Ivan Horrocks of the Open University first drew my attention to the government's plans to restrict 'lobbying' by UK academics in receipt of UK government research funding. Now Ivan has taken the next logical step and asked the Cabint Office what that might mean. This is his letter to them:
Dear Sir/Madam
I am contacting you regarding the Cabinet Office proposal to insert a clause into contracts for publicly (ie. government) funded research that would restrict the ability of the recipient(s) of that funding from "lobbying".
As you may aware, discussion of this issue is now going viral following a report in The Guardian on Sunday and a follow up blog on the matter that is now trending heavily on Facebook. As an academic with a direct interest in this proposal I am urgently trying to get clarification on a number of points relating to this proposal. I have searched the Cabinet Office web site for more details, but to no avail, hence the need to contact you by email.
My questions are as follows. I have kept them brief as precise answers are essential and a prompt response would also be appreciated so that I can inform colleagues and contacts of the exact nature and breadth of the proposal.
1. To what research contracts will the clause apply (eg. government departments and agencies; research councils; local government; research directly funded with "public" money by universities; etc)?
2. What is the definition of "lobbying" that will be applied?
3. To whom does the clause apply (eg. to the principal/lead investigator, or to all those involved in conducting research covered by a contract)?
4. What will be the penalty should the clause be breached, and to whom will it apply and for how long?
Many thanks in anticipation of your help.
Yours faithfully.
Dr Ivan Horrocks
Programme Director: Technology Management
Department of Engineering and Innovation
The Open University
Milton Keynes
UK
When there are answers to these questions the next obvious one is what the consequences of this is on impact as defined for the academic Ref process might be. But we'll get to that in due course, although it would seem at present as if the two will be in almost direct conflict one with another.
You will be kept posted.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What’s funny is comparing this with right wing belief in central bank above government.
PQE is being “quietly dropped” for the sake of CB independence. This bodes ill. Wren Lewis and his ilk want control of money in the hands of economists not politicians. It’s a power grab:
https://mobile.twitter.com/sjwrenlewis/status/702099951015358464
I comopletely disagree with Simn on this one
I am afraid he evidences a lack of real world experience
My guess is that if it ever comes to pass it will be kept as vague as possible with weasel-word answers to the types of questions posed by IH. I doubt if there will be any explicit penalties based on published criteria, not least because that could be appealed in court and the resulting bad publicity would be unwelcome to all concerned. That way it can be used more or less arbitrarily to impose ‘drag’ on future grant applications and/or used as another stick by senior management in Universities.
Reading the Observer article I was struck by:
“According to the Cabinet Office, it is intended to broaden government action aimed at stopping NGOs from lobbying politicians and Whitehall departments using the government’s own funds.”
Moving to Brussels, the European Commission funds a significant number of NGOs so that they can….. lobby the European Commission i.e. act as a counterweight to the well organised, well funded business groups. I guess you would call it “balance” or a modest attempt to make sure a plurality of voices are heard. EC working on the basis that the NGOs act in the public interest. Interesting to see that the err… “birthplace of parliamentary democracy” is heading in exactly the opposite direction.
My reading of the situation is that the Government is keen to stop Charities campaigning against Government policy using money from Government grants.
As with so much waspish, shallow thinking, problems arise when petty policies are scaled. A treatment for the pond may poison the ocean.
Firstly, Charities have always lobbied Government. However, Government funding gives them leverage. Now that Charities have been co-opted to deliver Government services, they are threatened with loss of funding if they campaign. The latest Cabinet clauses explicitly formalises this situation since a cheeky subset were ignoring the implicit threats.
Secondly, Government are politically unable to draw up a selective list of those who should be silenced, so they use the catch-all of ‘all government grant recipients’. I don’t believe that academics were the main target. It may, for the Government, just be a happy coincidence!
But academics are the only target of the new measure
Academics are not the only target (or in my view the intended target).
The government’s own announcement of the clause makes reference to research by the Institute of Economic Affairs, quoting the unusual phrase ‘Sock Puppets’ here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements
This page states that the clause relates to all “Organisations receiving government grants”.
In turn, the Institute of Economic Affairs describes its own research, using the term ‘Sock Puppets’ here:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/sock-puppets-how-the-government-lobbies-itself-and-why
The IEA also makes their target clear in the link above:
“New research, released today, reveals the true extent of government funded lobbying by charities and pressure groups.”
Moreover, the detailed government guidance that has now been released specifies charities in Clause 12 in this document:
‘https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498271/Implementation_Guidance_for_Departments_on_Anti-Lobbying_Clause.pdf
>>
Q12: Where departments use third party organisations (either public, private or charity sector) to administer grants on their behalf, will the clause need to be included in the T&Cs between the third party and the grant recipient?
A: Yes. Departments will need to ensure that the clause is included in all grant agreements that the Department ultimately funds, subject to exceptions signed off by Ministers. This guidance should be shared as necessary.
>>
I suspect academics are just collateral damage in the Government’s attack on organisations like Charities who know how to lobby, who are motivated to campaign and are largely staffed by altruistic individuals who likely hate the Tories.
Trevor
I have discussed this issue on the blog – and responses to the absurdity of the IEA position
Richard
I guess the point I’m making is that I don’t believe the Government is against research (the acquisition of knowledge). It is instead against any action based on that research that might conflict with its own Neoliberal interests.
Agreed
The big question is what restrictions will there be on private sector lobbying where firms are in receipt of public/government funding (for delivery of whatever services they are contracted to supply).
This would be particularly interesting if a conglomerate was not allowed to lobby on – e.g. finance, as another branch of the company has a contract to operate a rail franchise.