyists should more accurately be viewed as subsidising government. As lobbying activity has increased, so our government has become ever more dependent on lobbyists to function. 

As the book reveals, politicians can on occasion be candid about this: "Lobbying is absolutely fundamental to the way we legislate in the UK, right across the board," according to Tim (Lord) Razzall, a politician of forty years’ experience, at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference. "The lobbying organisations do your . . ." He corrects himself: ". . . a lot of the work for you." Legislators are "inundated" with appeals from lobbyists whenever laws are being crafted. "Very often" the way to get changes to proposed laws is simply to email them over. Do politicians actually take any notice of the overtures of lobbyists? "Absolutely," said Razzall. The government takes a "huge amount" of notice.

And why do large corporations spend disproportionately more on lobbying that anyone else? Because they see lobbying as a tactical investment. Put simply, lobbying pays. It delivers a financial return. And the payback can be "astronomic", as the FT noted yesterday, describing the return on lobbying by hedge funds in Washington.

When it comes to lobbying, it is the case that there is a corporate elite and there is everyone else (SMEs, NGOs, the public etc). Transparency in lobbying is one small step to addressing the disparity. It is one that this government has yet to take. 


To discover more about corporate lobbying, and how commercial lobbyists buy access and influence to our government, get hold of a copy of A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain by Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell. "A timely account of how voters are conceding power to a silent industry", says the Mail on Sunday.

Statement from ALT on Mercer resignation

29 April 2014

Statement from Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency following the decision to ban Conservative MP, Patrick Mercer from Parliament for six months. Mercer has now resigned triggering a byelection in his Newark seat.

The punishment comes as a result of revelations published last year, when it was alleged that he accepted cash in return for tabling questions in the Commons, agreeing to set up an All Party Parliamentary Group and offering to produce a Parliamentary report on behalf of a client in return for £4,000. 

"Mercer must be reeling after this judgement. There is no question he will have seen others behaving in a similar way and getting away with it. There is a culture within British politics where accepting cash for influence is deemed, if not acceptable, then not overtly risky behaviour.

Three years ago the Prime Minister said that lobbying was the 'next big scandal waiting to happen'. Since then, nothing has been done to rein in the commercial lobbying industry. Cameron has introduced what is widely-viewed as a bogus register of lobbyists. 

Mercer did wrong, but he will also be aware that while he has been severely punished, the government has refused to control, or in any way expose the £2bn lobbying business to scrutiny. 

Politicians know better than most that we have a problem with commercial lobbying in this country. The scandal is that they refuse to do anything about it. Mercer's going won't solve it."

Fresh calls for lobbying reform

23 April 2014

Australia's rules for lobbyists, which the UK has chosen to copy, are set to be reformed in the wake of yet more lobbying scandals. 

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is said to be 'deeply concerned' about the continuing behaviour of officials and former MPs in his Liberal Party as they try to covertly influence government decisions outside of the rules. In recent weeks, an official inquiry has exposed evidence of murky political ­influence-peddling in the party.

As a consequence, Australia's weak transparency regulations for lobbyists have come under scrutiny. Currently, only lobbyists-for-hire working on behalf of third party clients are required to declare their existence on a public register. Lobbyists working in-house for corporations are exempt from the rules. 

This is the model register of lobbyists adopted by the UK government earlier this year. It will require that only a tiny fraction of lobbyists sign up. As one former Australian politician says of this system: 'What you've got covered is the tip of the iceberg.'

'Chairmen of boards, boards of directors, CEOs, directors of government relations for any Australian company can walk in and out of any Australian parliament unrecorded and unregulated.'

The UK government has been warned that scandals involving lobbyists will continue to dog politics unless robust transparency rules are put in place. Yet, it is determined to follow the weak system adopted by Australia, a system now undergoing urgent reform. 

“We need to bite the bullet and get this process done and dusted," Liberal party member and long-term advocate for party reform, John Ruddick, told the Guardian.

The UK government seems intent on taking the same road, one that inevitably leads to more scandals, resignations and damage to the reputation of politics. 

Labour commits to tougher rules for lobbyists

4 April 2014

Labour has pledged to repeal the Lobbying Act if it gets into power. This is welcome news. The 'dog's breakfast' of a law is not fit-for-purpose and must be rewritten.

The Lobbying Act, which was passed by the Coalition in January this year, purports to introduce new transparency rules for lobbyists. The statutory register of lobbyists contained in the Act, however, is a fake. It will not allow the public to see who is lobbying the government. 

Ed Miliband has now committed Labour to introducing a more robust register. Sensibly, Labour's register would cover all lobbyists. The Coalition's covers only a small fraction of the industry. It remains to be seen, however, whether the opposition would require lobbyists to reveal enough information to allow us to know who is lobbying whom in government, what they are seeking to influence, whether that's fracking regulations, NHS contracts, or more tax breaks for multi-nationals. The current register, as laid out in the Lobbying Act, would reveal none of this. It is merely a list of (some) lobbying companies and their clients. 

A robust register of lobbyists that is fit-for-purpose must: 

• Cover all lobbyists, including: those working in-house, whether in a corporation, a trade union, a charity or a trade body; and all lobbyists-for-hire, whether working for a lobbying agency, a law firm, an accountancy firm, in a management consultancy or a think tank. 
   
• Require lobbyists to reveal sufficient information, namely: who is lobbying and for whom; what they are lobbying for; whom they are lobbying in government; and how much they are spending to influence government. 
   
• Be financed by the public purse. We know from other countries that have robust transparency rules for lobbyists, that the costs associated with operating a register are not significant. Transparency in policy-making is the responsibility of the state, and should not be financed by the industry.

The government must now own up to the fact that its new rules for lobbyists are a sham. Everyone knows they are a sham (including the commercial lobbying industry). Any more lobbying scandals in the run up to the general election will expose them for what they are.