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

Baroness Helic Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I congratulate her on bringing this important measure before the House and seeking to bring the United Kingdom more closely into line with jurisdictions including Scotland, Canada and others, all of which have adopted broader approaches to lobbying transparency. I also welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and support his proposals.

The principle behind the Bill is straightforward: if consultant lobbyists are required to disclose their activities, there is no convincing reason why large organisations with substantial in-house lobbying operations should not be subject to a comparable transparency requirement. Greater transparency strengthens public confidence, improves accountability and increasingly serves our national security interests. I therefore strongly support both the purpose and direction of this Bill.

However, registration is only the beginning. Transparency has real value only if the information disclosed is examined, understood and, where appropriate, acted on. A register should not simply be a repository of information; it should be a tool that enables government and Parliament to identify patterns of influence, assess potential risks and ensure that lobbying is conducted openly and responsibly.

The foreign influence registration scheme provides a useful illustration. Although it serves a different purpose from the lobbying regime before us, it demonstrates that disclosure alone cannot answer the more difficult policy questions. Political influence activity may lawfully be registered under FIRS on behalf of overseas public authorities or bodies connected to individuals or entities that are under United Kingdom sanctions, based on the fact that it influences and engages UK defence and security policy—currently, there is at least one example. Registration provides transparency, but it does not resolve the question of whether such activity is compatible with the public interest or whether it warrants closer scrutiny. Disclosure is therefore the beginning of effective oversight, not its conclusion.

The same principle applies to the Bill. Extending the register of consultant lobbyists to encompass significant in-house lobbying operations will undoubtedly improve transparency, yet the success of the measure will depend not simply on the volume of information that we collect but on whether that information is systematically analysed, emerging risks are identified and appropriate action follows. Otherwise, we risk creating the appearance of accountability without fully achieving it.

Other jurisdictions have recognised this. Germany’s lobbying register requires lobbyists to identify the legislation and policy proposal they seek to influence, while the United States’s Foreign Agents Registration Act requires considerably more detailed reporting of clients, activities and expenditure. These approaches demonstrate that transparency is most effective when it generates information that enables meaningful scrutiny, rather than merely satisfying a reporting requirement.

This is particularly relevant at a time when democratic institutions face increasingly sophisticated attempts to shape public policy or political debate by external factors. Most lobbying is entirely legitimate and makes a valuable contribution to better policy-making. The challenge for the Government is to distinguish legitimate engagement from activity that may undermine the public interest or present wider risks. That requires not only transparency but effective analysis, proportionate oversight and informed judgment.

Against this background, I have three questions for the Minister. First, how will the Government ensure that the additional information generated by this Bill is systematically analysed so that it strengthens accountability and informs policy-making, rather than simply increasing compliance requirements? Secondly, where lobbying activity raises concerns related to foreign policy, national security or other significant public interests, what mechanisms exist to ensure that transparency is accompanied by appropriate risk assessment and, where necessary, proportionate action? Thirdly, as the Government review the operation of the foreign influence registration scheme and the register of consultant lobbyists, will they consider whether lessons from each regime can be used to inform the future development of the other so that the United Kingdom has a coherent and effective framework for transparency in political influence?

I welcome the Bill because it addresses an important gap in the current framework. It represents a significant step towards greater openness and accountability. But, as I have said, transparency should be regarded as the beginning of effective oversight, not its end. Unless the information disclosed is thematically analysed and used to inform the Government’s decision-making, we risk creating the appearance of accountability without fully delivering it. The Bill provides an opportunity not only to expand transparency but to ensure that transparency serves its proper purpose in strengthening confidence in our democratic institutions.