Brighton charities expert criticises Lobbying Bill consultation

An experienced charity executive from Brighton has criticised the consultation taking place on the Lobbying Bill.

Ian Chisnall, the Sussex co-ordinator for Churches Together and former chairman of Sussex Central YMCA, contacted every MP in the county to try to discuss the bill – or draft law.

He has written about the responses that he received on his blog. To read it, click here.

The section of the draft law relating to charities prompted the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas to describe it as a sinister gagging bill.

Growing criticism prompted the government to halt the passage of the bill through Parliament to enable ministers to consult widely before deciding whether to agree changes to the wording.

Mr Chisnall said: “Does our Parliament really care what we think, are they interested in our views, or do they simply want us to endorse their party political ideology in between elections?

Ian Chisnall

“At the beginning of November the House of Lords forced the government to put on hold, the progress of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in order to allow ministers to ‘consult widely all of the interested parties, members of this house and the many others outside’.

“The period of this consultation was set as six weeks, a period that runs till (Monday) 16 December.

“This was not an outright rejection of this bill, which many people feel is very poorly drafted, but rather a desire to see one part of it removed or significantly changed.

“The bill is supposedly an attempt to deal with the lobbying which David Cameron recognised as the ‘next big scandal waiting to happen’ when he was the leader of the opposition before the 2010 general election.

“However, when this bill was rushed out in July 2013, just before the parliamentary recess, commentators were surprised to see that the proposals were far too weak to deal adequately with commercial lobbying and that the bill includes two parts that have nothing to do with conventional lobbying.

“Part two relates to the engagement by charities with MPs and governments in the year prior to any election, although there is now some suggestion this period will be reduced to six months. And part three relates to the work of trade unions.

“The Lords delay relates only to part two which relates to charities.

“Charities are already regulated regarding their involvement in political campaigning. Part two of this bill is poorly thought through and totally unnecessary.

“In the context of my work for Churches Together in Sussex I wrote to all of the MPs in Sussex to find out how they intended to engage with charities in their constituencies in order that I could alert local churches to participate.

“This is in part because some churches have expressed (concern) that their usual practice of holding hustings meetings prior to elections is under threat due to their interpretation of the Lobbying Bill.

“Two Sussex MPs oppose the Lobbying Bill, Caroline Lucas and Stephen Lloyd.

“The remaining 14 have voted for it on its third reading in the Commons, 13 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem including three members of the government.

“Simon Kirby is MP for Brighton Kemptown. After a great deal of correspondence, mostly on Twitter, Simon has offered to meet with me and two to three representatives of the charities in his constituency for 15 minutes.

“This meet is now planned for (Friday) 6 December.

“Three MPs have written explaining that they are willing to receive correspondence from constituents on this subject and by implication that they don’t wish to hold a consultative or speculative meetings.

“They don’t wish to make a statement explaining why they have voted as they have.

“Clearly I cannot tell if they would be more open with their views to a constituent. These MPs are Charles Hendry, Andrew Tyrie (and) Mike Weatherley.

“Three MPs have not responded to my email or other correspondence in any way at all. They are Norman Baker, Nick Herbert and Henry Smith.

“Of these Norman Baker is a government minister, the type of person who the government statement claimed was going to consult widely.

“It would be unfair to suggest that MPs are judged for anything other than their own individual performance but, based on this sample of 14 coalition MPs, it seems that the vast majority of our Parliament is only interested in listening to us when it suits them.

“And when the government announces it is wanting to consult with people, they really don’t mean what they say.

“In 18 months’ time most of these people will want to persuade local residents to re-elect them to continue to act as their representatives.”