Standards of Conduct Committee

Welcome back to this meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and our second evidence session this morning will be with our witness Ben Lloyd from the WCVA, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Welcome, Ben, and would you like to give us a short introduction to yourself and the work of the WCVA?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm the head of policy for the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. We're the national membership body for the voluntary sector in Wales, so our membership will include everything from small unregistered community groups up to international charities, also social enterprises, and across the whole range of charitable or voluntary sector activities—everything from health, education, sports groups, faith groups, and so on. So, we have quite a wide membership profile, and then, as well as that, we represent the sector as a whole, as opposed to just our members. As well as our role representing the voluntary sector, we also provide advice and support around sustainable funding, governance and volunteering to the voluntary sector in Wales, working in partnership with our county voluntary council colleagues at a local level.

Okay, thank you, Ben. So, if I can kick off by asking you a question around the term 'lobbying' itself, because this is something that arose really strongly from our consultation responses—the need for some clarity around the definition. So, how would you describe lobbying?

WCVA has previously used the definition of

'any contact with those in power that is designed to influence their actions in some way',

which is a really very broad term, and I think it's important to note as well that many of our members, many parts of the voluntary sector, don't really use the term 'lobbying' particularly. It has acquired negative connotations for a number of reasons, and most people working in this sort of area, or volunteering in this sort of area, in the voluntary sector, will be using terms like 'advocacy', 'influencing public affairs, parliamentary affairs'. They're all in a similar space, but I think the term itself can be off-putting for some organisations who wouldn't identify themselves as lobbyists but may identify themselves as seeking to represent their members or seeking to provide a voice for the communities they represent, or advocating, influencing in line with their charitable objectives.

So, we know from some of the work we did, the written submission, that there are significant parts of the voluntary sector that wouldn't consider themselves to be lobbying, but would probably fall under the broad definition that I've just given. To me, the sort of activities that it encompasses would include both, I suppose, persuading people around a particular point of view, and also activities around information sharing, or, I suppose, particularly those voluntary sector organisations that seek to represent marginalised groups, providing a voice or representing those groups in public discussion as well.

Thank you. That was a really neat definition of lobbying there. We've struggled to come across one thus far, so very grateful for that indeed. That leads me on to my next question, really, which is whether you think a lobbyist necessarily needs to be a paid official, or, if we're looking at an unpaid volunteer, could they be deemed as a lobbyist also?

So, we definitely know that there are people in the voluntary sector, particularly chairs of boards of registered charities or some of their trustees, who either will lead on or will accompany paid staff members on occasion to meetings that are around influencing Government activity. Obviously, trustees are a particular legal group, so I suppose, while they're all volunteers, they're a different type of volunteer to what many people would consider being a volunteer on the ground. But we also know some organisations where volunteers are doing work that is focused around collecting that research and evidence, presenting it to Government and being that voice for people who are—. So, the act of influencing, I suppose, or support work around that doesn't need to be a paid role.

I suppose there's also a question about whether, for example, if an MS were to visit a foodbank in their constituency and speak to a volunteer there, or even a paid member of staff there, they would consider a discussion around the circumstances of the people using that foodbank and how that's changed in recent years to be 'influencing' or not. The question of whether—it's somewhat frustrating—a volunteer is lobbying, I suppose, comes down to the definition of lobbying in some ways, but there are definitely parts of the voluntary sector where people are voluntarily coming together in order to support influencing activity.

Thank you. Related to that, parliamentarians would often say that the strongest representations they receive, the most passionate and vociferous on all sorts of issues, are actually from constituents who come to meet them and seek change within Government because of an issue that affects them personally. So, should we be looking at that as being part of lobbying? What's your view there?

I think there's definitely a distinction between a constituent writing to a Member of the Senedd and an organisation that are doing it, I suppose, as part of their strategy. I definitely don't think constituents acting in their own right as constituents to contact their MS should be covered as part of this.

I suspect that a significant amount of voluntary sector influencing activity that occurs comes from large organisations that have a formal structure, so, in some ways, it's easy to say, 'This is an organisation rather than an individual.' But there are, amongst our membership and more widely across the voluntary sector, large numbers of informal groups that won't have a constitution or a bank account, but will be wanting to represent their community somehow, and they'll often be doing so on a more local level, rather than nationally with the Government, but possibly with their Members of the Senedd and so on. It's very difficult to come up with a definition that would land in the right point there where we wouldn't be discouraging people from contacting their Member of the Senedd because they're part of some form of organisation, but not, really, a particularly formalised one, and, if I'm honest, I don't know quite where that definition would be.

