The gagging Bill has be through all of its stages in the House of Commons and is now 80% of the way through the Lords. Although many opportunities have been lost to improve the legislation, largely through ignorance or arrogance in the Government and the coalition parties, the Bill which was meant to bring an end to lobbying scandals seems destined to damage democracy and reduce our freedom of speech.

The Association of Professional Political Consultants (lobbyists) is keen for the Government to have effective lobbying legislation. On 3rd June 2013 they responded to the announcement that the Government intended to bring forward a bill: “We welcome news that the Government will introduce a statutory register of lobbyists during this Parliament. In order to be fully effective it must capture all lobbyists operating in the UK – that includes in-house lobbyists, lawyers and trade unionists. For a long time lobbyists have been arguing that a workable register which lists the details of all practising lobbyists combined with full departmental disclosure of ministerial meetings will enhance transparency in the interactions of the lobbyists and the lobbied. The APPC looks forward to working with the Government and with all parties to get this right.”

Around 6 weeks later when the Bill was published the APPC said “Recent research we undertook found that DBIS ministers in 2012 had 988 meetings with lobbyists – just two were with consultant lobbyists. In other words the new bill will not capture the 99% of lobbyists who meet regularly with ministers – hardly fulfilling the Government’s goal of increasing lobbying transparency.” In fact the failure is much greater than the APPC suggests as the majority of influence exerted over legislation does not happen with Ministers, but with those who draft legislation, often working closely with outside ‘experts’. This activity is not included in any way within the current Bill.

However the problems go beyond the failure to capture the lobbying that does take place, because the Bill also attempts to bring organisations and bodies that do not lobby in a formal sense, into a framework that will demand accountability for time and money spent when they contact MPs or candidates standing in elections. The intention is that organisations using hidden funds and unseen resources to change the outcome of elections should be identified and their actions made public so that democracy is transparent. Whilst this is laudable, the red tape and bureaucracy involved will also deter 1000’s of organisations that are simply encouraging their members to pay attention to democratic processes. In some cases the deterrent will impact organisations that have nothing to fear from the legislation itself. However they will choose to avoid the risk of being caught up in a monitoring and reporting regime designed for political parties, along with the management time needed. This will leave charities and community organisations less involved in democratic processes than at present, leaving democracy in the hands of private interests even more than at present. In part this collateral damage will be caused because charity trustees and those who work in community organisations are more committed to their organisation than they are to wider interests. Many of these people are at heart risk averse, with limited resources to achieve significant outcomes for others. They may also fear that others will see their actions, no matter how innocent and challenge the organisation and question its independence. The following are three specific examples:

Example 1 – A group of local Churches in Sussex hold a hustings meeting with candidates prior to General Elections, allowing local residents to challenges and meet the candidates. They have already decided that based on their current understanding of the legislation, they will not continue to do this if the Bill is passed.

Example 2 – A charity in Brighton which works across Sussex reducing poverty and improving health for vulnerable people, and assisting people with a chaotic lifestyle from finding work. For many years they have engaged with MPs and Councillors, but have decided they will no longer take the risk of being caught up in activity that could look like lobbying. This means they won’t meet with candidates, Cllrs or MPs and they won’t allow their name to be used in any election material (as it has in the past) or photographs taken with any candidates. The consequence of this is less publicity for the charity and greater ignorance of these issues for the candidates or post holders, hence poorer policy decisions!

Example 3 – A New Year campaign by The Ramblers Association involved sending a personalised Ordnance Survey Map to Mike Weatherley, MP for Hove, which he tweeted about. If this is a real map (list price £7.99) and the Ramblers do the same for each MP in the UK, the cost of the maps alone will be over £5,000. This single act, if an election is called within the next 12 months (assuming the coalition falls apart) would be sufficient to oblige the Ramblers to register under the new legislation, requiring them to account for all of their expenditure and all of their meetings with candidates etc. All for the sake of a neat bit of marketing!

It is not rocket science to work out what is wrong with this Bill, but sadly the Government is either not listening, or simply doesn’t care. However it is not too late to contact your MP and raise your concerns about this, before the Bill becomes law!