Sir Stephen Bubb, once a surcharged Lambeth Councillor but now a Knight of this Realm (that is what the Labour Movement is all about), writes:
Cast your mind back, for a moment, to the months before
this election campaign began.
Last summer we were looking forward to the then-anticipated leaders’ debates between the three candidates to be the next prime minister.
And we were already enjoying the public debate provoked by two record-breaking charity campaigns, #nomakeupselfie and #icebucketchallenge.
Cancer Research UK and the ALS Association not only raised record sums, but also got the country talking about charity in a way even politicians could not ignore.
But since 19 September last year the government’s Lobbying Act put an end to campaigns like this.
For the seven and a half months before polling day on 7 May, charities and campaigners are unable to speak out in the pre-election debate.
The concerns voiced by campaigners against the Lobbying Act have proved to be all too accurate. The next government must urgently repeal this awful law.
The Lobbying Act is really an amalgam of three unrelated areas of statute.
Part 1 creates a largely meaningless register of professional lobbyists. Part 3 creates yet more administration for trade unions going about their usual work.
Part 2 – the most dangerous of all – limits the activity of campaigners who are not from political parties.
It is meant to prevent third party campaigns being used to circumvent political party spending limits, but in practice it defines ‘political material’ so broadly and vaguely that many independent charity campaigns risk getting caught.
The act’s effects are hard to define precisely.
That would mean getting charities to share examples of campaigns that they thought of doing but then dropped. Its specific threats, though, are easy to outline.
Acevo, the organisation I head, worked closely with Richard Harries’ Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement to collect evidence of how organisations are coping with the act.
It found clear examples of a ‘chilling effect’ that has left our political debate less informed and less interesting for the lack of non-party voices.
The latest Harries report’s conclusions are stark: 63 per cent of respondents to its surveys stated that the Lobbying Act is making some or all of their organisational or charitable objectives harder to achieve.
Many respondents said they had specifically changed their campaigning plans to avoid having to register with the Electoral Commission and face the full weight of regulation that the act imposes.
The Harries report suggested that the act’s ‘chilling effect’ was down to three main causes: its vagueness, its red tape, and its brake on coalition working.
First, the Lobbying Act’s vagueness makes people afraid to campaign, as it is not entirely clear what is and is not allowed.
One medium-sized NGO told the commission it was scaling back campaigning ‘to be on the safe side’.
Given that government ministers were not clear exactly what the act was meant to regulate, campaigners can be forgiven for taking a cautious stance.
Second, the legislation creates expensive bureaucratic red tape for campaigners to comply with.
I know of one large national homelessness charity which sent 42 members of staff on two half-day workshops to learn how the act works.
As a member of the public donating to that charity, I would be frustrated to see the money being used to jump through hoops unnecessarily created by government.
Even the Wildlife Trusts, not known for their political radicalism, estimate they will have spent close to £10,000 just in due diligence to comply with the act.
Last summer we were looking forward to the then-anticipated leaders’ debates between the three candidates to be the next prime minister.
And we were already enjoying the public debate provoked by two record-breaking charity campaigns, #nomakeupselfie and #icebucketchallenge.
Cancer Research UK and the ALS Association not only raised record sums, but also got the country talking about charity in a way even politicians could not ignore.
But since 19 September last year the government’s Lobbying Act put an end to campaigns like this.
For the seven and a half months before polling day on 7 May, charities and campaigners are unable to speak out in the pre-election debate.
The concerns voiced by campaigners against the Lobbying Act have proved to be all too accurate. The next government must urgently repeal this awful law.
The Lobbying Act is really an amalgam of three unrelated areas of statute.
Part 1 creates a largely meaningless register of professional lobbyists. Part 3 creates yet more administration for trade unions going about their usual work.
Part 2 – the most dangerous of all – limits the activity of campaigners who are not from political parties.
It is meant to prevent third party campaigns being used to circumvent political party spending limits, but in practice it defines ‘political material’ so broadly and vaguely that many independent charity campaigns risk getting caught.
The act’s effects are hard to define precisely.
That would mean getting charities to share examples of campaigns that they thought of doing but then dropped. Its specific threats, though, are easy to outline.
Acevo, the organisation I head, worked closely with Richard Harries’ Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement to collect evidence of how organisations are coping with the act.
It found clear examples of a ‘chilling effect’ that has left our political debate less informed and less interesting for the lack of non-party voices.
The latest Harries report’s conclusions are stark: 63 per cent of respondents to its surveys stated that the Lobbying Act is making some or all of their organisational or charitable objectives harder to achieve.
