The previously reported UK Public Affairs Council has officially launched.

As much previously reported, this is the new body that aims to create and administer a voluntary register for the British lobbying sector, in which lobbyists will be encouraged to declare who they work with and who they deal with in government.

The register, similar to one already operating at a European level, aims to overcome negative perceptions of the public affairs industry; though not everyone in the lobbying sector supports it.

The PAC is backed, though, but the three relevant trade bodies, the Association Of Professional Political Consultants, the Chartered Institute Of Public Relations and the Public Relations Consultants Association.

Launching the new council late last month, Philip Mawer, Chairman of the UKPAC Implementation Group, told esPResso: "For the first time the public can be confident that lobbyists from all walks of life, be they in corporations, charities, local authorities, law and accountancy firms, management or communications consultancies, think tanks and public affairs companies, will be able to be monitored by a single, independent organisation".

He continued: "The UKPAC will create and oversee a central register, updated quarterly, which will hold key details of those who practice public affairs. All those listed will be demonstrating their commitment to promoting public confidence through transparency, accountability and effective self-regulation".

The dispute between the media relations and press cuttings industries and the Newspaper Licensing Agency over the latter's efforts to launch a 'links licence' will rumble on for at least a year. Papers published by the UK Copyright Tribunal last week revealed that in a preliminary hearing last month the copyright court rejected the NLA's efforts to have the legal case against the agency dismissed, and then ruled it wouldn't consider the disagreement in full until February 2011.
As previously reported, the NLA argues that agencies who provide corporate clients with lists of relevant newspaper headlines and links to the actual articles than mention their company should have to pay a licence fee, in the same way they would if they provided photocopies of the actual articles. But the PR industry argues that because no copies are made when links are provided, the copyright laws that empower the NLA in the print media and photocopy domain don't apply with digital links.

Cuttings agency Meltwater and the PR Consultants Association are opposing the NLA's efforts to launch the links licence, and took the matter to the Copyright Tribunal, the court that considers disputes specifically relating to copyright issues and royalty payments. The NLA was forced to suspend its link licence operations when Meltwater began its action, and given the time scale of the Tribunal hearing those operations will now have to be on hold for over a year.

In related news, the NLA recently announced a new fee structure regards their traditional newspaper copying licences for smaller PR agencies, those with less than five staff and three or less clients. The new fees will simplify the licence system for said agencies and, the NLA argues, reduce their costs. Though the boss of one affected agency said that while he recognised both the NLA's claims were true, it still wasn't a cost effective licence for his company.

Mervyn Edgecombe, MD of London-based PR agency Mervyn Edgecombe Associates, told Communicte: "The old system was so complex and convoluted that anything that simplifies the process has to be welcome. [But while] £150 [per client] may not sound much, that's £450 for the three main accounts that would warrant this license, and there's not enough value to justify it. When we get the coverage, we just send the office junior out to buy an extra copy of the paper".

Talking of lobbyists, the PR Consultants Association has confirmed it will be lobbying key decision makers in both government and the Conservative Party as part of its previously reported campaign to stop the Newspaper Licensing Agency from charging PR companies who provide clients with lists of URLs that link to relevant media coverage on free-to-access newspaper websites.

As previously reported, the NLA recently claimed companies who provide such links on a commercial basis need a copyright licence, similar to that required when a communications department or agency distributes photocopies of articles to their managers or clients. But many in the PR and newspaper cuttings industries disagree, saying that as no actual copy is made when a link to a relevant web page is provided, no such licence is required.

Media monitoring company Meltwater is taking the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal about their links licence claim. Meanwhile the PRCA is busy trying to win influential support for their campaign against the NLA's new licence. They recently surveyed 151 MPs on the issue, and say that 65% supported their viewpoint.

Now PRCA chief Francis Ingham now plans to engage in some lobbying on this issue. He told PR Week: "We will now be rolling out the next stage of our campaign against the NLA's plans. It centres on good, old-fashioned political lobbying".

The PR Consultants Association has surveyed both PR agency chiefs and in-house communication execs about the agency pitching process, to identify what both sides of the buying equation are looking for, and what both buyers and sellers could do better.

Some in the agency community have complained in recent times about the increased tendency for potential clients to invite large numbers of their competitors to compete for the same job, or to invite pitches for projects where an internal budget has not yet been confirmed. Such activities increase the risk of the pitching process for agencies.

