This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/02/lobbying-bill

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lobbying bill: shameless, shameful and shaming Lobbying bill: shameless, shameful and shaming
(17 days later)
The only good news about the – deep breath – transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill that will be debated in the Commons on Tuesday is that it exists at all. Politicians have been talking for a generation about the growing need to regulate the political lobbying industry; here, not before time, is a first modern shot at making it happen. The bad news about the bill, apart from its stupid and long-winded title, is that it is an incomplete and partisan apology for the sort of legislation that is needed. In this case, the bad news far outweighs the good.The only good news about the – deep breath – transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill that will be debated in the Commons on Tuesday is that it exists at all. Politicians have been talking for a generation about the growing need to regulate the political lobbying industry; here, not before time, is a first modern shot at making it happen. The bad news about the bill, apart from its stupid and long-winded title, is that it is an incomplete and partisan apology for the sort of legislation that is needed. In this case, the bad news far outweighs the good.
Political and – far more significantly, in financial terms – governmental lobbying has been a problem for as long as government contracts and parliamentary powers have existed. Winning contracts and shaping laws is legitimate business, and legitimate civic activity. But it needs to be seen to be legitimate too. Lobbying is a problem in part because it is so unregulated. But it is primarily a problem because corporate interests are so deeply enmeshed with the process of government in so many ways. And where there's brass, there is also the potential for muck.Political and – far more significantly, in financial terms – governmental lobbying has been a problem for as long as government contracts and parliamentary powers have existed. Winning contracts and shaping laws is legitimate business, and legitimate civic activity. But it needs to be seen to be legitimate too. Lobbying is a problem in part because it is so unregulated. But it is primarily a problem because corporate interests are so deeply enmeshed with the process of government in so many ways. And where there's brass, there is also the potential for muck.
If government wants a railway, a school, a prison or a hospital built, someone has to build it. If ministers want to raise or lower a tax, boost an industry or promote a social policy (like childcare, discussed below), large financial consequences are always involved too. This is not, in and of itself, inevitably corrupt – though it certainly has the potential to be corrupt and sometimes is. But an accountable political system needs to keep a sleepless eye on it. Lobbying is about influencing such decisions, for and against, and influence is impossible without access to ministers, advisers and officials. At the very least, such contacts need to be recorded and declared, though the need for regulation goes much further than that.If government wants a railway, a school, a prison or a hospital built, someone has to build it. If ministers want to raise or lower a tax, boost an industry or promote a social policy (like childcare, discussed below), large financial consequences are always involved too. This is not, in and of itself, inevitably corrupt – though it certainly has the potential to be corrupt and sometimes is. But an accountable political system needs to keep a sleepless eye on it. Lobbying is about influencing such decisions, for and against, and influence is impossible without access to ministers, advisers and officials. At the very least, such contacts need to be recorded and declared, though the need for regulation goes much further than that.
Lobbying has expanded rapidly in the modern era. In 1994, there were five public affairs firms – as lobbying companies prefer to be known; now there are 70. More than 1,250 individuals work in self-regulated consultancies. Many more work in-house for corporations and interest groups. In 2009, MPs drew up reform proposals on ethical behaviour, transparency and registration, and monitoring the revolving door between the public and private sectors. These were good proposals, which were mostly supported by the main parties and were well canvassed. If the current bill had embodied the same balance and care, it might have been a true landmark in improving this country's governmental transparency.Lobbying has expanded rapidly in the modern era. In 1994, there were five public affairs firms – as lobbying companies prefer to be known; now there are 70. More than 1,250 individuals work in self-regulated consultancies. Many more work in-house for corporations and interest groups. In 2009, MPs drew up reform proposals on ethical behaviour, transparency and registration, and monitoring the revolving door between the public and private sectors. These were good proposals, which were mostly supported by the main parties and were well canvassed. If the current bill had embodied the same balance and care, it might have been a true landmark in improving this country's governmental transparency.
Unfortunately – and in some ways scandalously – that is far from the case. The new bill was not in the Queen's speech. It has not been through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead it was thrown together in the wake of government embarrassments over the Patrick Mercer allegations and the role of the Conservative lobbyist-strategist Lynton Crosby. Instead of a balanced and matured set of ideas with all-party support, the government produced an untested and jumbled set of ideas about lobbying, on to which it has tacked a badly thought-out and unworkable set of controls on third-party campaigning in the runup to elections and a plainly partisan set of plans on trade union campaigning.Unfortunately – and in some ways scandalously – that is far from the case. The new bill was not in the Queen's speech. It has not been through a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead it was thrown together in the wake of government embarrassments over the Patrick Mercer allegations and the role of the Conservative lobbyist-strategist Lynton Crosby. Instead of a balanced and matured set of ideas with all-party support, the government produced an untested and jumbled set of ideas about lobbying, on to which it has tacked a badly thought-out and unworkable set of controls on third-party campaigning in the runup to elections and a plainly partisan set of plans on trade union campaigning.
In addition, the government is rushing ahead with the bill without good reason. The bill was published on the day before parliament broke up for the summer. It is being debated on the day after parliament returns. The committee stage is being shoehorned into three days next week. There is no need for any of this. It would be a bad way of proceeding with any piece of legislation. It is particularly despicable when there is otherwise such a clearly shared all-party and civic interest in getting the bill right and in winning consensus for it. The result is an inadequate and dangerous bill that reflects the worst and most partisan instincts of the governing parties and has inevitably encouraged the worst and most partisan responses of the opposition in return – while doing nothing effective about lobbying.In addition, the government is rushing ahead with the bill without good reason. The bill was published on the day before parliament broke up for the summer. It is being debated on the day after parliament returns. The committee stage is being shoehorned into three days next week. There is no need for any of this. It would be a bad way of proceeding with any piece of legislation. It is particularly despicable when there is otherwise such a clearly shared all-party and civic interest in getting the bill right and in winning consensus for it. The result is an inadequate and dangerous bill that reflects the worst and most partisan instincts of the governing parties and has inevitably encouraged the worst and most partisan responses of the opposition in return – while doing nothing effective about lobbying.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.