Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 3
3
Paragraph: 21
Omission of Special Advisers' meetings undermines public confidence in lobbying transparency.
Conclusion
The Government’s proposed extension of the transparency releases to include Directors General and other key posts is welcome. However, we remain unconvinced by the Government’s defence of the current level of disclosure of Spads’ meetings. It is true that, as the Government argues, Spads frequently play a significant role in managing the media. Yet it is also clear that they often play a significant role in formulating policy and have a closeness to their Minister that few officials have. That any gifts or hospitality they receive are included in the transparency releases is clear acknowledgement of that influence; therefore to maintain that their meetings should not be disclosed, beyond those with very senior media figures, appears inconsistent. Moreover, perception is key in establishing and maintaining trust in the integrity of the decision-making process. The evidence we have received suggests that there is genuine concern about the continued omission of Spads’ meetings from the transparency releases and references to the applicability of the Carltona Principle manifestly do not address this.
Paragraph Reference:
21