When Westminster returned from its Christmas break this month, the Commons public administration select committee (PASC) had a bombshell waiting. Its report Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall spells trouble for lobbyists, and for former ministers eager to take up lucrative private sector jobs. But its recommendations also have major implications for the civil service.

A potential tightening of the rules for recording gifts and hospitality is on the cards, as are more restrictions on officials’ ability to leave the civil service for consultancy posts. But PASC, usually described as one of Westminster’s most influential committees, also wants to see a giant leap forward in transparency: the creation of a mandatory register to capture details of all meetings between decision-makers and outside interests. “Decision-makers” here means all ministers and senior civil servants, and “outside interests” means anyone who wants to have a say in the policy-making process.

The maintenance of a register would place a significant burden on the civil service. Officials would be charged with publishing details of meetings, explaining who attended and what was discussed, and including summary minutes (although there would be a get-out clause where commercial confidentiality or the national interest was concerned). The lobbyist, minister or civil servant would also have to provide a summary of their CV and a statement of interests, to highlight any possible undue influences.

Does such a far-reaching register – one that hopes to capture details even of lunches and brief conversations – have any hope of becoming reality? Transparency campaigners hope so. Spinwatch, a group dedicated to uncovering malpractice by the PR and lobbying industries, gave evidence to the inquiry and is understandably pleased with the result. “I don’t know how many meetings civil servants have with lobbyists but I can’t imagine the duty would be that onerous, and if they’re meeting people it should be transparent,” says spokesperson Tamasin Cave. She points to the “enormous backlash” over the approval of Heathrow’s expansion as evidence of what happens when the government is not open, and says ministers should act on the PASC report to “restore some trust in the decision-making process at a time when it is breaking down”. But Cave admits she is on the optimistic end of the spectrum; the reality is that few within Whitehall would welcome such a drastic step.

Jonathan Baume, general secretary of the FDA, says he believes that greater transparency is “just the way we’re going”, but acknowledges that civil servants “probably would” resent the register. Nonetheless, he adds: “The barriers here tend to be from politicians. Transparency is lacking because ministers don’t particularly want it.” Baume is cautious over PASC’s report, warning that no register can provide full transparency. “They’re looking for the bogeyman in the system, but trying to pin it down is like trying to put jelly into a bottle: stuff will squeeze out all over the place,” he comments. “There will always be ways in which dialogue can be held which is not recorded or clearly transparent.”

This view is shared by Klaus Bröesamle, a researcher at Oxford University and the LSE who specialises in public administration. “You will never be able to prove whether a decision like Heathrow was subject to undue influence by third parties,” he says. “While transparency is generally a good thing, very strong requirements will simply push activity underground.”

In fact, Bröesamle says – and it is a view shared by Baume – the committee is focusing its fire on the wrong end of the legislative process: the real weakness is a lack of Parliamentary scrutiny. “It’s the outcome of the policy-making process that counts – the law that’s passed – so what you need is for Parliament to check that what’s being passed is balanced legislation,” he says.

Most of the commercial lobbyists who spoke to PASC argued that a mandatory register would be an unnecessary burden on the industry. Lionel Zetter, a public affairs consultant and former president of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations – who gave oral evidence to the committee – says the same is true for the civil service. “Of all the PASC recommendations, the most onerous is that contacts between MPs, ministers and civil servants and lobbyists should be logged,” he says. “This would put a huge burden on the civil service. The recommendations are the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut.”

Opinion is divided over how likely the government is to take up the committee’s plans. Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, who will lead the department’s response to the report, wrote a guarded response in lobbying trade magazine Public Affairs News – Whitehall & Westminster World’s sister title. Calling PASC’s findings “unexpectedly prescriptive”, he said he did not want to create onerous regulatory burdens – but added that “sensible and practical” recommendations could be taken forward.

Zetter suggests that the looming general election will prevent the government from legislating. But he also notes that one or all of the parties may pledge to ‘clean up’ lobbying in their manifestos. In the meantime, the government may well take forward some of the report’s recommendations on the ‘revolving door’ between the civil service and consultancies; and indeed, action in this area is long overdue.

Since 2004, ministers have been considering altering the rules governing the movement of former minister and senior civil servants into the private sector. It seems hard to believe that this time it will not act to refresh the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which considers the most senior cases. Best described as venerable, the committee’s members have all served unpaid for at least a decade while they wait for reform, and have themselves repeatedly called for changes to the rules.

If ACOBA’s rules are refreshed, senior civil servants interested in joining the private sector can expect more restrictions on their activities outside Whitehall, overseen by a more proactive committee. Even if this is the only one of PASC’s recommendations that comes to fruition, greater scrutiny of the civil service’s relations with outside influences seems inevitable.