Lobbying has always been looked down upon and lobbyists more often than not have been treated with contempt, generally associated with unscrupulous arms dealers or oil companies, an ugly activity whereby individuals seek to use their connections, information or considerable skills in persuasion to influence elected officials to calibrate public policy to benefit certain individuals or corporations.
Lobbyists would naturally never admit to lobbying and will bristle with righteous indignation, insisting that that their intentions are always honorable and their sole objective is to educate, inform or advocate. Of course, there are some lobbyists with noble intentions too such as the pro environment lobby seeking to stall legislation which they perceive is harmful to the wellness of our planet.
The anti-lobbying clause was clause was brought into force to ensure that pressure groups could not apply for government grants and achieve their objective of swaying government officials to benefit their causes.
However, this amendment, although precipitated by noble intentions was bad news for British scientists and researchers who are the recipients of more than $4 billion in government funded research grants and have been granted the freedom to interact with government agencies to facilitate good policymaking. This amendment, nicknamed the “gagging clause” by the press, has been castigated by critics as well as the scientists and researchers because it would inhibit the formation of effective public policy by divorcing it from science and research and thus lead to incompetent policymaking.
The controversy essentially stemmed from the amendment’s vague wording which seeks to prevent funding of recipients from “activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, government or political parties or legislative or regulatory action.” The fact is that “influence” is an ambiguous word, open to many interpretations ranging from serving on a government-sponsored committee, consulting with policymakers or simply responding to questions. Critics also aver that prohibiting interactions between researchers and government, ironically also leaves the government vulnerable to the influence of private lobbying groups.
The government has now sought to quell all the criticism by confirming that the anti-lobbying law would not prevent publicly-funded scientists from facing restrictions on discussing their findings or prevent recipients from performing activities that are part of the intended purpose of a grant. Furthermore, grant recipients could continue to discuss the findings of publicly funded research with the government or the Parliament, whether that be giving evidence or in an advisory capacity.
