I have just received the following letter from Liz Truss, who is my MP, on the government's lobbying bill:
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your email about your concerns about part 2 of the Lobbying Bill.
The Register will capture professional consultant lobbyists. It does not cover in-house lobbyists as it is already clear on whose behalf they act. There are exclusions for representative groups, like the vast majority of trade organisations and charities. This is intended to make consultant lobbying more transparent — not act as a complete regulator of the industry. This means people will know on whose behalf lobbyists are working. Only campaigning by third parties that promotes or procures electoral success or otherwise enhances the standing of parties or candidates, would be regulated. So an organisation campaigning only on policy issues would continue to be exempt.
For example, the current law prohibits charities from engaging in party politics, party political campaigning, supporting political candidates or undertaking political activity unrelated to the charity's purposes. Charities will still be able to give support to specific policies advocated by political parties if it would help achieve their charitable purposes.
The Bill does not regulate attempts to engage with the policy of any political party; nor does it regulate having a view on any aspect of any policy of any party; nor any attempt to influence the policy of any party. This activity would only be captured if it was promoting the electoral success or otherwise enhancing the standing of parties or candidates. This is the same as under current legislation.
I have attached a letter that Chloe Smith MP sent to the campaigning group 38 degrees which address your concerns in further detail.
Best wishes,
Elizabeth Truss MP
Well, I have looked for the exemptions for representative groups in the law, and I can't find them. The only exception on this issue relates to Part 1 of the Bill - which is not the matter of concern to civil society, which is Part 2 of the Bill, so the claim made is totally misleading . And as for the suggestion that there is an exemption for policy issues the Bill makes quite clear lobbying on government policy is covered. So what then is not a government policy? Again, the claim made is misleading.
As a result I have written back to Liz Truss saying:
Dear Elizabeth
Thanks for your letter.
I have read this Bill in detail, and as you might know, am familiar with the ways in which legislation is written. Try as I might I cannot find the 'exclusions for representative groups, like the vast majority of trade organisations and charities' that you refer to. Can you point me to them?
Could you also define a 'policy issue' for me? Let me give you a couple of examples. I have campaigned for a General Anti-Tax Avoidance Principle to be included in UK law. I think that a policy issue, but if one looked at the issue in parliament the divide on the matter appears to follow political lines. The same might be said to be the case on country-by-country reporting, another issue on which I have campaigned where, until very recently, support appeared to come from only one side of the House until the Prime Minister suddenly decided to adopt the cause.
Are both matters in your view 'policy issues' despite the fact that politicians appear to have quite opposing views on them - which are subject to change? Or are they political? Could you please advise me. The future criminality of my behaviour (or not, as the case may be) may depend upon your opinion, to which I would wish to refer if others, such as the police, chose to disagree with you if this law is enacted. As such your opinion is important to me as I may need to rely upon it when preparing my defence from prosecution in the future.
Best regards
Richard Murphy
Director
Tax Research LLP
I wonder what response I will get?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I suspect that we are seeing in Ms Truss’ letter the ‘gloss’ that MPs have been sent, to save them reading the bill. How interesting. I do hope your response and query about politics and policy distinctions will be widely circulated.
Watching this space!
A slight link to the Vodafone issue here re the SSE legislation – I really do not believe that MP’s really read and understand a lot of legislation that is put forward in parliament — then why should they and how woudl they in the typical timeframes given? They’re not lawyers or accountants or whatever.
As you say they almost certainly rely on high level synopses, which will inevitably have been spun in a way whoever is putting the bill forward wants.
The case for having technical reviews of proposed legislation by independents (though how you find a true independent is beyond me, so some compromise for sure) is quite high in my view. Or alternatively perhaps every MP should have to sign something to say they’ve fully understood and have taken full and detailed technical advice from a valid expert before being allowed to vote.
Now that makes a lot more sense
i dont disagree but plenty of the comments on this blog are about how tax experts/accountants shouldnt be involved in law making due to actual or perceived conflicts of interest, so what experts are you going to get to advise the MP’s without attracting the same critiscism?
I want balance
There is no balance because only those who can give their time for free are currently engaged
That is not the basis for viable democracy
A committee that can pay can demand balance
Didn’t the Republicans/John McCain try to bring in something similar in the US? It is extraordinary (?) how predictable it is that the Tories simply follow the Republican blue-print. For example, the recent court ruling on voter registration in 9 southern US states is the same strategy as the attempt to gerrymander the electoral registers in the failed redrawing of UK constituency boundaries.
Neoliberalism/neofeudalism really is not compatible with democracy ..
Richard, I think Douglas Carswell agrees with you?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100233838/the-lobbying-bill-is-a-flawed-piece-of-legislation-that-swims-against-the-technological-tide/
Indeed
I’ve just tweeted it
Thanks
Carswell -is one of the few politicians who thinks for himself with complete disregard for the ‘greasy pole’. Economically, he’s probably closest to the Austrian school and is a supporter of radical banking reform. I don’t know why he is in the Tory party.
I’m sure he and I disagree on most things
He’s right on this
The thought occurs to me that it’s 68 years since the end of WWII.
For the first half of that time, until 1979, it seems to me that a consensus had grown to be firmly established across all political parties, that society and government of and for the benefit of the vast majority was the way forward.
But, as with Spurs a few years ago leading ManU 3-0 at half time, the monolith that is financial power has been allowed, and positively encouraged, by governments of all stripes, to make sure that society and government is captured and recalibrated to be of and for the benefit of the few – and the final score after this game of two halves; 3-5.
I may be happy that Spurs are currently strengthening for a fight back. I only wish that there was even a shred of evidence to suggest that a population divided by coalition propaganda generated self-interest will rouse itself to attempt a fight back (despite the considerable efforts of many dedicated individuals such as yourself).
We’re sure as hell on the road to the re-establishment of serfdom as long as any government is prepared to even consider enacting a bill like this.