As UK politics begins to quieten down during summer recess, it is worth looking into some of the ministerial appointments made by the Prime Minister in more detail.
While much noise has been made about the more high-profile appointments, it is important to analyse more junior appointments and what they could mean for the direction of the Burnham Government (for a more macro look at Burnham’s appointments, see our recent briefing here).
Lobbying rules
Parliament’s return in September could bring several changes to how public affairs is conducted.
It emerged in July that a review led by Doug Chalmers, head of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, had called for a significant tightening of the UK’s transparency rules.
While he acknowledged that lobbying “is a good thing and an important part of the democratic process”, he argued that the current lack of “transparency and openness” fails to meet the Nolan Principles of accountability and openness.
On this basis, Chalmers called for a new register to highlight who is lobbying, which policies they are seeking to influence, and who in government they are meeting. The current register covers only a small amount of lobbying by consultants and doesn’t require the disclosure of how it’s taking place.
Although The Guardian argues such an overhaul would require “major legislation”, Chalmers said it’s necessary to help “restore trust in the standards system.” Indeed, such trust seemed sorely lacking when revelations emerged around Peter Mandelson, Global Counsel, and Jeffrey Epstein, prompting the Chalmers review and eventually contributing to the fall of Sir Keir Starmer’s government.
Under Chalmers’ recommendations, anyone carrying out lobbying activity will have to register and submit information returns, and communications with special advisers, directors general, directors, and non-executive directors will all have to be disclosed – not just ministers and permanent secretaries.
Any lobbying that takes place through “informal channels”, including WhatsApp and casual meetings at party conferences, will also have to be disclosed.
Alastair McCapra, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, said he “warmly welcomed” the review and that such an overhaul would “fundamentally reshape the relationship between lobbyists and Westminster”.
The CIPR has since joined Unlock Democracy, Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption, and Action on Smoking and Health to call for “urgent” action to update the 2014 Lobbying Act. By implementing Chalmers’ suggestions, they argue, Andy Burnham will be able “to make good on his pledge to fix a ‘broken’ Westminster and begin rebuilding public trust in politics.”
Petter Riddell, Honorary Professor at UCL’s Constitution Unit and former Director of the IfG, has likewise called for a Standards Bill to address both lobbying and “the existence and appointment of the main constitutional watchdogs.” Indeed, Chalmers acknowledges that openness in lobbying “cannot be achieved without primary legislation”, though he adds that “much can, and should, be done whilst a new bill is being drafted.”
A spokesperson for the new Prime Minister suggested he would be open to fulfilling Chalmers’ recommendations, telling Politico “he is determined to change politics for the better and do things differently — increased transparency can only be a good thing.” How he does so remains to be seen, however, particularly after he replaced standards minister Ruth Anderson – who said she’d “consider the case for legislative reform very carefully” – with a newcomer to the Cabinet Office, Fiona Twycross.
MPs’ staff
Burnham would come under fire from journalists just weeks into his premiership when the names of parliamentary staff were removed from the public register. In what The Sunday Times’ investigative journalist Gabriel Pogrund described as “a glorious day for opponents of transparency in public life”, staff’s interests are now registered anonymously, leaving no way to find out if MPs are employing family members or if their advisers are “upholding standards”.
Yet politicians have defended the move as a way to protect their staff from threats and abuse. Labour MP Samantha Niblett replied to Pogrund that “they didn’t stand for office […] they just help people”, hence the buck ultimately stops “with me”. Alberto Costa, who chairs the Standards Committee that made the initial recommendation, said the reduction in transparency was “proportionate […] in light of the safety concerns raised with us.”
Reporters have previously used the register of interests to reveal that then-shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds was employing someone who worked for HSBC through a secondment, and that Liberal Democrat MP Rachel Gilmour had “mistakenly” made her son a member of her team.
Not to mention allegations of Chinese espionage, at least three of which have recently been exposed through the register. Luke de Pulford, Executive Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, told The Times removing staff names would be “a gift” to authoritarian states “who mean to spy on and subvert the very heart of our democratic way of life.”
Because of the change, only the most recent version of the staff register can be downloaded from the UK Parliament website. While interests associated with chiefs of staff, caseworkers, and volunteers are still listed, they are no longer attached to a specific name. Journalists and transparency campaigners will, therefore, be waiting with bated breath to see how, or if, Andy Burnham addresses these concerns when Parliament returns on 1 September.
What this means
Public affairs professionals should note that only the second change – the removal of MPs’ staff from the public register – has any practical implications thus far. It is now more difficult to source the names of SpAds and parliamentary assistants, who have historically been a useful channel to influence MPs.
Chalmers’ transparency recommendations remain theoretical for now, and will likely require primary legislation to take full effect. Should such legislation pass through both Houses, the need for a more thorough disclosure of interactions could make everyday public affairs work more onerous. However, as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has suggested, it could also restore public trust in the lobbying industry as a whole.
Find out more
Helio DeHavilland is always monitoring the developments around UK policy. If you would like to start receiving these updates, start your trial today.
