Balance on lobbying - the view of a lobbyist

Whether I like it or not, I spend a lot of my time lobbying Government and Parliament.  I started doing this about 2 years ago because (i) the government seemed to be making a complete hash of IT and internet policy; and, (ii) the loudest voice heard by government was from vested commercial interests who could afford to pay full-time lobbyists and hire specialist lobby firms - few people were providing a counter-view from small businesses or the online community.

To my surprise the world of lobbying isn't as closed as some make out.  Many parliamentarians especially go out of their way to bring outside knowledge into parliament, and all seem to thrive on interacting with "ordinary voters" with a well-thought-out perspective.

But of course there's the inevitable vapour shields.  MPs are wary about politically-motivated attacks and misinformation, Government has a formidable barrier to protect itself from the "noise" of discontented citizens.  If it was as easy as walking up to the Cabinet Office to register one's discontent in person with the Minister, the queue would stretch from Downing Street to Aberdeen I'm sure!

It shouldn't come down to who you know, but of course Ministers, MPs, policy advisers and senior civil servants are just people with friends, family and a long queue of people with vested interests itching to get a message to them.  The most powerful arguments come from people with whom those in power have an existing relationship; people they've got to know.

You need to know a little bit about someone to understand where they're coming from; what motivates them, and why they're making the demands they're making.

Essentially, there's nothing wrong with the idea of lobbying.  If a government isolated itself fully behind official channels, and those channels are anything less than perfect at gauging opinion, that government will become ill-informed and deficient.

Government needs a balanced mix of contact with the public, industry and other bodies such as libraries and educational establishments.  Yes, big libraries, universities and charities have lobbyists too!

The problem comes about when money starts to tip the balance, corrupting the system.  When people have no moral qualms about pushing the interests of the highest bidder, whoever that might be.

Or, when large businesses who can afford lobbyists get their views heard above a slew of smaller businesses from the same industry, leading to a skewed market where dominant players get the laws they want in order to maintain their dominant market position, at the expense of smaller rivals.

The solution doesn't lie in isolating the government from the very valid views of interest groups whoever they may be.  The solution lies in getting the government to hear a balanced range of views.  Whilst the world of lobbying is relatively closed, and it helps if you went to school with so-and-so, anyone can set themselves up as a lobbyist.

I went to the local comprehensive and missed out on a place at Oxford, yet I'm meeting tomorrow with a Government Minister because I put the time and effort into pushing the policies I believe will best contribute to a competitive digital economy.

Is the system broken?  I don't think so, although more transparency would be helpful, especially when links between Ministers and senior officials seem too close for comfort.

A register of lobbying interests is a great idea in principle, although I see pitfalls and workarounds.  If, for example, lobbying companies have to disclose their client lists and payments it's all too easy for key directors of these companies to set up a second company where they work "part time" on "advising" a series of secret clients.

What we don't want to do is create half-baked rules that further increase the fee-earning capacity of those who know how to work around these rules.

At the moment, Open Digital is funded by its founders, but we pledge to provide full transparency of any funding we receive from third parties.  We believe that behaving responsibly - morally and ethically - is important for any body attempting to influence public policy, for the simple reason that it helps get our message across.

We can increase our sphere of influence promoting policies we believe are the best policies for the internet as we know it.  Behaving responsibly and transparently ensures we have not only the ear of Government and Parliament, but the support of like-minded people who understand what we are doing, and why.

In the world of public affairs, secrecy benefits two groups of people: those who can't be bothered to explain themselves and those who don't stand a chance of explaining themselves.  I don't want Open Digital to fall into either category.