No, that's fine, thank you. That's very helpful. So, if I move on to the value of lobbying, and that's something that's come up really strongly through our consultation—if you want to call it 'advocacy' or some of the other terms that you use—that there is an awful lot of positive benefit according to some of our consultees. So, I'd like to ask you, firstly, what you believe is the possible value of lobbying to the proper functioning of a representative democracy.

Yes, of course. Our view is definitely that democracy is strengthened by having a wide range of voices that are able to be heard by decision makers. Obviously, from our point of view, that is the voluntary sector we're seeking to represent, although I would argue that it goes beyond that as well. There are some great examples of where voluntary sector influencing and campaigning have led to policy change. I suppose the most obvious in terms of high-profile legislation is around the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which grew from a lot of work that environmental and sustainability charities originally were working on, but also there's a wide range of health activity that has been influenced by groups representing patients with particular conditions. I know the prevention of stroke strategy came out last year having listened to groups representing the people who are at risk of or have suffered strokes. I know that the race equality action plan, for example, really benefited from engaging with groups representing people from particular ethnic minority backgrounds.

Our view is that hearing those voices improves the quality of public policy, particularly, I suppose, where groups are arguing for changes to public policy that reflect their charitable purposes—so, where an organisation could be seen as being an expert in, for example, supporting young people from a vulnerable background, that they would have something valuable to add to that discussion. I'd raise particularly the groups who are more marginalised from the political process, as well—population groups who are more marginalised—where organisations who work to support them and represent them will be able to feed into the political process in a way that might not otherwise be as useful, or voices that might not otherwise be as well heard in the process.

That's really useful, what you said there when you listed some of the tangible impacts that lobbying has had on Government policy and Government direction. So, if you were looking to encapsulate what defines lobbying at its best, is that what you'd say, where the WCVA can go back and say, 'This is what we've achieved—our members have had these things put into Government policy'? Is that the badge of honour, as it were?

I think it's probably more about the changes being made to the legislation than us being able to say that it's us that have changed it largely, or at least in part, because a lot of voluntary sector activity happens in coalition and between different voluntary sector organisations, and also, I suppose, the act of influencing is never quite as direct as an organisation advocating for something and then public policy change happens; there's a whole process of Government policy making that happens between that, as there should be. So, I think, at its best, we can point to examples where the voluntary sector, groups the voluntary sector is representing or people we work with have been heard, and having had that influence over public policy is where, I think, lots of those organisations are, and having improved public policy so that it's based in the reality of either the causes or the lives of people that they represent, I think.

Thank you. Oftentimes, Members of the Senedd will meet with groups in order to ascertain information about particular areas that they may not be expert in themselves. Is there an ethical difference, do you think, between lobbying as information provision, as I've outlined there, and advocacy? Is it possible to even split those two arms from each other?

I think they're definitely related. I think there's probably a distinction where data, statistics or something that is purely qualitative information about the experience of people the voluntary sector's working with may be different from when that's, I suppose, presented in a format that's about persuading someone to act on a particular piece of policy or particular piece of legislation, for example. I think there probably is a distinction that could be drawn. I do think, however, that it's never quite the case that everything fits into one of those two categories, in large part because a lot of influencing and lobbying activity takes place on the basis of data and evidence that an organisation has drawn from elsewhere, if that makes sense. So, I think, in principle, they're probably two separate things; in reality, I think they're probably more connected, or it's probably more difficult to draw a distinction in reality.

Thank you. I've got one final question before I hand over to Peredur. Is there anything we need to do better in Wales in order to realise the full potential and benefits of lobbying, and, conversely, is there anything that can impede or block the benefits of lobbying that we should also be looking to try and address?

I think there's definitely a sense from within the voluntary sector that both Members of the Government and Members of the Senedd have been more open, or have had the capacity and willingness—of all parties as well, I should say—to engage with the voluntary sector since devolution. I think there are a couple of particular, I suppose, fora within Wales that are unique, particularly the third sector partnership council, which is a network of 25 elected voluntary sector networks that meets with Government twice a year, each Minister, and also, then, the Minister who's responsible for the voluntary sector. All of the minutes of those meetings are available on the WCVA website, so it is a transparent process, and it's designed, I suppose, to give that bird's-eye view of the voluntary sector as well. So, it won't be about individual organisations' priorities but will be about the state of the voluntary sector as a whole, I guess, or the key themes that are coming out of voluntary sector activity, and key concerns the voluntary sector has about any particular upcoming policy or about the wider political context. So, is it a separate forum, in that sense as well, which, I suppose, encapsulates in some ways both the additional level of openness in Wales, and also, I suppose, in some ways, the transparency associated with some bits of it?

I think one of the frustrations that I have heard from some people in the voluntary sector is around capacity within the Senedd, and particularly the committee structure, with large committees. So, the equivalent committees in Westminster, for example, will be tied to a particular department. The capacity in the Senedd means that's not really possible, and I think there are some concerns that sometimes that that limits the ability of those committees to cover the full range of their functions, I suspect, which, if you're one of those voluntary sector organisations working in an area that hasn't been able to be covered, because of that capacity, I think could be frustrating.

Thank you very much. I'll bring Peredur in now. Peredur.

Diolch, Vikki. Hello, Ben. We've looked at the benefits of lobbying. I'd like to flip it over and look at the other side of the coin. Does lobbying pose any problems to or obstruct the proper functioning of representative democratic politics?

I think it's a core part of democratic politics, and I suppose it's notable that the law—. It's notable that the Government has decided that it wants to engage with the public, which will include organisations and lobbyists, particularly around the statutory duties in relation to consultation. I think I've mentioned the third sector partnership council. There's obviously—. It's built in, I suppose, to some parts of the process that that voice is helpful for formulating policy. I think there's definitely a perception, largely driven by the poor behaviour of some lobbyists, particularly in Westminster, that it's somehow a bad activity, and I think probably the term has become associated with a particular type or a particular style of influencing, which isn't one that I believe characterises the work of voluntary sector organisations. So, there's definitely a challenge around those perceptions. But, from our point of view, the voluntary sector, either when organisations are working in relation to their charitable purpose or on behalf of the people represented—I think it's a core element of that democratic process, really.

You were talking about the TSPC earlier, and the CPA, and your members, and I'm just wondering how far the problem potentially goes, and whether or not it goes there at all, of some voluntary organisations having a public affairs person employed; some people employ a lobbyist company. Is there an inequality there—if you've got the money, then you get the influence?

I don't think I would draw the line quite as starkly as that. I think there's a couple of ways that—. Yes, I suppose, inevitably, an organisation that has an in-built public affairs capacity, in-house or external, is going to have the time and the resource to dedicate towards improving its—. Or I suppose to—

I'm just thinking of some of possibly your smaller members that don't have that capacity at all. Is there an inequality then between their ability to influence?

I suppose inevitably it's going to be about the amount of time they're able to dedicate towards it. I think the voluntary sector is quite good at developing either coalitions, whether they're informal, or networks and they're a bit more formal, that are of organisations with a particular interest, or from a particular geographical area. So, I have mentioned the TSPC earlier, and a number of those networks will have members that include smaller organisations, who will, in some ways, be relying on that network to make the case for the activities they work on on their behalf. So, the sector has tried to mitigate some of that by providing some of that infrastructure in place for organisations who aren't able to do so. I would add, though, that I think, as I think Vikki mentioned earlier, some of the most effective lobbying comes from communities or people with lived experience of the policy area Government is working on, and in many cases it’s the smaller organisations who are in a better position to provide that, often in partnership, or potentially in partnership, with a national organisation. So, there's a different—. Smaller organisations will have, I suppose, a different way of making their case that can be as effective. I suppose, just to reinforce it, we do try to do that in partnership where it’s possible to do so.

So, do you think that—? You talked there about the different types of lobbying and different types of organisations. So, do different forms of lobbying pose different levels of threat to the democratic institutions that they're trying to lobby?

I think organisations are going to make the case they want to make using a mix of the resources they have available to them. I don’t think any one is better or worse and I don’t think any of them are inherently threatening. I think it’s difficult for me to say one is better or worse; I think that’s a subjective viewpoint and it depends on what the outcome, the public policy outcome, an organisation’s looking to influence, or the way they feel they’re best placed to make their case.

And do you think—perhaps finally from me, really—that Wales is, because of the nature of our society, the nature of our Parliament compared to Westminster in particular, that a potentially self-regulated industry in Wales, as the lobbying industry seems to be—? Does that—? Is that functioning well because of its size and because we know everybody, effectively? So, is that one of its virtues in a way, that, because of the size of us, there’s not a problem? Or do you think there are any problems within the system?

