A challenge for many organisations, is that of geographical boundaries. No sooner has a line been drawn on a map than the grass on the other side of the line can look very green. Alternatively the issues which the organisations want to resolve, do not end at the line set in all good faith, and so time is spent redrawing the line.  For that reason it is only organisations that are obliged to delineate their activity, that tend to do so with any real clarity. As a young sales engineer in 1989 I first learnt this when I was handed a territory  which extended from West Sussex East to Kent and North to Essex, taking in Surrey and South London (the Thames was that Barrier). Any large businesses that had a head office or factory in my area seemed liked fair game, but if they also had premises in other parts of the UK, two of us would spend sales meetings in arguments over whose target the sales really counted against. Ironically we did not even earn any commission from any of the sales and the clients didn’t care whose list their account appeared on, they just wanted to buy our products.

It is essential for any organisation that provides services on a statutory basis that they have a clear basis for who does what and where. The work of Councils, Police Forces, Fire and Rescue, Health, Church of England to name a few that I work with on a daily basis. The same is true of Parliamentary Constituencies. In the Autumn I wrote to MPs all over Sussex in the context of my work for Churches Together in Sussex. It related to their voting decisions on the Lobbying Bill. Several of them refused to enter into correspondence with me, except to explain that they could not correspond with me as I was not a constituent. I tried to point out that my work across Sussex as a whole meant that I had a valid reason for writing to them, and they should respond. Sadly, perhaps because I was challenging their decisions, they chose not to be flexible.

Today the Lobbying Bill returns to the Commons, having been greatly amended by the Lords. The challenge for all of us is how much of the changes these MPs will allow to be retained. One of the changes that was agreed as late as last night was on the issue of geography and the need for charities and other organisations to account for their time and money allocated on a constituency by constituency basis. Richard Harries, previously Bishop of Oxford explained”

“A number of campaigns—for example, against a hospital closure or a motorway extension, let alone HS2—cross a number of constituency boundaries. It would be difficult to allocate expenditure in a transparent way that could be policed by the regulator. With a view to keeping constituency limits, but making them more workable and enforceable, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, brought forward an amendment on Report, but withdrew it in the hope that the Government would bring forward their own amendment to meet these major concerns. In the event, the Government have not done this. I have therefore tabled this amendment, which builds on the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to take into account the point made by the Minister in his response. It also takes into account legal advice to make the wording more precise, clear and therefore workable.”

It would be a travesty for Parliamentarians who are obliged to work within set boundaries, including those like Amber Rudd, Nick Gibb, Mike Weatherley, Charles Hendry and Andrew Tyrie who have used these boundaries as an excuse for not responding to a reasonable request, to then force charities that legitimately do not currently need to account for their behaviour within constituencies, to have to carry out yet more administration. Particularly at a time when charities are struggling to keep their administrative demands in check, so they can do the good work that donors expect them to do. The beneficiaries of these charities do not care about this accountancy either. Let us hope that these MPs and their colleagues will accept the wisdom of the Lords and pass this legislation with all of these amendments.

As Baroness Williams of Crosby explained towards the end of the debate (I have shortened her speech extensively):

“We have to accept that the best compromises that we can get are the best that we can do by this Bill at this late date. I know that it reflects the failure of pre-legislative scrutiny and I know that it reflects the lack of consultation, but given that we are where we are, I think that the recent amendments put forward further improve the Bill…… I think that this House and the commission can legitimately say that they have made a very substantial contribution to making this complicated Bill as good as it could be made.”

It would be very encouraging if our elected representatives were to listen to the charities and many individuals that their rushed Bill is not particularly good, even in its amended state, but it is a great deal better than the original text that was sent to the Lords. Rejecting any of these amendments would be a travesty, unless the decision is to agree a further period of drafting and consultation to improve the Bill even further.