Concerns about transparency and lobbying continue in East Devon: pt 3

There have been several issues raised of late with regard to the 'conduct' of local authorities:
> allowing the recording of official meetings; and
> keeping tabs on local planning lobbyists:
Futures Forum: Concerns about transparency and lobbying continue in East Devon: pt 2 

There have been issues raised about how this District Council has 'conducted' itself:
> transparency of spending and personal interests;
> responses to Freedom of Information requests; and
> the ongoing saga of the TAFF on the Business Forum:
Futures Forum: Concerns about transparency and lobbying continue in East Devon: pt 1
See also: The Business TAFF drags on | Sidmouth Independent News 

There is now the immediate question of how central government's attempts to allow for more transparency and to regulate lobbying could have the reverse effect:
Futures Forum: Concerns for campaigning 

There is deep disquiet here in East Devon:

1. At 11:59 am on 26th Aug Peter Bending wrote:

Would I be right in thinking that if this proposed law was in place in the early nineteen hundred Emily Pankhurst would not have been able to campaign for women’s right to vote and therefore Ms Smith could not have been elected to Parliament or is that too simplistic

2. At 12:11 pm on 26th Aug Philip Algar wrote:

In this part of the country, there are many projects and causes we must fight. However,  whether this latest government idea is intended to suffocate legitimate opposition or clumsily drafted potential legisation, it must be fought hard. All else pales into insignificance if the basic right to protest, as that is what could happen, becomes law in this country. I do not want to live in a totalitarian state. Too many have given everything, over the years, to preserve our freedom. We must fight to retain it. Tell the minister your thoughts. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT.

claire-wright.org/index.php/post/new_battle_begins_against_govt_plot_to_outlaw_campaigning/  

Tomorrow, the Lobbying Bill will come before Parliament:

02 September 2013

Charity bosses meet ministers to discuss lobbying Bill fears

Jonathan Werran

Ministers will meet today with charity chiefs to allay concerns about perceived constraints on their ability to lobby government contained in the Lobbying Bill.

A deputation from National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) are set to hold talks in Whitehall with leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley, deputy leader Tom Brake and Chloe Smith – who is minister for political and constitutional reform at the Cabinet Office.

Third sector bodies – including the Royal British Legion, Oxfam, and the Salvation Army - have expressed fears the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill could make them liable for criminal charges when speaking out on public matters.

Last week the Electoral Commission, which would be responsible for monitoring the rules told MPs in a briefing that even if it advised charities on what they could do, they could not offer guidance with certainty as their views would be open to challenge.

Speaking ahead of today’s talks, Karl Wilding, director of public policy at NCVO, said the Bill would put charities and community groups ‘into a position where no one has any idea what the rules are, but may nevertheless face criminal prosecution for getting them wrong’.

‘I would like the government to give serious consideration to putting its proposals on hold,’ said Mr Wilding.

‘This would give them the chance to consult properly on a solution that addresses concerns about undue influence in politics without the risk of sweeping every charity and community group in the country into a deeply burdensome bureaucratic regime,' Mr Wilding added.

Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith said: ‘My fellow ministers and I are very happy to listen to the concerns and ideas of organisations affected by this legislation, but I hope to be able to put the NCVO's minds to rest that we do not intend to capture a huge swathe of their membership who are not already registered as third party campaigners.

‘At the 2010 General Election, very few charities were registered as third parties. Provided they continue to campaign as most of them always have - that is, they are not promoting the electoral success or otherwise enhancing the standing of parties/candidates - charities will not be affected by this legislation,’ Ms Smith added.

Charity bosses meet ministers to discuss lobbying Bill fears > LocalGov.co.uk

Lobbying bill threatens free speech for charities, says top lawyer

Human rights lawyer Helen Mountfield QC says legislation would impose 'chilling effect' on campaigning for voluntary sector

• Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
• The Guardian, Monday 2 September 2013
• Jump to comments (17)

Environmental protesters on the Palace of Westminster roof. The lobbying bill will curtail the ability of charities and non-party groups to campaign on political issues in the 12 months before a general election. Photograph: Kieran Doherty/Reuters

Charities in Britain will be put in fear of criminal prosecution by the "chilling effect" of curbs on political campaigning in the government's lobbying bill that is due to receive its second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday, a leading human rights lawyer has warned.

