Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for bringing forward this Bill and facilitating such a thought-provoking debate on such an important topic. I find myself in the very unusual position, for a Lords Minister, of actually speaking from the Dispatch Box on a policy area that I am in theory responsible for, so we will see how well this goes.

My noble friend Lady Hayter has campaigned with admirable vigour on this issue over many years. Indeed, many of the issues raised across your Lordships’ House today were highlighted with foresight by my noble friend in Opposition during the passage of the lobbying Act 12 years ago. Along with the active campaigning of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, I think it is fair to say that there is considered to be unfinished business in this area.

As we have heard, this Bill would transform the register of consultant lobbyists into to a broader register of all lobbyists, including in-house lobbyists working on behalf of their employer, engager or principal. In doing so, it would significantly expand the 2014 Act’s prohibition on consultant lobbying unless registered and the associated civil and criminal penalties scheme. When considering the question of transparency around lobbying, we should note that it is the Government’s own publication of Ministers’ and senior officials’ meetings that has carried the weight of our transparency obligations on lobbying over many years. This dataset is published to reflect those lobbying engagements which have received sufficiently serious consideration by government that the issue has warranted a meeting with the relevant Minister or official.

The 2014 Act was designed to complement this dataset, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly highlighted. Where a Minister or senior official is meeting with a consultant lobbying company and making a declaration as such, it would not be immediately clear whose interests were being advocated for. The 2014 Act was designed to remedy that flaw, requiring all consultant lobbyists to publish a list of their clients. However, the Government recognise the view of a number of Members of your Lordships’ House and across the wider public relations sector that this system of transparency around lobbying does not have widespread support and is widely viewed as insufficient. I repeat: it is unfinished business.

The Prime Minister recognised that there is more to be done on transparency around lobbying to further strengthen standards in public life. High standards of integrity in public life create stability and certainty. In turn, this builds trust in the consistency of public authorities and the conduct of their officials. Trust creates confidence, particularly for members of the public and businesses that want to make decisions that are positive for economic growth in the knowledge that they may face less risk.

There are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, highlighted, national security considerations, as transparency can help protect us from the efforts of bad faith actors too. In the current climate, it is a very important element of this discussion, and that is why we commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to look into this matter—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that that was point 12, not page 2. Noble Lords will be aware that the EIC is due to report very shortly, and we are grateful for the work it has completed at significant pace.

While we await the EIC’s recommendation, I hope noble Lords will accept that the Government must express our reservations about progressing this Bill today. On receipt of the EIC’s recommendations, we will consider the case for legislative reform very carefully, and while the views of noble Lords expressed in this debate will undoubtedly form an important part of that consideration, we will need to take some time to consider these issues in the round. Undoubtedly, the next Prime Minister will also have strong views on strengthening trust in public life.

When the Government consider the question of reforming the 2014 lobbying Act on receipt of the EIC report, we will want to look at all aspects of the lobbying scheme: privileged access to decision-makers, transparency arrangements and business appointment rules, as well as the recommendations of the Rycroft review, rather than solely the question of whether or not to bring in-house lobbyists into scope. But that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to many of the points raised in this debate.

With that being said, I will now turn to some of the specific points raised in the debate on the 2014 Act. I believe this debate raises three questions for the Government to consider when we receive the Ethics and Integrity Commission’s report. The first question at the heart of the debate on transparency around lobbying is: should it be the Government who carry the transparency obligation or the lobbyist? Our current system places that obligation almost entirely on government, with the register of consultant lobbyists providing transparency only on a very small element of the lobbying conducted.

I have heard the arguments from across your Lordships’ House and from important stakeholders that the public relations sector feels we have got the balance wrong. I recognise there is a desire from the public relations sector for lobbyists to carry more of the transparency obligation, and for all lobbyists—rather than just consultant lobbyists—to declare their lobbying activity. This is, of course, the purpose of my noble friend’s Bill, but it provides the opportunity also to establish a kitemark in lobbying, making it clear both for Ministers and others who it is acceptable to engage with. Which brings me to the next point.

At the heart of this Bill is the question of who is a lobbyist, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The Bill is drafted to amend the 2014 lobbying Act to include the term “in-house lobbyist” throughout, covering those working on behalf of their employer, engager or principal. We should be clear that when we think of an in-house lobbyist, we are not just thinking of public affairs managers at large corporations or other private sector bodies; in-house lobbyists may include a wide range of organisations making representations to government, including charities, campaign groups, think tanks and others. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that transparency around lobbying is required only for those advocating on behalf of private or corporate interests. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that, as we consider reforms to the lobbying transparency scheme, we will use a definition of lobbyists that is fair and proportionate across different sectors and types of organisations.

