Back in September, I wrote (here) about the risk that a new bill in the House of Commons designed to nobble lobbying would prevent RSPB and others from undertaking legitimate campaigning activity in the run-up to elections.
Two months later, I am pleased to report that the Government is wobbling in its resolve to rush through the Transparency of Lobbying Bill—new amendments have been announced and the bill has been put on hold for five weeks for consultation.
Of course, it’s absolutely right that there’s full transparency when serious campaigning cash is spent that could influence the outcome of an election. There should be clear limits on the amount of money that any group can spend so that no single interest group can sway an election by opening up a wallet. Democratic outcomes should be about open debate and policy, not cash flow. That’s why it’s right that there’s a regime for accounting for spending by campaigning groups, whether they be charities, trade unions, businesses or individuals.
However, in dealing with the notional danger of big money in elections, the Government risks catching other campaigns, like RSPB’s work to reform the Common Agriculture Policy, to ensure more children have contact with the natural world, or our action to prevent damaging infrastructure projects like an airport in the Thames Estuary.
The problem is that the rules can force campaigners to account for their spending and impose limits on that spending even when the campaign is all about policy and has nothing at all to do with a particular party. At the RSPB, we’re absolutely assiduous about keeping out of party politics (we'll work constructively with any political party to achieve our charitable objectives), but we are concerned that current proposals would constrain our ability to campaign on a particular policy in the year of an election.
One good thing to come out of this process has been the amazingly united reaction among civil society groups in opposition to the worst aspects of the bill. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with Oxfam, Bond, the Royal British Legion, the Quakers and many other groups to remind the Government that campaigning groups help people to engage in politics and make their views heard, at a time when many people feel disenfranchised from the political process.
In a healthy democracy, RSPB’s million voices for nature are part of a debate between many millions of voices for civil society. The bill isn’t beaten, but it’s better and I hope that soon we will see a version we can support.
In the years since our founding members campaigned against the trade in feathers for women’s hats, the RSPB has campaigned for nature locally, in Westminster, in the devolved countries, in Europe and internationally. We think that society (as well as the natural environment) has in the past and will continue to benefit as a result of our campaigning efforts.
Over the next five weeks, we will continue to remind the Government why it’s vital that in defending our democracy from big money, it mustn’t kill it with controls on campaigning.
The Government is trying to fix a problem which is unfixable - except through it recognising that the opposition to some of the things it is trying to do is deep seated and a-political in that it is spread across the political spectrum.
Nothing demonstrated this more than the response to the forest sell off plans in 2010/11. The 500,000 + signatures on the 38 Degrees petition were the staggering headline news, but behind it was MP's mailbags that got MPs from all parties out in opposition to the proposal. Whilst things can look bleak for the environment movement at the moment, it is worth bearing in mind that the same very deep seated concern for people's local environments has virtually halted onshore windfarms, threatens HS2 and will almost certainly stop fracking. It's ironic that it was the recognition that, whatever foresters thought, people just would not accept large scale upland conifer planting that set the Forestry commission on the long road to overwhelming public support in 2011. The bottom line is that neither the ballot box nor mega-corporations give the Westminster establishment the right or ability to simply walk over people's environments and quality of life. With the example of forestry, there needs to be a recognition that you have to take people with you; you cannot silence them - if you silence the organisations like RSPB the opposition will simply re-appear locally, in a way which is virtually impossible to defuse politically. And, key to all this,is that just as martin has rightly pointed out with regard to the RSPB position, this opposition is not coloured by party politics.