Amid nerves in government at the growing opposition to the bill, which will widen the definition of election campaigning by third parties, Helen Mountfield QC warns the proposals could be in breach of the right to free speech.

The legal opinion by Mountfield, who works in the Matrix legal chambers founded by Cherie Booth QC and other human rights lawyers, is released by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) ahead of the second reading of the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill.

The bill, which is designed to introduce a statutory register for lobbyists and to make trade union funding more transparent, will curtail the ability of charities and other non-party groups to campaign on political issues in the 12 months before a general election.

It would cut from £989,000 to £390,000 the amount third-party groups could spend in this period before a general election. The bill would also broaden the definition of what constitutes "election campaigning", outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000. The new bill says that activity could be deemed to come within the terms of the act if it affects the outcome of an election even if that was not its purpose.

In her legal opinion, Mountfield says the Cabinet Office claims charities will not be covered by the legislation. But she cites a recent report by the Electoral Commission, which warned charities could be covered, to say that the NCVO is right to be concerned. The bill would "have a chilling effect on the expression of views on matters of public interest by third sector organisations".

Mountfield warns of of uncertainty over what the bill means by "for political purpose". She writes: "This uncertainty about what the law requires is likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, by putting small organisations and their trustees/directors in fear of criminal penalty if they speak out on matters of public interest and concern."

She says the "restrictions and restraints are so wide and so burdensome as arguably to amount to a disproportionate restraint on freedom of expression, notwithstanding the legitimate aim of ensuring equality between candidates so that all voices can be heard in an election".

Mountfield illustrates potential dangers to charities by citing the example of a group that campaigned against plain cigarette packaging in the runup to an election. She wrote: "The charity might … be deterred from making its views on packaging known, for fear of triggering an obligation to register as a recognised third party with the Electoral Commission, with the consequent complex and bureaucratic requirements for apportioning and accounting for the costs … The consequence could be to stifle comment on a matter of legitimate public concern, for an extended period of time."

Karl Wilding, director of public policy at NCVO, said: "This bill takes us from a situation in which charities and community groups largely understood the rules on what they could do, into a position where no one has any idea what the rules are, but may nevertheless face criminal prosecution for getting them wrong. This is the inevitable consequence of rushing legislation through without any consultation.

"I would like the government to give serious consideration to putting its proposals on hold. This would give them the chance to consult properly on a solution that addresses concerns about undue influence in politics without the risk of sweeping every charity and community group in the country into a deeply burdensome bureaucratic regime."

Lobbying bill threatens free speech for charities, says top lawyer | Politics | The Guardian

Under the disguise of fixing lobbying, this Bill will crush democratic protest

OWEN JONES

Sunday 1 September 2013

There is no question that British democracy is at the mercy of wealthy and corporate interests, but the Lobbying Bill takes aim at our hard-won freedoms instead

Warnings of threats to democracy should be sparingly issued: they contain the risk of undermining an argument through hyperbole, of making us numb to genuine menaces. But be under no illusions: the Government’s catchily titled Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill is an audacious stab at many of our hard-won democratic freedoms. It does nothing to take on the corporate lobbyists who give Big Money its shady political clout, but it threatens to stifle the voices of charities, campaigners, trade unions and even blogs; to shut down rallies and demonstrations; and to prevent groups such as Hope Not Hate from taking on the poison of organised racism.

Here’s what has happened. David Cameron once warned that lobbying was “the next big scandal waiting to happen”. It seemed prescient when City banker-turned-Tory party treasurer Peter Cruddas was the victim of aSunday Times sting operation that seemed to expose him suggesting money could buy access to the Tory leadership. As it turned out, the paper had defamed him and had to cough up £180,000 in damages. But nonetheless, the Tories did what they have proven so adept at doing: turning a crisis of their own into a crisis for their enemies, just as they transformed a financial crisis into a public spending crisis.

