The role in the political process played by lobbyists is under more scrutiny than ever. In everything from energy policy and banking reform to NHS privatisation and public health initiatives such as minimum pricing or plain packaging, the part played by lobbyists is increasingly controversial. David Cameron claims, ‘the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money … has tainted our politics for too long’. And with scandalous headlines provoking the resignation of a number of leading political figures recently, calls for a statutory register of lobbyists have grown, resulting in the coalition’s new Transparency of Lobbying Bill. 

For critics, the modern lobbyist is a byword for corruption and cronyism and lobbying is a profession so shadowy and disreputable that many of its practitioners deny it’s really their job. Its defenders counter that lobbying is an essential function in a democratic society and we need better and more accountable lobbyists, not fewer. While some believe that for every bit of bad policy there is a sharp-suited lobbyist cashing a fat cheque, others insist it is naïve to argue industry should not have a significant say in relevant matters of government, and that a degree of influence is even desirable.

So should people be wary of what might amount to the privatisation of influence, and rightly suspicious of what might result from seemingly innocent lunches? What about business itself? Has it not always been the case that contracts are won more through who you know than by a fair and open bidding process? Are today’s professional lobbyists, well-versed in the so-called ‘dark arts’, the pin-ups of crony capitalism or an essential part of democratic debate?