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

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to today’s debate and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Like many Members, I occasionally show visitors, including Americans, around the House. I take them to Central Lobby and I say, “Here it is. It is a place; it is a noun. Of course, it is also a verb. It is the place where people come to meet their Members of Parliament, as they have every right to do”. There is nothing wrong with lobbying: it is an integral part of our system of parliament and government, and indeed all Members of Parliament themselves—including humble Back-Benchers on the Government’s side in this House—are lobbying and lobbyists. The dangers begin to emerge only when financial benefit arises and when money is involved. I want to concentrate on the benefits of lobbying for influence, which goes on all the time.

This is a Bill about transparency and accountability, which I would like to think are two principles that commend themselves to all sides of this House. I mentioned Americans, and tomorrow is of course the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the United States. I quote one of the most famous justices of the American Supreme Court, Mr Justice Brandeis:

“Sunlight is … the best of disinfectants”.


This phrase remains very relevant when discussing the subject of the Bill.

My noble friend has argued that the rules, as they currently are under the 2014 Act, leave a large loophole and that the Bill provides the remedy, although it does involve some considerable administrative consequences. Previous Governments have argued—perhaps my noble friend the Minister will argue the same today—that there is already a regime in place whereby Government Ministers and Permanent Secretaries of government departments voluntarily disclose information about whom they meet on a quarterly basis, but is this enough? I do not think so.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a report in 2021—not long after I arrived here—which specifically argued for the Cabinet Office to collate all departmental transparency information and publish it in an accessible and, above all, searchable database. It also advocated an expansion of the register to include contact between lobbying companies, spads and senior director-level civil servants. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister has something to say on this point. That committee stopped short of calling for the register to be expanded to include in-house lobbyists.

As the House knows, the post-legislative scrutiny of the Act by PACAC, the committee of the other place, also stopped short of recommending the extension to cover in-house lobbyists. However, it referred to “loopholes” that should be closed. The March 2026 Rycroft Review specifically drew attention to the current VAT exemption under the 2014 Act which, in effect, now allows lobbying firms of foreign-based subsidiaries of UK lobbying companies not to register. This is an error, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will address it.

As has been mentioned already, in March our outgoing Prime Minister commissioned the new Ethics and Integrity Commission to review, among other things,

“whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient”.

If the report is being published next week, we look forward to reading what the answer will be. Maybe the Minister could also say something about that.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has already been referred to; its survey found that two-thirds wanted the lobbying register to include both consultants and in-house lobbyists.

If the House wants to know why I take a close interest in this Private Member’s Bill, it is this: my own experience. Before I was elected to serve in this House, I worked on behalf of and for the science community. As I knew a little about how Parliament works—indeed, in the family in which I grew up, it was impossible not to know a little—I was called upon to help represent the science community to both Parliament and government. I did so in various ways, such as organising events and arranging meetings. I suppose one could say that I did this work in-house. I organised on behalf of the science community—year after year, and decade after decade—the biggest science events ever held in the House. I hope the House will not mind if I give a couple of examples.

Parliamentary Links Day brought together the whole scientific community on a single day each summer. It comprised a huge meeting in the Commons, with standing room only, and another major event here in this House. You had to look only at the invitation cards to see what I mean: all the major sectoral science societies were represented—biology, maths, physics, chemistry, engineering—as well as many of our national academies, such as the Royal Society. The event was all about educating Members on science and technology issues and making the case for science and technology and the resources needed to fund them. We got speakers year after year from the Cabinet: the Foreign Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Health Secretary; the International Development Secretary; the Science Minister, who was not always in the Cabinet but was crucial; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Twenty-one years ago this year, the then Prime Minister himself addressed Parliamentary Links Day and I can well remember the frisson in the room. People were astonished to find a Prime Minister walking in to address them.

In 2001, I brought together a wide range of science organisations to produce the first ever Charter for Science and Engineering, to which the then Chancellor subsequently responded point by point, when he launched the 10-year investment strategy for science.

The Voice of the Future is another event that is still going. It brings young scientists and engineers to Parliament, who sit around the horseshoe questioning the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Chief Scientific Adviser, and members of both Houses’ Select Committees on Science and Technology, who sit at the witness table. It used to be launched by the Speaker himself.

I also organised parliamentary receptions—not just the Christmas reception at which we gave awards for outstanding contributions to the cause of science but others. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Anderson, who is in his seat, will remember the reception we organised to welcome back Helen Sharman, the first British person in space. That was quite a long time ago.

About 10 years ago, I arranged for Tim Peake—a name your Lordships may also remember—to give the first ever evidence from space to a Select Committee, in the Boothroyd Room. I remember meeting the parliamentary engineers, who worked in the basement at Millbank, and they were thrilled when the first signals conveying Tim Peake came through from NASA. The now noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood—sadly, not in her place at the moment—was the chair of the committee at the time so, if you do not believe me, ask her all about it. It was really quite an event.

Working in parallel to all this is the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee—of which, as it happens, I am now president—which organises the annual STEM for Britain event, in the other place. It brings early-career scientists and engineers here to meet their local Members of Parliament and exhibit their work. It is highly competitive. My purpose in giving these examples is to illustrate that lobbying activity of this kind goes on all the time. It is about seeking influence.

I have run out of time. Parliament is not a museum, it is a workshop, and this type of activity is to be encouraged. Expanding the 2014 Act register will do no harm and may well increase the sunlight we can shine on the whole area of lobbying. When it comes to this Bill, I will be voting for sunlight.