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

Lord Norton of Louth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has been said by a number of speakers, which has the advantage that I will be able to shorten my contribution to today’s debate.

This is a modest Bill that seeks to improve an Act that is not up to the task of enhancing the transparency of lobbying. The 2014 Act was fundamentally flawed. Its name bore no relation to its contents. I moved an amendment to change the Long Title that would have replaced “transparency of lobbying” with “registration of lobbyists”. The measure did not enhance transparency of the substance of lobbying; it required the registration of lobbyists—or rather, as we have heard, certain lobbyists. It was notable as much for who was not required to register as for who was. If we are going to stick with the 2014 Act then it makes sense to extend its scope so that the register lives up to its name. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, moved an amendment then to include in-house lobbyists and was supported by many other noble Lords. For her, it is unfinished business.

I urge the Minister to go further. The 2014 Act was a missed opportunity. There was no statutory code of conduct and no stipulation of the principles that should govern that conduct. We could have put ourselves on a par with other nations in embracing best practice, ensuring that representations made to the Government, Ministers, civil servants and advisers were put in the public domain.

I moved an amendment when the Bill was being considered in 2013 to provide for that, stipulating that representations made to the Government should be published when a policy was announced. That would have extended what my noble friend Lord Lansley was referring to in the quarterly return and would have been far more targeted to the actual policy that was being announced. Such a reform is essential for tackling declining trust in politics, as has already been referred to.

The 2014 Act, as I argued, was an output of the “something must be done” mentality. Scandals surrounding lobbying are nothing new, and, as we have heard, they undermine public trust. Simply requiring lobbyists—or rather some lobbyists—to be on a register has not really tackled the problem. As we have heard, the objection to extending the register to cover in-house lobbyists is one of cost, yet what we have is a limited register that requires a bureaucracy, albeit not a large one, that puts a burden on the public purse. As it stands, I am not sure it justifies the expense. We expend the money for no clear benefit in public trust. We need a radical reset if we are to ensure that lobbying operates in a fully transparent manner. The problem is not so much one of resources but of political will.

The answer is to ensure that there is transparency at the point when a policy is announced. If the representations made are revealed, then one has openness. It produces discipline, with Ministers knowing that what has been put to them is known. That should help to bolster support for their policies, if they can show the persuasive arguments that have been placed before them. The focus shifts from the status of those lobbying to the content of the lobbying: in essence, it removes the need for a register. As I said in 2013:

“Any representations made to anyone in the department would be shown. It would not matter who the lobbyists were: full-time independent lobbyists, in-house lobbyists, part-time lobbyists or individuals making representations on that particular issue—all would be caught. We would thus have true, comprehensive transparency. That is the key point, and it is important that we establish the principle”.—[Official Report, 5/11/13; col. 191]


The Minister responding to that debate was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He said of my amendment:

“I took him down as saying that the Government believe in transparency but not too far. I would say that the Government believe in transparency, but want to be proportionate in our approach”.—[Official Report, 5/11/12; col. 196]


That was an interesting concept. Perhaps the Minister today can tell us the threshold for determining disproportionate transparency.

The public money used to maintain the register could be deployed instead to facilitate the release of representations made to government. Such transparency was achievable when we debated the Bill back in 2013 and, given the strides made in technology since, this can now be achieved far more efficiently than was the case then.

This takes us beyond the content of the Bill before us, but it helps make the case for it. The argument I have deployed emphasises that what is before us is a modest but necessary measure to address a deficiency in the 2014 Act. I hope the Minister will give it a fair wind. It would be even better, of course, if she announces that the Government are prepared to go further and ensure that we have full transparency. Let us pass this Bill, and then get on and be a leader internationally in ensuring the transparency of lobbying.