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

Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter on bringing forward this Bill, and I agree with every single word of her introduction.

Going back to first principles, I agree that lobbying is a useful part of democracy. Like many Members of this House, I have done my fair share of lobbying—possibly more than my fair share—meeting Ministers over many decades to talk about issues that concerned organisations I represented. That is a legitimate type of democratic participation and it is a good thing, because decision-making benefits when decision-makers hear from a very wide range of voices. However, lobbying is widely regarded as a bit dodgy, a bit grubby and a bit suspicious. In many cases, people who hold those views are right, as some of the well-publicised scandals we have seen testify. We all meet people in our daily lives who suspect that a privileged few are getting an unfair chance to shape government decisions behind closed doors.

The basis of the Bill is the contention that too much is left hidden from view, and it is not too lofty to say that the Bill can help build more public confidence in our democratic institutions, because it introduces more transparency to who is trying to influence Ministers and senior decision-makers, and on whose behalf. Greater openness would strengthen confidence in government. Our current system just is not rational.

As things stand, two lobbyists could walk tomorrow into the same ministerial meeting and talk about the same issues. One might have to register, because they are an external consultant acting for a client. The other might represent a major corporation employing its own in-house public affairs team and would avoid the statutory register altogether. Try explaining that distinction to the average concerned member of the public. It makes little sense. The political influence on policy does not depend on whether the lobbyist receives a consultancy fee or a salary from the organisation they represent.

We have a system now that reflects organisational structure rather than the reality of influence. I had an example recently from a senior partner in a consultancy, who set out why the current system needs to change. Not long ago, one of their clients, a prominent financial institution, was sending experienced in-house government relations specialists into the Treasury to have material conversations about banking regulations. Those meetings did not have to be registered. But when a young employee of the consultancy wrote to a Minister simply requesting a meeting, that fell under the definition of “direct lobbying” under the Act and needed to be registered. I think that that is more than a harmless anomaly, because it contributes to public mistrust in government decision-making. So it is about time we had the straightforward change that this Bill would bring about by simply extending transparency to in-house lobbying. I hope that the Government will give it consideration.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, it is relevant in this discussion to talk about the Government’s transparency releases. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, as it stands, these releases are hard to find and hard to search. They are published in different places, in different formats, and with different names. They could be published in a single, accessible, searchable format. I hope the Government will give that consideration.

I also invite the Government to consider the remit of the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists while they are at it. It has admirably performed the role Parliament assigned to it, but it is reasonable now to ask whether its scope is still relevant more than a decade after the original legislation because, since then, the practice of lobbying has evolved. More large organisations have invested in sophisticated in-house government relations teams and there is more digital campaigning. The boundary between public affairs, strategic communication and direct government engagement has become less distinct. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the regulator’s remit should evolve as well.

In that context, Ministers might look at the experience elsewhere. The Scottish system, for example, operates under a broader framework. It focuses on recording lobbying activity itself, rather than relying so heavily on distinctions between different categories of lobbyists. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave another example: that of the EU register. I am not suggesting simply copying another model, but there could be lessons worth learning about proportionality, coverage and public accessibility. A review of the registrar’s remit could consider questions such as whether the current definitions are still fit for purpose, whether the public can easily understand who needs to register and who does not and whether reporting requirements are proportionate.

The system we should be aiming for needs to be comprehensive enough to command public confidence, proportionate enough not to discourage legitimate engagement and, recognising the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made about businesses, proportionate enough not to place disproportionate burdens on business. The system should also be straightforward enough for organisations and the public to understand. I think that this Bill makes an important contribution towards that goal. It recognises that transparency should focus on influence, not merely organisational form; it begins to correct anomalies that have become increasingly difficult to justify; and it offers an opportunity to modernise a framework that has not kept pace with changes in the lobbying profession.