I think it definitely has an advantage. I suppose, on the issue of self-regulation, which I agree is how the sector largely is regulated at the moment, there are a number of organisations that wouldn’t consider themselves to be in that space at all and therefore wouldn’t need to—. Particularly smaller organisations or community space ones that would never be covered by self-regulation from a body or an organisation for a type of activity they didn’t consider themselves to be doing—. I think there are definitely some significant advantages to the size of Wales and the ability to form those relationships. It helps us to create those partnerships I was talking about earlier; it makes it much easier for us to do work that reflects the country as a whole, which I would imagine is much more challenging in, for example, England, given the population size and also the wide range of geographical areas within it. I suppose the challenge we have always had is that, as is the case everywhere, many people have many different roles, some in organisations, some in coalitions related to that; some will also be a trustee of an unrelated charity in their personal activities and so on. Maintaining transparency around that is something that organisations I think would always need to be aware of.

Diolch, Ben. Diolch, Vikki.

Croeso.

Thank you very much, Peredur. I’ll bring in Peter now; he’s got a series of questions around the possible regulation of lobbying, but, if we don’t get through all of them, we might drop you some written communication after the meeting, Ben. Okay, Peter.

Yes, thank you, Vikki. Morning, Ben, and nice to meet you. Yes, as Vikki says, I just want to look at the regulating of lobbying. The committee has listened to many bodies and registrars who have different perspectives on what regulation should look like, perhaps. We know the Senedd only currently has guidance, and then there's a push for more access to different things. There are concerns around post-employment lobbying as well. I just wondered what kinds of regulatory measures are proportionate, in your view, to lobbying in the Welsh context, and what sorts of forms of regulation could be put in place over and above the known ones.

I should start this section by saying that we didn't find a clear view amongst the people consulted with around what form of regulation should exist. I know a number of voluntary sector organisations are very keen on, particularly, a register, and that's been responded to with written submissions. Others don't hold strong views but are concerned about some of the issues around proportionality. I think the few issues that have been raised with us around proportionality particularly are around smaller groups, and their capacity to, firstly, be aware that they would need to be submitting a return to any register, if that were the model that people were looking at. So, just a lack of awareness that (a) that existed and (b) that they would be covered by it.

And I think there are some concerns as well that smaller or volunteer-led groups without professional public affairs capacity would be deterred from being engaged if they felt there was a cumbersome regulatory regime to be followed, even if actually that regime didn't end up being that cumbersome.

And the third concern we've had raised is around how coalitions and networks would fit into that. I can think of an example recently where a number of us involved in a coalition around community assets met with the support staff of an Assembly Member, and whether we represented the coalition or individual organisations or both, and how do we manage that—is that one return or three returns, for example? So, there are some questions about how that would be managed, which is what we heard from some of our members as well.

The other thing I would add is that we came across a number of members who weren't aware of the Senedd guidance on lobbying, and felt that it would be helpful for the Senedd—and, I suppose, Members of the Senedd—to promote that more widely, I guess.

Yes. I'm conscious of what you've just shared, but do you think or do your members think that a legal framework, if adopted, would be a good idea, or do they think—? I'm conscious that they're not aware of all of the guidance at the moment, but do you think guidance would be sufficient? If there was some legal framework put in place, ought it to have some sanctions in it?

I think we'd probably need a more in-depth discussion with our membership, particularly around sanctions. I suppose it would depend as well who was to be sanctioned. I think the concern we have would be around further deterring those smaller groups who don't perceive that they would have the capacity to conform with the process, which—. In the absence of a specific proposed model, we found it challenging, or we would find it challenging, to have a discussion with our members without some of that detail there. I think some of this is getting into the position where we would need to have a firm proposal, I think, to be able to get into that level of discussion with our members.

Yes, I can understand that. In your view, do you think there—? If there are dangers posed by lobbying, could it be managed by effective regulation?

I think we would support anything that improved greater transparency, which—. I think lots of the perceptions around for lobbying are actually often ones of perception, I think—often a misunderstanding, rather than activity. My initial instinct is that—. My instinct is that I think things that are dangerous are probably not going to be included in any form of regulation anyway, if that makes sense. So, I don't want to be dismissive of the idea, but I think the transparency, you're saying—. I think the aim is around transparency rather than regulating activity or regulating what kind of activity an organisation can engage in. It's about transparency of who has been doing that and, in some people's discussions, about the amount of funding that's been—not direct funding in terms of donations or anything, but in terms of running an event and so on.

I don't know if I've got time for another one, Vikki. I've just got one more from me, then, actually, and I'm not sure where this will go. If there were a regulatory regime in place, who should it attempt to control—lobbyists or the lobbied, or both?

