The increasingly farcical passage of the Lobbying Bill (or to give it its full title, the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill 2013-14) sees it hit the House of Lords this coming week. Given the number of lobbyists, trade unionists and charity trustees in that institution, debates on the Bill are set to be more than usually entertaining.
The principal arguments have so far centred on Part 2 of the Bill: the clumsy, disproportionate and misdirected attempt to prevent third party campaigning in the year before elections that has succeeded in uniting organisations as diverse as Christian Aid, 38 Degrees and the Countryside Alliance, all of whom were present at a Conference fringe meeting on the Bill which I chaired.
However there are issues of a similar scale with Part 1, which was what the Bill was supposed to be about in the first place: the transparency of lobbyists. We have now seen an even wider alliance of commercial lobbyists, transparency campaigners Unlock Democracy and the TUC come together to call for the legislation to do what the Coalition Agreement was supposed to do: bring forward a transparent register to make sure all involved in lobbying are equally on a statutory register.
To take a case in point, currently subject to heated debate: the regulation of the pub industry. As it stands, the industry’s inhouse lobbyists the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) would not be subject to the statutory register; indeed those campaigning for reform under the Fair Deal for your Local campaign, including CAMRA and the Federation of Small Business would also escape. However, the agency employed by the BBPA, Hanover Communications – who do take part in the voluntary register, would be caught. As Freedom of Information requests have captured the in-house lobbying of the BBPA, why should one be covered by the Act but not the other? It makes no sense.
It is also far from certain that freelance lobbyists – such as a certain senior Reading Labour councillor – would be caught. Currently these freelancers do not have to list their clients. What if, for example, a freelancer who is a councillor in a position of influence was to work in the property industry while sitting on the local planning committee? There is no requirement for transparency in these cases, for no good reason. It all serves to make the Bill look like a dog’s breakfast.
On Part 2 of the Bill, the disgraceful hostility of some Lib Dems towards charities and campaign groups is now being matched by the formation of a powerful alliance of those groups. Whereas the campaigners have published legal advice spelling out the draconian implications of the Bill, the Government will not publish theirs. Charity trustees are warning of an almost existential threat to the sector, while politicians pontificate about the danger of US-style organisations which do not exist in the UK. The toxic persistent rumours of the Bill being used to progress personal vendettas against 38 Degrees in particular will not go away.
Interest to declare: I provide some public affairs advice to CAMRA as a volunteer and am a branch Public Affairs officer. The legislation will not directly affect me, but it will unless amended affect CAMRA and specifically its campaign staff – but not those of the industry lobbyists.
