This Lobbying Bill must not pass.

5946829399_e633991652_oWe agree with 38 Degrees. With Conservative Home. With the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. With Owen Jones. With the Quakers in Britain. With Labour List. Polly Toynbee, Helen Mountfield QC, British Medical Association, Shelter, the Royal British Legion, the British Heart Foundation and Guide Dogs. We could go on.

We expect this does not happen very often. What has led to this rare outbreak of cross-party unity, pan-political co-operation, non-ideological, rational agreement?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we give you the “Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill” Specifically, Part 2 of the Bill, which covers non-political party campaigning.

Some have reported on the concern that the bill could ‘gag’ charities. Others have highlighted how the administration burden could be huge. What is clear is that as the Bill currently stands, it is not fit for purpose.

However, there are some simple, fundamental points that we feel worthy of repeating.

Under existing law [Section 85(2) Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 – PPERA) expenditure is controlled with regard to “election material made available to the public or a selection of the public”. Under the Bill, this will widen to cover largely any activity, from advertising to producing a manifesto, leaflets, market research, transport and public events.

As Polly Toynbee writes, there is a clear risk that “Any organisation spending £5,000 a year and expressing an opinion on anything remotely political must register with the Electoral Commission.”

Mark Wallace on ConservativeHome makes the same point: “The Bill is so loose in its language and so vague in its drafting that anyone who spends over £5,000 on anything that can be in any way said to potentially affect an election will be caught up in the rules it lays out.”

The Bill poses a clear threat to freedom of speech.

The Bill introduces a test of expenditure in connection with “affecting the prospects of a party or candidate” that is dangerously broad.   So, for example, if Big Brother Watch was to highlight an MPs fervent support for ID Cards, or praise a candidate’s work to roll back council snooping, then we would be caught by the legislation. Indeed, in a legal opinion for the NCVO Helen Mountfield QC warns that producing a manifesto – as we did at the last election – or calling on specific parties to adopt specific policies would be caught.

The Electoral Commission itself has deep reservations, warning: “In our view, it is not at all clear how that test will apply in practice to the activities of the many third parties that have other purposes beyond political campaigning. For instance, it seems arguable that the new test could apply to many of the activities of charities, voluntary organisations, blogs, thinktanks and other organisations that engage in debate on public policy.”

The Cabinet Office assures the public that the Bill is not intended to be so broad. We welcome these reassurances but the only way to properly ensure this Bill does not have a dangerous chilling effect on campaigning and public debate in Britain is to significantly narrow the legislation. The absence of any meaningful external input and parliamentary scrutiny (the Bill was published two days before Commons rose for the summer recess and is back in the commons today on the second day of the new session) only further reinforces the failings at the heart of this legislation.



  1. Richard Baron
    3rd September 2013

    The very fact that the Cabinet Office has felt the need to give assurances shows the danger. If we ever rely on assurances to limit the scope of a law, we then depend on the whim of future officials, who may have different views. Then we become subject to the rule of men, instead of the rule of law. Even if official discretion is in fact always exercised in the way that the Cabinet Office now say it will be exercised, the lingering threat that things might change will encourage people who might be affected to self-censor, and not to get too close to the line that separates election-specific campaigning from other campaigning. If an official has discretion, people try not to provoke him or her. In that way, control can be achieved without any overt official action at all.

  2. jed goodright
    4th September 2013

    If only we could get rid of ATOS, Universal Credit, PIP and IDS as easily

  3. catflap
    5th September 2013

    About 30 or so MPs took part in the sparsely attended 2nd reading of this bill, and just about nobody spoke in favour of it, and all but one of the speakers highlighted numerous unintended consequences and observed how badly this bill was prepared without any pre-legislative scrutiny and without a proper consulation process. It was a very high standard of debate without the House of Commons’ usual childish antics. It was generally felt that this bill’s atrociously poor quality was an insult to Parliament and it should never have been submitted in this form. . At the end of the debate (about 7 hours!) many hundreds of MPs who had not followed the debate and may not even have read the bill suddenly turned up to vote on it on a fully whipped basis. I have the deepest contempt for this bunch of dumb lobby fodder who passed the 2nd reading of a bill they didn’t understand and did not even try to understand. (309 for, 247 against), and passed a programme motion which allows nowhere near enough time to examine and amend the bill properly. I have a lot of sympathy with the people who think that it’s not worth the effort of getting up and walking out to bother to vote for any of this lot – they could well be the most sensible,people in this country.. . .

  4. The lobbying bill is a pernicious attack on freedom. All good men (and women) should oppose it. » Spectator Blogs
    10th September 2013

    […] reaction to the bill demonstrates a matter of political point-scoring. The Adam Smith Institute and Big Brother Watch and the Institute for Economic Affairs and ConservativeHome hate this bill just as much as Oxfam or […]

  5. Software Freedom and Accountability | Techrights
    26th September 2013

    […] This Lobbying Bill must not pass. […]