I think probably the onus is on both of those groups to seek to be transparent. For example, the publication of Ministers' diaries has definitely helped in—. I know the detail in there isn't always as illuminating as it could be, but it has definitely helped around some of that transparency. I think both the people who are lobbying and who have been lobbied have a duty to support the transparency, and I think in both cases, both of those groups of people would argue that sharing information, hearing those voices, that that more-persuasive activity has been helpful. So, I think for them to be involved in that public discussion, so I think is probably—. I don't think it's mutually exclusive, that it's one or the other, I suppose.

Yes. Well, thank you, Ben. Thank you, Vikki.

Thank you, Peter. I'll just pick up on a few more points there, Ben, if I might. The first one is about the idea of publishing lists of meetings, and this is something that has come up in some of the evidence that we've taken, and you may be aware that in some other parts of the United Kingdom, as part of lobbying registers, details of meetings are published, but only with Government Ministers. So, I'm just wondering what your views are on the publication of details of meetings, either between different organisations and Government Ministers, or also Members of the Senedd. Would that be a useful component of any overhaul of how lobbying activities are actually noted?

So, I've not come across any organisation in the voluntary sector that would be opposed to that; on the contrary, actually, many organisations are keen to promote that they've had that discussion with Ministers and with Members of the Senedd. I've not come across anyone who is strongly opposed to it. Yes, I think that's the only reflection I have on that, really.

Thank you. And just to make sure that we're clear there: so, you're talking about extending that to all Members of the Senedd, not just Government; you think that that would be a good idea.

We've not heard anyone—. I've not heard from anyone, from the voluntary sector side of things, who would be opposed to that, but I appreciate Members of the Senedd are in a different position to Government Ministers, I suppose, in terms of their control over public policy and public resources.

Thank you. And the other area I wanted to explore with you is post-employment lobbying, this issue of the revolving door between politicians, or people who work in politicians' offices, and the lobbying industry. It's something that has come up in our consultations, and I'm just wondering whether you have a view on whether there should be some sort of cooling-off period for politicians or their former members of staff, before they actually become part of the lobbying profession.

We've not heard evidence directly of people suggesting that. From a voluntary sector point of view, I suppose it's reasonable that people who have worked in the Senedd, or worked in the political side of the Senedd in some form or other, are also going to be interested in jobs around public policy and public affairs—a very similar skill set and value set, often. We've not heard any direct representation on that. So, as background to the committee, I have previously worked in the Senedd for a Member. I left in 2013 and moved to Belfast for four years, so I think that any cooling-off period would probably have been covered by that. But, I think there probably needs to be a degree of proportionality around the prominence of the role, I guess.

Okay, thank you. I'll just check whether Pred's got any questions. Pred, if you wanted to come in here on anything with the regulation of lobbying.

No, just: what challenges would a register cause for your members?

I think the larger members, either national, as in Welsh level, like national in a Welsh context charities, or those charities that are the Wales office of a UK-wide charity are probably more likely to be able to conform to it; they've got the resources and the public affairs staff. I think the challenge further down will be for smaller groups, who are either unwittingly captured by any definition of lobbying and therefore don't comply with the terms of the register because they don't realise they have to, or have a sense that there's—. My larger concern would be about it having an effect on those organisations that are smaller and are deterred from being involved in the political process because they feel there's a large regulatory regime that would go with that. I think that's true even if that regulatory regime wasn't actually in reality that cumbersome.

So, if a register was forthcoming, how would be the best way of handling that with your members in particular? Would it be a rolling start, or any thoughts around that?

I think ourselves and our county voluntary council colleagues and then the national third sector partnership council networks would definitely want to be doing a piece of work around awareness raising with our networks and the various footprints that we have across Wales, both in terms of that it is coming and that there's a little bit of work to be coming, and supporting people to understand what would be required to comply with that or not, really. I think that would likely be the best value that we could have is around supporting organisations to comply with it. We already do support organisations around various governance matters anyway, so I think that would definitely be the starting point for our activity.

Thank you, Vikki. Diolch, Ben.

Diolch.

Thank you, Pered. Ben, I'd like to thank you for coming to our committee this morning and giving evidence. It's been a really, really helpful and useful session, so thank you very much indeed. A copy of the transcript will be provided for you as soon as possible, so that it can be checked for factual accuracy.

Therefore, I propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content to agree the motion? Okay. Thank you. We'll now move to private session.