We must also however ensure that we do not create unnecessary or disproportionate bureaucratic obstacles to individual citizens’ routine engagement with government. As many Members of your Lordships’ House have stated, and I agree, lobbying is not a bad word. Engagement with Ministers is a core British right and value. Listening to our fellow citizens is also a sensible approach for any Government seeking to make their legislation work.

In terms of making our legislation work, good definitions are key. The 2014 lobbying Act defines lobbying as

“oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”,

relating to any potential government legislation, policy or functions. Such a definition is broad in scope.

I recognise my noble friend’s view that this definition is sufficient in capturing the range of government engagements that might commonly be seen as lobbying. While this may be the case when the definition is applied solely to public relations professionals—be they in-house or consultants—we would want to think carefully about how such a definition might work if applied to a much wider range of government organisations and engagements.

Ministers will have all manner of engagements and conversations in the course of their work on matters of government business. Not all of these, however, could reasonably be said to constitute lobbying, and fewer still of these engagements might be said to constitute lobbying formal enough, or taken seriously enough, to warrant publication on an external transparency register.

A change in approach to the scope of declaration requirements, such as applying the 2014 Act’s definition to a far wider range of lobbyists, would require careful consideration to ensure that the right balance is struck between informing the public about meaningful lobbying engagements, and not putting too much irrelevant or trivial information into a transparency scheme, which means it is of limited value.

Turning to some of the questions I have been asked, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and my noble friend Lady Carberry about the single transparency register, I reassure your Lordships’ House this was not scrapped by this Government: it was not funded by the last Government. They announced it without any budget associated to it and it therefore has not been progressed. However, this is a matter which the EIC is considering and that we will reflect on after the publication of its report.

With regard to another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the flat fee scheme, we are aware of concerns raised about its disproportionate impact on smaller businesses, and any decision on funding will depend on the scope and range of a revised register, if changes were to be made.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, touched on declaring the subject matter of lobbying approaches on the register. I recognise concerns that the information published on the register does not always enable the public to understand the subject matter of the lobbying approach. Requiring consultant lobbyists to publish the subject matter of their lobbying could be one way to approach the issue, and we will consider this carefully. Ministers and senior officials already publish the subject matter of their meetings, which goes some way to putting this information into the public domain, although I appreciate that there may be further recommendations from the EIC in this space, and we will reflect on them.

Several Members of your Lordships’ House also touched on the issue of the VAT exemption, not least my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Government recognise that the current VAT exemption has had the unintended consequence of exempting foreign-based lobbying from the ORCL transparency scheme. We are grateful to Philip Rycroft for his review and will consider this change carefully. The change would require primary legislation, and we will consider all recommendations for legislative change together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, also asked me to consider three points: on the strengthening of accountability and how we analyse data, transparency and risk assessment, and FIRS versus ORCL. As we are awaiting such a substantial report in this area of recommendations, I will ensure that those issues are included in the round when we are debating next steps in terms of the EIC’s report.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, also rightly focused on lawyers, but there are other organisations which also campaign—or lobby directly—in this space under the “incidental purpose” exemption. We are aware of the concerns that a significant amount of lobbying can and does fall under the incidental purpose exemption. We will want to consider carefully any possible amendments to this exemption, which will be affected by the scope and range of any revisions to the register. As I have said, it is possible by calling yourself a think tank, or a lawyer, or through other ways, to get round the current process, which is why, as my noble friend Lady Hayter highlighted, fewer than 5% of people are currently touched by the regime.

In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for raising this important issue and provoking a discussion on reform to the 2014 lobbying Act. I applaud her consistent campaigning—or should I say lobbying?—on this issue and her commitment to improving the transparency and integrity of our democracy, an aspiration I genuinely share.

We know there is more that can be done on transparency around lobbying. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has commissioned the Ethics and Integrity Commission to report on this matter, and I look forward to its report. However, until we have its report, the Government are not in a position to make any policy commitments on reform, and therefore I cannot support the Bill. However, I am sure all noble Lords will look forward to seeing the conclusions of the EIC review, and the Government will give that report the full and fair consideration it deserves, in a timely manner.

As a final point, I hope my response genuinely does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I would hate to do that—and that he and many Members of your Lordships’ House have a little hope about our direction of travel.