Title

Andy Sawford defends the use of lobbying by local authorities as a legitimate means of influencing government legislation Our new CLG secretary of state, Eric Pickles, is emerging as a buccaneering voice of the Tory grassroots, acclaimed on activist websites such as Conservative Home, and lauded by the Taxpayers' Alliance. On the one hand, he is championing localism – the devolution of power from Whitehall, and the end of central government interference by the likes of the Audit Commission. On the other, he is telling councils what he believes they should and shouldn't be doing with taxpayers' money. High-profile examples include the outlawing of council newspapers, and the ban on paying lobbyists. Instinctively, the notion that ‘government shouldn't lobby government' seems right. Certainly, for the so-called quangos to be using money granted by the Treasury to lobby back at Whitehall, often for more money, seems a less-than-virtuous circle. Is it right to lump local authorities into the same critique? No doubt, it is a nuisance for ministers and officials in Whitehall when councils give them a hard time. I agree totally with Mr Pickles that councillors should be the principal lobbyists for their local authority, but shouldn't they have the choice to get additional specialist advice if they feel that it is in the interest of their local community? A ban on using lawyers to advise on the complexities of the legal system and accountants to advise on tax and financial management would seem absurd, yet ‘public affairs' advisers who help organisations when it comes to complex government policy-making and legislative processes, are imagined to be somehow improper and corrupting of our democracy. I have a confession to make. I was once a lobbyist too. Was it wrong or somehow corrupting of democracy that I used my knowledge of parliamentary and governmental processes to help councils and other organisations? One example is the campaign I supported to stop the forced mergers of police authorities by the last government. How did I do this? Not by sliming up to MPs or hanging around the Strangers' Bar, but by advising the campaign group of councils and police authorities on a strategy to influence a government which had stopped listening. The campaign involved understanding the technicalities of the affirmative resolution procedure in the House of Commons, developing with peers a strategy to amend the Policing Act in the Lords to curb the powers of the home secretary to change the boundaries of police authorities, and dialogue with the Treasury about the financial implications, such as precept equalisation. Taken together, the measures we adopted were ultimately successful, and the ‘campaign for local policing' was credited by ministers as being responsible for the policy volte face. But Mr Pickles says that lobbying is wrong because councillors can just pick up the phone to him. Well, that's OK if he really does listen and act on the input from councillors. But my experience of ministers in the previous government is that, too often, they didn't listen, resorting instead to centralist diktats. Ministers have armies of civil servants, lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen to support and influence them to push legislation through. The challenge, accountability and improvement of government is supposed to take place in parliament, but often, MPs do not provide the expert and robust check on the over-mighty executive that we might hope for. There are MPs willing to challenge, to probe, to use parliamentary process, and these I admire. But there are many who do as they are told, to seek preferment, promotion, or a quiet life. There will be tests of how our democracy is working in the year ahead. Will the Government listen to councils on issues such as directly-elected police commissioners? Will coalition MPs be prepared to go through the ‘No' lobby from time to time? It is not lobbyists who can corrupt the political system, but rather the way politicians choose to operate, including how they interact with those who lobby them – be they constituents, councils, campaign groups, trade bodies or think-tanks. A listening executive, a powerful and independent-minded legislature, and a more equal relationship between central and local government, may well reduce the need for lobbyists, and I for one would applaud that. But if the executive isn't listening, parliamentary votes are whipped through, and local government remains subject to the vagaries of Whitehall, then I won't criticise councils which put resources into lobbying where they judge this necessary in the interests of their community. Andy Sawford is chief executive of LGIU, the local democracy think-tank

Title

WHITEHALL

A word in your ear, gov

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING