The issue of lobbying ethics took a major step forward this week with the decision of the National Assembly for Wales Standards of Conduct Committee to conduct a second review of lobbying practices in four years. But, as the Committee conceded in both its discussions and the background evidence it received, there has been no major scandal that has caused this to be brought back to the fore. Rather the impetus has come from what is happening in other parts of the UK, notably Scotland the Westminster.
Though strangely not mentioned in the meeting, another important factor is that one Assembly Member now has strong and vocal views about the culture of lobbying in Wales. The voice of Neil McEvoy AM (Plaid Cymru, South Wales Central), has been loud and consistent in challenging the cosy consensus. He used a Short Debate on the floor of the Assembly to call for a review of lobbying, has pointed to sharp practices amongst some lobbying firms and on one recent occasion even waved a photo of me that I’d placed on social media to prove his point that First Minister Carwyn Jones’ assertion that he and his ministers never met with lobbyists was wrong. Neil McEvoy was right. The First Minister subsequently amended his line to discuss “formal” meetings.
Though of course in doing so the First Minister was critically making a distinction between different types of lobbyists and influencers, and only singling out professional political consultants for this treatment. This has never been an acceptable distinction to lobbyists here in Wales.
Despite this background, the Standards of Conduct Committee of four Assembly Members had rather a tough time in deciding whether or not to hold any sort of enquiry into lobbying. It was clear that Plaid’s representative on the Committee Llyr Gruffydd AM (PC, North Wales) was worried that the process would simply duplicate the last enquiry. Indeed, he was seemingly only persuaded to agree to a new examination on the precise matter of recording interactions between lobbyists and government. This was perhaps the most contentious element last time and remains so again.
It is also likely to cause some significant debate at the very heart of government. Indeed, now that the Assembly’s sole Liberal Democrat Kirsty Williams AM (LD, Brecon & Radnorshire) is a member of the Welsh Government will she have modified her position at all from opposition days when she led debates into publishing ministerial diaries for details of meetings with external organisations.
Both Kirsty and Llyr – yes, we are all on first name terms here - were also members of the Standards of Conduct Committee in the last Assembly which produced a report that called, in the woolliest and nicest way possible, for “a review of the Ministerial Code” in terms of logging such meetings.
This was also the position taken at that time by Public Affairs Cymru, the umbrella group for lobbyists in Wales, which called for full disclosure of meetings. This week I was re-elected onto the executive of PAC and will be very focused on making sure its evidence in 2016 is as robust, challenging and transparent as it was in 2012. There is a serious job of work to do.
Because there are serious ethical issues which need to be examined. Top of the list has to be a clear disclosure process for ministerial diaries. PAC argued in 2012 that the gold standard would actually be disclosing all Assembly Member diaries. The outgoing Standards Commissioner Gerald Elias has always argued this would be an “onerous burden” on elected members but an acceptable one for the voluntary and business sectors to undertake, which implies some confusion over who is actually publicly accountable somewhere along the line.
There are also other questionable areas where the Standards Committee should cast an eye. What benefits would a register of lobbyists bring and how might it be framed. Aligned to this, can a case be made for financial disclosure of fee levels by commercial lobbyists such as myself, something to which I am not necessarily opposed, though I know that is not the majority view amongst us paid lobbyists in Wales.
Then there are matters of access. Is there a continuing issue of a “revolving door” between exiting government and entering lobbying firms? Is the Committee happy with the system of passes to the Assembly building and who has access to those passes? This was not even touched upon during the last enquiry.
Motivations for lobbying and evidence are also something which have never been properly examined. Cosy cultures make that uncomfortable, but I’ve gone on the record before in calling for disclosure of amounts of public funding and political affiliation by evidence givers. My view has not changed.
Also, there are issues around the use of public information. Some people can be very creative in how they use what is put into the public domain. For example, just last week an employee of a rival political company turned up to an event my company was organising in the Senedd for a client. As far as I could see, that person had no legitimate reason for being there and was in essence using the Assembly’s publicly disclosed list of official meetings and events to tout for business. That is hardly the intention of the Assembly in producing such a list.
Having worked in Welsh public affairs for almost two decades, I’ve seen the good and the bad, and perhaps sometimes been part of both. But it does strike me that in recent years something has changed in lobbying in Wales. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly, but I fear Neil McEvoy is actually on to something, even if the specific targets he chooses aren’t always right.
The last Standards Committee report on lobbying contained a statement that: “What has emerged from the Committee’s inquiry is a shared desire to find a satisfactory, 'made-in-Wales' approach.” That statement holds true, but personally I do think that the enquiry this time round has to be stronger, deeper and broader in its approach than the last time. Because just because no major scandal has happened, that does not mean the world of lobbying in Wales is either complacent or entirely clean.