Lobbying a waste of time?

Published by Money Marketing
07 January 2010

"It certainly promises to be an interesting year, with the final elements of the seemingly endless discussions over the retail distribution review finally slotting into place over the coming months.

Judging by the many comments I have read in Money Marketing and on websites that feature financial advisers’ comments, the overwhelming body of IFA opinion seems to be set against the RDR, at least publicly.

Shortly before Christmas, while on a visit to London, I took the opportunity of meeting a few IFAs whom I respect, even if I do not necessarily share their views. One, whom I had always thought of as opinionated but not remotely an activist, had gone so far as to lobby his MP about key aspects of the review, which he regards as highly dangerous to the future of independent financial advice.

His hope is that Conservative MPs will halt or seriously amend the RDR process if and when they win the general election.

Unfortunately, he told me, his own MP - a Tory - appeared to be highly ignorant about the RDR and what it entailed. Moreover, this particular MP told his constituent that when push came to shove, his “instinct” was to back the FSA because advisers were “renowned” for misselling financial products to clients.

The IFA then told his MP he was a disgrace to his party and he would never get his vote. Not a successful lobbying exercise, methinks.
Perhaps this helps explain why Aifa was pushed into warning IFAs last year that ill-conceived lobbying of MPs could have a negative effect in terms of achieving what they wanted.

The sad fact is that Aifa - and IFAs it has tried to arm with lobbying arguments - are unlikely to succeed. Parliament is highly febrile and it will be almost impossible, as we draw closer and closer to the election, to persuade anyone to listen to any point of view, sensible or otherwise.
Moreover, while many Tories may hate the FSA for all sorts of reasons, they almost certainly do not do so in this particular context. Tighter regulation of the financial services industry is a vote-winner, no matter what political party you belong to.
I have some sympathy with IFAs. Lobbying can be a useless exercise.

One of the problems, it seems to me, is not about the basic notion of lobbying as such but what it is that you tell your MP. Here, it strikes me that IFAs could be on a hiding to nothing in some areas.

For example, if you go to your Parliamentary representative and tell them that the proposed QCF level four qualifications you are required to obtain by 2012 are too onerous, do not expect much sympathy.

Similarly, trying to compare yourself favourably against banks in order to press the point that regulation of your activities need not be quite so onerous is not a tactic that is likely to work well.

Not that I can lay serious claim to being a successful lobbyist. Once upon a time, back in the days when I used to work as a nurse, our trade union asked its members to lobby their MPs as part of a campaign against low pay in the NHS.

Responding to our union’s request, about 20 of us toddled off to see an MP at his surgery meeting one Saturday morning, waving our pay slips.

The “lobby” degenerated somewhat and our little group started booing and shouting at our Parliamentary representative. Needless to say, the MP never really did sign up to our campaign against low pay.

My guess is that attempts to persuade MPs to get rid of some of the RDR’s worst aspects will meet with a similar fate."

Full writing credit to Nic Cicutti - article here.

Distributed by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk

APPC damned as PASC Says Lobbying Reform is 'Necessary'

In the first parliamentary report on lobbying for more than 15 years, the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) calls today for a statutory register of lobbying activity to bring greater transparency to the dealings between Whitehall decision makers and outside interests.

The Committee’s central conclusion is that “reform is necessary”:

“Lobbying the government should, in a democracy, involve explicit agreement about the terms on which this lobbying is conducted. The result of doing nothing would be to increase public mistrust of Government, and to solidify the impression that government listens to favoured groups-big business and party donors in particular-with far more attention than it gives to others.”

In addition to a register, PASC also proposes that a “rigorous and effective” single body is needed to oversee and regulate the ethics of the activities of lobbyists. The committee describes the existing system of voluntary self-regulation as “little better than the Emperor’s new clothes”.

Committee Chairman Tony Wright MP said:

“Lobbying enhances democracy, but it can also subvert it. Government has accepted that it should be more open to outside interests and ideas, and this has brought benefits. But there are risks too around influence and public mistrust of government, and these risks have not been managed closely enough. Our proposals may seem radical, but they are designed to be proportionate and effective. They are in line with developments abroad, but rooted in our own political tradition. Transparency is key here. There is a public interest in knowing who is lobbying whom about what. Our proposals show that this can be achieved in a reasonably straightforward way”.

PASC identifies five key principles for a register of lobbying activity…

a) it should be mandatory, in order to ensure as complete as possible an overview of activity.

b) it should cover all those outside the public sector involved in accessing and influencing public-sector decision makers, with exceptions in only a very limited set of circumstances.

c) it should be managed and enforced by a body independent of both Government and lobbyists.

d) it should include only information of genuine potential value to the general public, to others who might wish to lobby government, and to decision makers themselves.

e) it should include so far as possible information which is relatively straightforward to provide-ideally, information which would be collected for other purposes in any case.

…and states that to meet these principles, the following information would need to be provided by lobbyists and by the targets of their lobbying:

a) the names of the individuals carrying out lobbying activity and of any organisation employing or hiring them.

b) in the case of multi-client consultancies, the names of their clients.

c) information about any public office previously held by an individual lobbyist.

d) a list of the relevant interests of decision makers within the public service (Ministers, senior civil servants and senior public servants) and summaries of their career histories outside the public service.

e) information about contacts between lobbyists and decision makers-essentially, diary records and minutes of meetings. The aim would be to cover all meetings and conversations between decision makers and outside interests.

Press notice from the Public Administration Select Committee
Published by www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk