Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Lord McFall make an unexpected intervention.
According to a rare joint letter from the speakers of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, groupings of MPs supported by lobbyists are endangering the institution’s credibility.
In a letter – written on the day that disclosed the extent of commercial influence directed at All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and published today – the two most influential politicians in Parliament urged for a significant revamp of the way APPGs function.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle and Lord McFall have made an uncommon joint intervention to prevent the proliferation of APPGs, the number of which already exceeds 700.
They also want to make it more difficult to create an APPG, which can already be created with minimal effort, by requiring APPGs to publish accounts and more donation information than is currently available.
Speakers urge APG reform.
“The current approach has not avoided reputational hazards to Parliament or the development of APPGs,” they claimed.
“We believe that our ideas would ensure that APPGs truly command the support of members and would boost transparency without unduly increasing the costs on APPGs, which provide members with a great opportunity to learn and contribute on issues they deem important.”
Lord Pickles, a former cabinet minister and the chair of one of Westminster’s ethics watchdogs, told that APPGs are informal interest groups of MPs and peers that facilitate cross-party engagement on a topic, a nation, or a sector.
Since the 2019 general election, the groups have received over £20m in donations from external organizations. With registered lobbying outfits dominating the list of the largest donors.
Any additional modifications to the regulations regulating APPGs would require the approval of the House of Commons. And it is unclear whether they would oppose any improvements.
Sir Lindsay and Lord McFall wrote that one person should be able to block new APPGs.
Lobbying industry insiders have defended the role of APPGs in the democratic process as a “force for good”; however, one admitted that “there are bad ones,” and another stated that a “minority” of APPGs are funded by organizations “attempting to unfairly influence parliamentary decisions.”
“direct point of entry”
Gill Morris, CEO of DevoConnect, which has provided £192,000 in secretariat services to six APPGs since the previous election, told. “There are extremely good APPGs and others where it is pretty evident that they are a direct point of access.
“I believe it may be accurate. But I believe that the majority of organizations function or conduct business similarly to ours.
Sarah Pinch, former president of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, said APPG funding was not the issue, but rather the activities they engaged in.
She stated, “I believe there is a minority of APPGs supported by particular organizations that are attempting to unduly influence legislative decisions through a system that was not designed for that.”
Authority to block new APPGs
Sir Lindsay and Lord McFall wrote that one person should be able to block new APPGs.
They wrote, “We restate our belief that there should be a clear gatekeeper function for such organizations.” “Mr. Speaker has previously proposed that the chairman of ways and means may serve this responsibility in the House of Commons, but there may also be a space for Lord’s participation in carrying out this duty.”
Before a new APPG is permitted to be formed, the gatekeeper will ensure that there are no duplications with current organizations.
“At the same time, the applicant must explain how and by whom the APPG will be sponsored,” the speakers continued. “The AGMs of APPGs should be held with greater rigor.
“We believe that AGMs should be headed by a member of the panel of chairmen (or maybe a Lords equivalent) from outside the APPG.
“We believe there is adequate manpower available to carry out this responsibility and ensure the effective holding of Annual General Meetings.
“Annual general meetings should evaluate an annual report from the executives as well as the organization’s financial statements. In the absence of these, AGMs should not be regarded valid. And APPGs failing to meet this condition should be removed from the register.”
They stated, “We recognize that a greater level of scrutiny before the formation of APPGs could convey the appearance that the activities of a particular APPG are then “approved” by both Houses of Parliament.”
