(APG0036)

 

Written evidence submitted by Unlock Democracy

 

Introduction

Unlock Democracy (previously Charter 88) campaigns on a range of democracy-related matters including; electoral reform, transparency, accountability, devolution, participative democracy, human rights and for a written constitution. We are a grassroots movement, owned and run by our members.

Unlock Democracy welcomes the Committee on Standards inquiry into All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and the focus the early stages of the resumed inquiry will put on investigating concerns around the risks of APPGs being used as a vehicle for improper access or influence by lobbyists or foreign governments.

Unlock Democracy is submitting this evidence because we believe that there is a lack of clarity in the current lobbying rules regarding perceived lobbying by MPs who serve on APPGs, whilst being paid advisers, consultants or directors for industries or sectors which benefit from the same APPGs’ activities.  This is the sole focus of Unlock Democracy’s submission.

This submission is made by Tom Brake, Director of Unlock Democracy for Unlock Democracy.

Unlock Democracy’s concerns

The current lobbying rules, as they relate to APPG activities, are contradictory and members may be inadvertently or deliberately exploiting this. 

The lobbying rules are ‘intended to avoid the perception that outside individuals or organisations may reward Members, through payment or in other ways, in the expectation that their actions in the House will benefit that outside individual or organisation, even if they do not fall within the strict definition of paid advocacy.’ 

Unlock Democracy would argue that the rules fail to achieve this, particularly in respect of MPs who are both members of All Party Parliamentary Groups, whose stated purpose (openly or otherwise) is to promote that industry or sectors’ views to government, tackle regulation etc. and are paid advisors for industries or sectors whose interests are represented by the APPGs those MPs are members of. 

These rules need tightening up urgently to ‘avoid the perception that ... organisations may reward Members, through payment or in other ways, in the expectation that their actions in the House will benefit that ... organisation’.

Those who seek to defend their role in APPGs might argue that APPG activities do not amount to a ‘proceeding’. 

However, the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, section 3. Lobbying for reward or consideration, paragraph 18, states that ‘Making any approach to a Minister, other Member or public official includes: a) participating in or accompanying a delegation or group to discussions or meetings, whether these are formal or informal in nature’ would constitute ‘initiating a proceeding’. Paragraph 18 would appear to apply to any APPG-related activity that seeks to raise matters with Ministers or public officials in whatever form and involves an MP who is a paid advisor or consultant to a business or sector represented by that APPG, making this a breach of the lobbying rules.

Unlock Democracy can provide on request the names of a number of MPs who combine a paid industry or company role with membership of a related APPG. 

Unlock Democracy would contend that MPs in this position should at the very least recuse themselves from any APPG activity that seeks to influence government policy, secure parliamentary debates, initiate parliamentary questions etc.  in the area championed by the APPG. 

A more transparent approach, and one that could not be the subject of misinterpretation or misunderstanding, would be for the lobbying rules to be amended to state that being a paid advisor to a company, industry or sector and being a member of a relevant APPG, or a number of relevant APPGs was a breach of the lobbying rules.

 

31 July 2021