Many respondents said they had specifically changed their campaigning plans to avoid having to register with the Electoral Commission and face the full weight of regulation that the act imposes.
The Harries report suggested that the act’s ‘chilling effect’ was down to three main causes: its vagueness, its red tape, and its brake on coalition working.
First, the Lobbying Act’s vagueness makes people afraid to campaign, as it is not entirely clear what is and is not allowed.
One medium-sized NGO told the commission it was scaling back campaigning ‘to be on the safe side’.
Given that government ministers were not clear exactly what the act was meant to regulate, campaigners can be forgiven for taking a cautious stance.
Second, the legislation creates expensive bureaucratic red tape for campaigners to comply with.
I know of one large national homelessness charity which sent 42 members of staff on two half-day workshops to learn how the act works.
As a member of the public donating to that charity, I would be frustrated to see the money being used to jump through hoops unnecessarily created by government.
Even the Wildlife Trusts, not known for their political radicalism, estimate they will have spent close to £10,000 just in due diligence to comply with the act.
Third,
the act makes it ‘almost impossible’ for campaigning groups to work in
coalitions to campaign before the election.
Some of the greatest charity
campaigns in recent years have been coalitions, like Make Poverty History or
the IF campaign.
But the act makes each coalition member individually liable
for the spending of the whole campaign. So we have not seen any campaigns like
these before this election, as they just are not worth the risk.
The
Lobbying Act will most seriously affect people who depend on civil society
groups for their political voice, often society’s most vulnerable.
Some of the
most important issues at this election – homelessness, foreign aid and mental
health to pick just three – will receive less attention and less debate as a
direct consequence of this law.
The act is part of a worrying climate of
suspicion about civil society campaigns that all political parties should work
to change after the election.
Labour and the Green party have said they will
repeal the Lobbying Act straight away.
They must now look more broadly at
protecting charity free speech, and other parties must follow.
Stephen Twigg, once a Blairite ultra but now a campaigner for Hillsborough Justice (that is what the Labour Movement is all about), adds:
The election is now only a month away.
For many, the day
is a key milestone in their calendar – the opportunity to elect the government,
to choose their local representative and to pick a party and prime
minister.
But
for millions, the day passes without recognition; they do not go to the ballot
box and cast their vote.
In 1987, the turnout rate for the poorest income group
was four per cent lower than for the wealthiest.
However, in 2010 that gap had
increased to 23 per cent. In 1970, there was an 18-point gap in turnout rates
between 18-24-year-olds and those aged over 65.
By 2010 the gap had nearly
doubled to 32 points.
The
next Labour government will undertake various reforms to tackle this problem.
We will make it easier for local authorities to register voters, by removing
individual voter registration.
This would allow schools, colleges and
universities to register students by block.
Ed Miliband will legislate to
reduce the voting age to allow 16- and 17-year-olds the vote, which, combined
with renewed emphasis on citizenship education, is an opportunity to create a
politically engaged generation.
As well as reforming voting legislation, we are
committed to reforming parliament by banning second jobs for members of
parliament and opening up the legislative process to allow for greater scrutiny
from MPs and the public.
The
next Labour government will also protect and extend the freedom of political
expression beyond voting, parliament and political parties.
Increasingly,
people do not view politics through the prism of tribal battles between party
machines confined to the Westminster bubble.
But they are passionate about
issues that affect them, their families and their communities.
Britain
is becoming increasingly diverse and mobile. With technological advancements,
it has never been so easy to spread ideas, to join debates or sign petitions.
This rise of single-issue campaigning is welcome. The next Labour government
will introduce a regulatory scheme to allow these kinds of campaigns to
flourish.
This
coalition has got it horribly wrong with the Lobbying Act.
The premise of Part
2 of the act was that the rise of energetic campaigns and charities was a
mischief that must be solved.
There was an underlying streak of suspicion and
mistrust from the government towards millions of people who petition and
campaign on the issues that matter to them.
Described
as a ‘dog’s breakfast’ by the constitutional and political reform committee,
the act even managed to unite the TaxPayers’ Alliance with the Trades Union Congress,
the Countryside Alliance with Friends of the Earth.
Labour
fought the bill throughout parliament. And we have now promised to repeal
it in government.
We believe in free speech, encouraging democratic debate
and ensuring transparency. The act stifled these principles; we want to
protect and encourage them.
Labour
wants a healthy and thriving campaigning and charity sector – a vital part of
democracy – that can stand up to vested interests. We want these organisations
to play their part in our democratic debate.
We will build a regulatory
framework which allows and encourages this.
No comments:
Post a Comment