There is no question that British democracy is at the mercy of wealthy and corporate interests. Tony Blair’s attempts to rid Labour of its dependence on trade union members’ donations in favour of private benefactors led to the first time a prime minister has been formally questioned in No 10 in the so-called cash-for-honours scandal. The indefensible undemocratic sham that is the House of Lords means that wealthy establishment figures, many of whom have donated generously to political parties, are parachuted on to the red benches. Hedge fund managers, bankers, asset strippers and legal loan sharks bankroll Cameron’s Conservative Party. The former Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley received £21,000 worth of funding for his personal office from John Nash, the former chairman of Care UK, a private health company that stands to benefit from the privatisation of the NHS. Cameron’s key adviser Lynton Crosby is a lobbyist for big tobacco, private healthcare companies and elements of the Syrian rebels. Major banks and businesses casually issue economic blackmail – both privately and publicly – when elected governments propose policies that displease them. And then there’s the army of shadowy corporate lobbyists, whispering in the ears of ministers, special advisers and civil servants.

But the “lobbying” Bill – surely one of the most badly written pieces of legislation put to the Commons in recent times – deals with none of these scandals. Consultant lobbyists operating on behalf of a third party will have to be placed on a register. That’s easy to get around: big business will simply take their lobbyists in-house, leading to even less transparency.

Part two of the Bill, which governs “non-party campaigning, etc”, will transform what is meant by “election campaigning”. Currently, all organisations spending more than £10,000 on campaigning in England and £5,000 in Scotland or Wales must register with the Electoral Commission; that will drop to £5,000 and £2,000 respectively. As things stand, registered charities and other campaigning organisations can spend up to £989,000 a year before a general election; not only will this be slashed to £390,000, it now includes everything from staff costs to transport, market research to public meetings.

The defenders of this Bill argue that it will stop the importing of US-style political action committees (PACs), which are vehicles for the outright capturing of politics by the wealthy elite. But that is to target a problem that does not even exist, because current law prevents this from happening. Instead, this vaguely worded Bill targets anything which may impact on an election, whether or not that is the intention, leaving it up to the Electoral Commission to decide. In practice, that could mean everything that can possibly be campaigned about:  Shelter calling for more social housing or a cancer charity fighting for more resources.

Because the Bill is so open to interpretation, it will have a chilling effect. Trustees of charities will fear anything that invites criminal investigation, shutting down scrutiny of government or campaigns for changes in policy. It will entangle organisations in a bureaucratic nightmare, forcing them to account for all of their spending. No wonder the British Medical Association said that “if the Bill is passed, its impact could be deeply disturbing, especially as it raises concerns about what this would mean for freedom of expression”.

The implications are frightening for any genuine democrat. The TUC suggests that it could make organising its 2014 annual congress a criminal offence, as well as prevent it from holding a national demonstration in election year. It is difficult, then, to quibble with its assessment that this is “an outrageous attack on freedom of speech worthy of an authoritarian dictatorship”. And then there’s Hope Not Hate, which has played a pivotal role in taking on the scourge of political racism: while its spending would be capped, the BNP would be allowed to spend anything up to nearly £19m. Political blogs such as ConservativeHome and LabourList could be included, too, since they are campaigning entities that attempt to impact the outcome of an election.

The legislation means yet further state regulation of trade unions, which – as Tony Blair once boasted – suffer laws that are “the most restrictive in the Western world”. A Certification Officer will be imposed on them with access to their register of members’ names and details, including correspondence with the union. It is unclear for what purpose exactly, though: unions already have to present meticulously accurate membership records during industrial action, because employers can otherwise shut down strikes through the courts. One theory is that it will be used to cause havoc in internal Labour Party selections: a complaint from the Conservatives or Lib Dems about a candidate could trigger an inquiry from the Certification Officer about how they were selected.

What government has launched such a shameless assault on our democracy in recent times? Privately, Lib Dem MPs have talked of the need to prevent student organisations from tarnishing candidates, thus securing a Labour win: damning evidence that they want to shut down scrutiny of their many broken promises during their shabby term in office. Voltaire once acidly remarked that the Holy Roman Empire “was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”; the Liberal Democrats have shown that they are neither liberal nor democrats. But our rights and freedoms were won through the struggle and sacrifice of our ancestors. It is not for us to allow them to be casually tossed to one side. This Bill – this brazen insult to democracy – must be defeated, crushed, obliterated. Time is running out. 

Owen Jones: Under the disguise of fixing lobbying, this Bill will crush democratic protest - Comment - Voices - The Independent
Beware consequences of 'rushed' lobbying legislation, MPs warned - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
.
.
.