Lobbying Bill: the noble Lords speak sense

Lobbying Bill: the noble Lords speak sense

At last, we have it. Some sense being spoken on all sides of the House about the Lobbying Bill. It's just a shame that I'm talking about the House of Lords - which we know will always have the time and sense to discuss legislation properly - and not the Commons. The Government must see from yesterday's debate that their Transparency Bill is fundamentally opposed by Peers of all parties, plus the Crossbenchers. It remains a solution in search of a problem to solve.

Of 40 speeches made in the debate, a mere 3 were in support. Two from the Ministers proposing the Bill, and one from Lord Tyler who has been a consistent supporter ever since it appeared in the Commons this summer.

A few highlights from the debate:

The Bishop of Derby: "Very few people are members of political parties or of the professional lobbying groups that pursue political lobbying in a smart way, but millions of people are involved in charities and faith groups. ... Politics needs this political energy for the common good and all the signals—as we can tell from our e-mail inboxes —are that this source of political energy is being closed down and discouraged at the very time we are wringing our hands because the great public are not interested in political parties, elections or the democratic process.”

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour): “This is not emergency legislation or law that requires fast-tracking. … we are concerned that lack of understanding about any new rules and arrangements might dissuade charities and campaigning groups within our communities from participating in campaigns, with the potential chilling effect on free speech and freedom of association. Reform of non-party campaigning regulation requires careful consideration and we need time for that. That is why we are recommending a pause in the legislative process, as has been suggested by other Members of this House. We are asking for more time to be allowed for further consideration of the measures.”

Lord Horam (Conservative): "It is important not to damage civil society or freedom of speech. In my view, the original Bill cast its net too wide as regards Part 2. ... I remain concerned about Clause 27 and the lowering of the threshold for registration. This seems unnecessary. The big spenders—the Bill is about them—already register and are caught by the reduced cap and the wider scope of what is to be controlled, but why go so far down the route to seek to register groups that are spending £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench): "This Bill has been driven by two engines, self-absorption and self-regard—self-absorption because it wilfully misunderstands and ignores both the way in which campaigning works and its meaning to society, and self-regard because it assumes that government and party politicians are more important than public discussion. I fear that the Bill will put Westminster further into a bubble."

I could quote the whole debate, which was excellent, but these comments give a good idea. They speak for themselves.

The debate made clear, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Bill must be paused. I hope Peers will not only keep up the pressure for this, but also listen to the Report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement (www.civilsocietycommission.info), which will be published next Tuesday. It will take a detached and constructive view of the debates that should have been had before this Bill was introduced to Parliament. It will advise the Government as to how to improve our democracy rather than curtail it. Let's hope they listen.

And on a happier note, I had coffee at the Commons with our new shadow third sector Minister (or civil society if you prefer) Lisa Nandy MP. Always good to see someone who has had a career in our sector taking up this role. Lisa worked in Centre Point and the Children's Society so has a clear view on the role our sector can play campaigning and providing. We talked about the origin of the role and the fact that Ed Miliband was the very first Third Sector Minister (as he reminded her when she was appointed, she told me).

She clearly relishes the opportunity to get stuck in and good luck to her. Its been a strength that there is strong cross party support for our sector, and we have a Minister in Nick Hurd MP who also understands and supports us - even when some colleagues on the backbenches would like a more combative approach. I enjoyed lunch last week with Chris White MP, conservative and the promoter of the great Social Value Act and we were discussing how to maintain that support . We have always enjoyed a strong consensus across the parties about the role of our sector. We must hope that arguments about pay , campaigning or lobbying do not undermine that.

Silencing society: The dangers of the lobbying bill

An article by my new Policy Officer - George Bangham

Adversity makes strange bedfellows. The old proverb isn’t wrong. In the ongoing debate on the lobbying bill which continues in the House of Lords today, the alliances formed to defend civil society’s free speech have ranged from the strange to the downright improbable.

What else would cause the Lancashire Badger Group and the Countryside Alliance, or the Christian Institute and National Secular Society, to work together in public? Where else would the TUC join with lobbying industry bodies in mutual outrage?

This scale of opposition is rare. This week, the Lords should seize their opportunity to make the bill fit for purpose.

When the lobbying bill entered parliament, one day before summer recess, it was expected just to regulate corporate lobbying, as the public wanted. Lobbying is by no means intrinsically bad, but as David Cameron himself admitted in February 2010, it was ‘the next big scandal’ that promised to weaken the public’s trust in politics.

Cameron’s response at the time was sensible enough. He called it “absurd that a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to one hundred per cent of the population. Instead of locking people out of this process… we need to invite them in.” Many were pleased at the time, thinking ideas like a public reading stage for bills might actually improve the public’s view of politics. How far we have come since the election.

Far from being the grand restorer of public trust in politicians and lobbyists, the lobbying bill has been decried by MPs as not worthy even of a ‘dog’s breakfast’. It has swept any meaningful action on lobbying under the carpet, and further privileges the voices of political parties and the media in pre-election debates. This is particularly short-sighted at a time when some charities count members in their millions, while no political party has more than 200,000.

The bill’s second part profoundly threatens the freedom of speech of charities and campaigners in the year before a general election. Clause 26, which decides whether part 2 covers a given organisation, widens the type of spending civil society groups must register with the Electoral Commission in the year before an election. Unlike the equivalent registration threshold for political parties – who spent over ten times more than civil society in 2010 – it includes all staff costs and many conferences and public events.  The rest of part 2 then heavily reduces the national allowance by 60%, and only 2% of this may be spent in one constituency.
Baroness Jay concluded last week, for the Constitutional Reform Committee, that these spending limits leave them “concerned about the restrictions on [civil society’s] right to freedom of political speech”. She added that “this constitutional right should only be interfered with where there is clear justification for doing so.” The only evidence offered for part 2 was “a perception of a lack of transparency” in non-party campaigning – this is not enough justification.

However outrageous the Bill may seem, however, I hope it will open up several long-overdue debates about our country’s democracy in the coming century.

First, we cannot allow even popular governments to force through constitutional legislation without even trying to consult the public or carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. Graham Allen MP was right to point out that “parliament has been disrespected; parliament has been abused.” Groups like 38 Degrees greatly increase the number of politically-engaged voters, who government must keep onside for laws to be credible.

This week, this principle means the Lords must listen to the report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democracy, an alliance of over 50 civil society groups chaired by Lord Harries (former Bishop of Oxford). It will publish the findings of its national consultation next week, which has been an excellent replacement for public consultation in such limited time.

Second, our country needs to ask how we enable charities and campaigners to speak for their beneficiaries – who usually have little other democratic voice – without being marginalised by political parties and the media. It is telling that even the Commission on Civil Society, whose signatories represent millions of UK voters, has received little media coverage. This week, peers should oppose lowering the spending threshold for civil society groups.

Lastly,  we must still argue the case to truly ‘keep big money out of politics’. The government has not demonstrated why they should limit the voice of civil society – where millions of people donate a few pounds each to a cause – while leaving areas like party funding and corporate lobbying untouched. These areas are where unaccountable millions of pounds influence our politics, not charities.

This leaves the lobbying bill both a grave threat and an opportunity. In the short term, part 2 must be properly amended to disarm its attack on civil society, by rewriting clause 26 and increasing the spending thresholds in clause 27. This is also a good time to start debating other, important questions of democratic representation.

In the run-up to 2015, the bill offers a golden opportunity to any party which offers to repeal it and write a proper one in its place. That, at least, shouldn’t be too hard.