The House of Commons passed the general principles of the 'gagging bill' by 62 votes today. It will now go to detailed scrutiny at Committee stage.. This is what Caroline Lucas, Green MP, wrote about it on her blog.
The ‘Lobbying Bill’, due its second reading today, would have
horrifying implications for the way politics – and political campaigning
– are practised in this country. Outrageously, it would suppress a
range of legitimate voices, while doing very little to expose the murky
world of lobbying.
It’s very much a bill of three distinct parts – one broadly welcome
but inadequate, one of significant concern, and one plain sinister.
Part One of the Bill would set up a register of lobbyists. I’ve been
calling for this for some time, and it’s long overdue. People have a
right to know about the various different influences on the decisions
being made on their behalf. But whereas other parts of the Bill go too
far, this one doesn’t go far enough. As it’s worded, only a small
proportion of the people meeting with ministers and officials, many of
them from powerful companies, would be defined as lobbyists. Instead
of restricting itself to the very narrow group of “consultant
lobbyists”, the scope of the Bill should be much wider, so that it
shines a light on the way lobbying works.
As the Unlock Democracy group
is arguing, the legislation should do far more to improve transparency,
particularly around the financial aspects of lobbying. For example,
the amount paid to lobbyists by clients should be in the public domain,
as should information on anypublic office they have held in the past
five years. And the registrar should be required to report to
Parliament each year on the administration of the Act.
Part Three of the Bill – which has been interpreted as an attempt by
the Government to embarrass Labour over its candidate selection
processes – imposes new requirements on unions. Their obligations to
provide membership information to the independent regulator, who would
gain new powers, would be further tightened. Unions have very
legitimate concerns that this would create another barrier to the right
to take industrial action. Whether this is deliberate or an unintended
consequence, it’s worrying.
But it’s Part Two of the Bill that alarms me the most. By imposing a
quite astonishing range of requirements on campaigning organisations
in the run-up to elections, it would effectively shut down legitimate
voices seeking to raise awareness on issues of legitimate public
interest, whether it’s on NHS reform, housing policy, or wildlife
conservation. Campaign spending limits for “third party” organisations
– such as charities and pressure groups – would be drastically cut, and
the definition of what constitutes campaigning broadened.
And there
would be new forms of regulation for organisations lobbying on issues at
constituency level.
Some of the potential implications of this are frankly terrifying.
In the months preceding an election, it would be harder for campaigners
to criticise the policies of a particular political party.
Organisations would have to deal with a new bureaucracy, and be
obliged to constantly ask whether they could continue many of their
day-to-day activities.
Perhaps most worryingly, the power to stand up against racist or
extremist parties could be curtailed. So we’d have the perverse
situation where the BNP, which as a political party would be exempt from
these rules, would be protected, whereas the activities of those
campaigning against them would be severely restricted.
We can’t allow this to happen. I’ve co-sponsored a reasoned
amendment to the Bill, and next week will be hosting a meeting with
representatives of Unite, Hope not Hate and other affected organisations
so they can put their concerns to MPs ahead of the Bill’s committee
stage.
They are right to be concerned. In the name of transparency, the
Government has published a frankly chilling Bill which would effectively
suppress the debate that it is essential in a healthy democracy.
