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

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a thought-provoking debate, with excellent contributions from all sides of the House. Private Members’ Bills are so often a good way to start a debate on a topic that otherwise would not be discussed in so much detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has certainly achieved that with this Bill. The Bill has provoked an interesting debate on the important balance between transparency—which, like other noble Lords across the Chamber, we strongly support—and administrative burdens, particularly those on small businesses.

Ministers rely on open and frank conversations with stakeholders, whether they be businesses or charities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has been very clear that she is not opposed to that. Our concern is that this Bill, by placing an administrative and financial burden—as my noble friend Lord Hayward also highlighted—on organisations that engage with Ministers, could disincentivise those open and frank channels of discussions that Ministers rely on.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the unintended consequences. My noble friend Lady Finn gave the example of a pub landlord who might have to register following a conversation with a visiting Minister. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne spoke eloquently about the impact of the Bill on the relationship between government and the business community and gave a number of examples where there could rightly be some confusion.

I would like to give two further scenarios for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to consider as she prepares to take her Bill forward to Committee. First, her Bill made me think of the much-loved British cabbie. All of us will have got into a taxi and immediately found ourselves in conversation with the taxi driver on the issues of the day. Cabbies talk to their customers about their day, their work, the businesses they run and the challenges they are facing in those businesses. If a cab driver were to say to a customer who happened to be a Minister that the Government ought to change policy to make it easier for him to do business, would he have to register as an in-house lobbyist? It is these brush-by conversations and social interactions that risk confusion, registration and attendant costs.

The second scenario I would like to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that of the Minister meeting a local business at a constituency surgery: a local businessman, employee or charity goes to a constituency surgery with their local Member of Parliament to inform them of a particular challenge they are facing. Is this not deemed to be lobbying? It is merely, I quote now from Edmund Burke, an MP doing their duty to be in:

“the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents”.

But under this Bill, if the local Member of Parliament is a Minister, it seems the local business could be deemed to be an in-house lobbyist. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, comment on that discrepancy?

It is clear from these examples that the definition of an in-house lobbyist in this Bill is far too broad. Where is the line? We would be happy, though, to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to seek to improve on this as we go into both Committee and then Report.