IN the spirit of openness for which this particular lobbyist is renowned I would like to take issue with the points raised by the Stirling Media Research Institute (Why lobbyists need to be scrutinised - August 22). This clamour by a minuscule section of the chattering classes for regulation of lobbyists comes about following the pathetic performance of a few daft laddies during the ''Beattiegate'' affair.
If MSPs were so concerned over these activities why did they do absolutely nothing after the Standards Committee investigated the affair? What happened to the allegations of perjury by certain witnesses? Were the culprits barred from future public-sector work? What happened to the late Donald Dewar's plan to appoint a ''sleaze czar?'' Do the Stirling academics seriously believe that the Standards Committee will be any more effective in the future?
Both the Stirling group and the chairman of the Standards Committee, Mike Rumbles [pictured], seem unable to grasp the glaring inconsistency in their proposals. A company with in-house lobbyists will not have to disclose their expenditure and modus operandi but a freelance consultant will.
Putting to one side the legality that only HM tax inspectors can demand such information, let us examine how such a proposal would work in practice. Say a multinational telecommunications company decides it would like to erect phone-masts in leafy Bearsden or Barnton. The in-house lobbyists go into action trying to convince politicians, media, residents, environmentalists, etc, that this is a fine idea despite concerns that radio masts may be carcinogenic. The residents' association then employs my company to fight the powerful multinational and to put the contrary argument to the same audiences.
Under the proposals coming out of the Mound the telecom giant does not need to reveal just whom they are talking to and the fact that they have a budget of several millions. I, on the other hand, would not only have to reveal my fees, thus giving the opposition a feel for my available resources, but I have also to disclose who I have spoken to and what was said. Talk about showing your opponent your hand - the game would be over before it began. Does that sound like the basis for a healthy public debate?
Only a fool could fail to see the inequality in this treatment. All the legal advice received by the Institute of Public Relations and the Public Relations Consultants Association points to a clear breach of the European Convention of Human Rights.
In the last two years I have been involved in three of the most prominent public affairs issues in Scotland - viz, Section 28, the campaign for hunting, and, most recently, care for the elderly. There cannot be a journalist or politician in Scotland who is unaware of my involvement and recording my day-to-day activities on a register would simply add to the already over-burdened bureaucracy parliament.
Other lobbyists may care to use the back stairs but as the diligent Scottish media proved in the Beattiegate affair, there isn't much that escapes the notice of the men in white raincoats. The media have proved to be hugely effective in shining a light into the dark recesses of Holyrood and I see no reason why that will not continue. Frankly Mr Rumbles and Professor Schlesinger are rank amateurs in comparison to the Fourth Estate.
Jack Irvine,
executive chairman,
Media House International Ltd,
16 Robertson Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article