Commenting on some of those concerns, which have seemingly grown during the recession, PRCA Communications Director Richard Ellis told esPResso: “As the economy recovers we need to start to reverse some counter-productive trends that emerged over the last twelve months such as longer pitch lists and briefs without budgets. Even in the short term these tactics end up providing poorer value for the client. These surveys provide the basis for a series of discussions where both sides can highlight their frustrations and share best practice. More open discussion will lead to better pitching”.

The Association is talking to agencies and in-house teams separately at the moment, with the view to staging a discussion involving both parties in late May.

The Chartered Institute Of PR has denied recent reports in PR Week that members of the association who work in the lobbying sector and who refuse to sign up to new efforts to introduce more transparency into the public affairs arena could be forced to give up their membership.

The CIPR has been collaborating with the PR Consultants Association and Association of Professional Political Consultants on new measures to encourage those in the lobbying sector to voluntarily become more transparent about which companies they represent and which political types they have access to. Pressure for increased transparency has been growing both within Westminster and at a European level.

A voluntary register of interests for the UK public affairs industry, similar to one that already operates in Brussels, is a favoured option, though not everyone in the lobbying sector agrees such a thing is needed.

As part of these efforts, the CIPR, PRCA and APPC are collaborating on the creation of a Public Affairs Council, which would spearhead increased transparency in the lobbying world. PR Week speculated that by supporting the Council, the CIPR would have to change its own members code, and in doing so force lobbyists in its membership to sign up to the new transparency commitments. The trade mag reckoned this would force those CIPR members who oppose the register to leave the body.

But a CIPR spokesman subsequently denied that the Institute’s support for the Public Affairs Council would necessarily require a change of its own code of conduct. The spokesman said: "The article in today’s PR Week is purely speculative. Contrary to the report, the CIPR is not looking to make changes to its code of conduct. What we are doing is taking a leadership role with our partners in this drive for increased transparency in lobbying".

The statement continues: "As part of a planned process we have consulted with members on the implementation of the UK Public Affairs Council, and the need for lobbyists to be registered and declare their clients. We are currently reviewing their comments. We are also looking at the possible implications that CIPR membership of the Public Affairs Council would have for our membership joining and renewals process. Ultimately, it is our members who will decide our next step. Once comments on the consultation have been reviewed we will report back to members".

David Cameron has said that he will introduce new rules to better control the lobbying sector if he forms the next government. In a speech at the University Of East London, the Tory leader said lobbying rules would be introduced as part of a Parliamentary Privilege Act.

There has been increased debate in recent years about whether new rules should be introduced to force those in lobbying and political consultancy to be more transparent about who is talking to whom about what. So far there has been considerable disagreement within the lobbying sector as to whether new rules are needed at all, and if so whether they should be introduced by new laws or a voluntary industry code.

But Cameron says he will take the initiative on this issue if and when he is in power. He said: "It's important that businesses, charities and other organisations feel they can make sure their voice is heard. And indeed, lobbying often makes for better, more workable, legislation. But I believe that it is increasingly clear that lobbying in this country is getting out of control. We don't know who is meeting whom. We don't know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don't know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence. This isn't a minor issue with minor consequences. Commercial interests - not to mention government contracts - worth hundreds of billions of pounds are potentially at stake".

While, as we say, not everyone in the lobbying world will welcome Cameron's comments (and some are probably already lobbying to reduce the impact of any new rules!), the head of public affairs at the PR Consultants Association, Mark Ramsdale, welcomed the Tory man's remarks, though added that new rules should put obligations on MPs and ministers as well as lobbyists, both while in office and once they have left parliament or Whitehall.

He told Creative Business: "This is something that is both timely and necessary. We support fully a transparent and open system. This does however require the system to work both ways. While we continue effectively to provide self-regulation for public affairs practitioners, Parliament must be prepared to do the same for its members. Those who have held office must remain accountable beyond their tenure. With individuals moving so quickly from government positions to roles outside Whitehall - whilst still maintaining a seat in Parliament - their use of insider knowledge and connections inevitably brings into disrepute a vital and legitimate component of the democratic process".

So back to the ongoing dispute between those involved in media monitoring and the Newspaper Licensing Agency.

As much previously reported, the NLA is the body which licences the companies which make photocopies of newspaper cuttings available on a commercial basis, so mainly cuttings and PR agencies. Such a licence is required under UK copyright law, which gives a publisher the right to control who makes physical copies of its content.

The NLA has recently seen a decline in the number of companies buying its licences because increasingly PR people provide their clients or directors with lists of links to online versions of articles about their companies, rather than actual physical photocopies. Because this is basically a digital alternative to the old method of making photocopies of relevant articles, the NLA announced last year that PR agencies would now need to get a licence to legally provide 'link lists' to their clients as well.

