A couple of weeks ago I took part in a survey that asked my opinion on the new UK Government's announcement that they would introduce a statutory register of lobbyists.
For very practical reasons I support the idea of a statutory register. I wrote previously of my concerns about the conflicting demand to reveal under voluntary regulation, which would clash with my obligation to protect the confidentiality of my clients regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.
Surprisingly 62% of respondents now support the statutory register.
However the sectors three associations - the Association of Professional Political Consultants, the Public Relations Consultants Association and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations - all seem to be moving along with their aim of creating a new UK Public Affairs Council. Hopefully they will all recognise that this ship has sailed, and that it is time to focus on the statutory register.
Because of course the real interest will be in the detail. If anyone knows this, then it is public affairs consultants who are often asked to pore over the detail of legislation trying to predict the consequences - particularly the unintended consequences.
There is almost a philosophical debate that still has not been properly had, about what lobbying or public affairs actually is and what should be regulated.
Public affairs consultants tend to stay away from the phrase 'lobbying'. Not just because of the negative connotations but because it describes a process of presenting a case directly to a politician.
So lobbying would be communication by the practitioner to a politician or official on behalf of the their client. And there is some case to be made that this type of communication should be regulated to avoid any suggestion of using personal contacts or inappropriate dealings.
That direct contact is actually more the technique employed by the in-house lobbyist. Much of what a public affairs consultant does is more in the nature of specialist research and analysis. We follow policy discussions, monitor official debates and we identify where our clients may have an interest. We provide information about the debate and often about those involved in the discussion.
If the client is open to advice then the public affairs practitioner may provide ideas on how the client can become engaged in the debate. And the client may well contact a politician or official as part of that next step.
But that ability to research, analyse and recommend often comes from a geeky understanding of the political process. We are the type of people that read political party manifestos, we go through copies of Hansard, sometimes we sit in the gallery of committee meetings and, in short, we listen to everything politicians say.
And the good public affairs practitioners combine that knowledge with an understanding of public relations theory.
We recognise that we are not part of the political process but part of the PR world. Our strategy is based on that of the PR professional - we identify those that will have an impact on our success, we develop insight and understanding, we shape persuasive messages and then we use the appropriate channels to communicate. Nothing too complicated there, a process that every PR should recognise.
I am not quite sure where, in all of that, is the risk that must be dealt with through regulation. In describing the public affairs practitioner's role, I do not think that I have mentioned communicating with a politician on behalf of the client. I have talked about research, analysis and PR planning.
However perception may well be truth. If there are concerns about the role of public affairs professionals then steps need to be taken. The reality of public affairs may not be as interesting as people think but more transparency might help.
And between a statutory register and voluntary one, then I need to vote for the statutory register.
0 comments:
Post a Comment