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

Lord Empey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be in the Chamber discussing a piece of legislation on a Friday morning; it is a bit of a change from the atmosphere of the Colosseum that we have been used to on Friday mornings this year. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has struck a chord. There is clearly a broad consensus. The previous speaker was perhaps a little harsh on the Opposition; I think the principle is accepted, as opposed to the minutiae. We all look forward to getting to Committee, when we can get down to the detail.

The big thing that has happened in the past 12 years since the current arrangements were introduced is that not only has the technology changed but the whole structure of government and access to government has changed. We have had an exponential growth in spads. Of course, these people are now the recipients of a lot of lobbying. The Government themselves—as we have all done in bringing forward legislation—actively seek consultation as part of our process. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others have pointed to some of the anomalies, and they may not be included in the current legislation. VAT is one thing; it does not make sense.

Of course we do not wish to get into a hugely bureaucratic process, but what is perfectly obvious is that what we have today is not doing it. We need look no further than this House itself, where, unfortunately, some Members have found themselves falling foul of our own procedures and there is scepticism in the general public as to whether things are open and clear. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, made a valid point: we all lobby Ministers; we do so, perhaps, during a vote. This sort of thing happens every day and it is part of the process, but it is a question of getting a balance and the fact of the matter is that the balance is wrong at the moment. We have an opportunity here.

I suspect that the Minister’s response will be, “We will have the EIC report next week and we will wait and see what that says”—it is on page two of her briefing. I understand that and that is fine but, because there is a broad feeling around the Chamber that we need to do something, it would be good if the Minister could guarantee either that the Government will provide more time for this Bill or, better still, that they will adopt its principles and bring forward their own proposals. I think that would be broadly welcomed around the Chamber.

The other anomaly is, of course, the limit to the Minister and the Perm Sec. My experience is that the Permanent Secretary does not, by and large, get involved in the day-to-day things; it goes much further down, to directors or people of that calibre.

I think we all know what needs to be done. The Bill is on the table; let us do it. I hope the Minister will be able to send us away rejoicing at the end of this debate that she will adopt this and be its champion as we move forward to the next stage.