However, the PR industry disagrees that such licences are required. Because no copy of an article is actually made when a link to a relevant piece is provided to a client, copyright law does not apply, and therefore no licence is needed. One media monitoring company called Meltwater is so sure this is the case that they have taken the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal - the court that considers copyright disputes - in a bid to get judicial confirmation that no links licence is required. In response to that legal action the NLA put its plans to launch the new licence on hold - or, rather, it claims a licence is still needed, but says it won't invoice anyone until the Tribunal has ruled.

The latest development is that the PR Consultants Association, who have opposed the proposed licence since it was first mooted last year, have formally joined Meltwater as a partner in its legal action against the NLA. The PRCA had previously welcomed the cutting agency's action, and will now work with it in presenting the PR industry's case to the Copyright Tribunal.

PRCA Director General Francis Ingham told esPResso: "In the face of their aggression, it's not good enough just to talk tough with the NLA - we need to act tough too. That is why we have intervened in support of Meltwater. We will now pursue this case with vigour and to a conclusion. We are clear that the NLA's pretensions have no basis in law, and represent an intolerable attempt to restrict and to tax knowledge. We are certain that standing up to the NLA - and standing up for the PR industry - is the right thing to do".

A spokesman for the NLA told reporters: "This move from the PRCA comes as no surprise and makes no difference to web licensing for newspaper content. Monitoring agencies are still required to have and pay for a web licence but we will not invoice their clients for their NLA web licences until the Copyright Tribunal has ruled. We regret that, unlike other trade organisations and companies, the PRCA chose not to engage constructively while the NLA consulted on its web licences throughout 2009".

In related news, the Financial Times has announced it will start to licence digital images of FT newspaper articles directly to cuttings and PR agencies, rather than via the NLA. This isn't related to the controversial links licence, but rather to the licence needed to access PDFs of FT print output for distribution to clients. Such access was previously available with an NLA licence, but as those licences come up for renewal FT content will no longer be included and companies will have to get a licence for the business paper directly. The FT say the move to cut the NLA out of this part of its operations is part of a wider "direct licensing strategy".

A leading online media monitoring company will test the legality of those previously reported attempts by the UK newspaper industry to earn a licence fee from companies who commercially provide links to specific stories on newspaper websites.

As previously reported, the move to charge licence fees to the growing link provider industry is being led by the Newspaper Licensing Agency. They currently licence companies, including PR agencies and traditional media monitors, who regularly make photocopies of specific stories from newspapers, normally stories relating or of interest to their clients. Under UK copyright law, said companies are obligated to pay a licence fee for making commercial copies of newspaper articles.

However, an increasing number of companies in the media relations industry now provide clients or senior executives with lists of links to relevant articles on newspaper websites, instead of actual photocopies of articles from print editions. Aware that this will have a negative impact on their income, as more and more agencies decide to go without a traditional press cuttings licence, earlier this year the NLA announced it would require the PR industry to pay a new licence fee for commercial link provision, which it sees as simply a digital version of the provision of press cuttings.

However, most people in the PR and media monitoring industries disagree. They say that because no copying is done when mere links are provided to a client, there are no obligations under copyright law to pay a royalty. Now the Meltwater Group is planning to put that argument to the test by taking the NLA to the Copyright Tribunal, the British court that adjudicates on copyright disputes.

Meltwater CEO Jorn Lyseggen told esPResso: "Media monitoring services create value for internet users similar to search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Bing. We use sophisticated search algorithms to help our clients find content they otherwise would have difficulties locating. The NLA's attempt to license our clients is essentially a tax on receiving these internet links. This fee is not only unjust and unreasonable, it is contrary to the very spirit of the internet".

Francis Ingham of the Public Relations Consultants Association, who are also opposed to the NLA's proposals, added: "This is an absurd tax which we believe has no legal justification. We are delighted Meltwater is taking a stand against the NLA and will examine whether we can intervene to strengthen their case in the interest of our members. It is ludicrous for organisations to need a licence to receive links to coverage that is freely available to view online".

The NLA's proposals are backed by many, though not all, of the UK newspaper publishers. How the Agency's new licence claims will stand up in court remains to be seen. Presumably the fact a number of British newspapers plan to start putting a lot of their content behind 'virtual walls' in 2010, charging a subscription fee for access, will make the NLA's claim even harder to justify, given the link providers' clients will have to pay to access the content they are directed to anyway, paying via a subscription to each newspaper's website rather than an NLA licencing system.