Today I will be asking colleagues to support my motion calling for Part 2 of the Lobbying Bill to be paused. The vote will happen immediately before the start of the debate on the Bill.
It is hard to think of another issue that could unite Conservative Home, Labour List, the Countryside Alliance and the Lancashire Badger Trust, but such is the concern about Part 2 of the Lobbying Bill that a remarkable unanimity has been achieved.
I read the recent report by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement – chaired by Lord Harries of Pentregarth – and I agree with the assessment that this Bill is beyond amendment through the usual Bill process. It is particularly clear that Part 2, covering charities and campaigning organisations, is beyond repair. I therefore agree with the Commission’s central recommendation that Government should pause Part 2 of the Bill to allow for proper consultation and consideration by a Joint Committee of Parliament.
Pausing the Bill will give time to get the legislation right and would give Government the opportunity to build broad consensus with the organisations affected.
It will still be possible for the Bill to become law ahead of the next election. The Electoral Commission clarified just yesterday that they think a shorter regulatory period ahead of this General Election would be appropriate to allow time for a pause.
We in the Upper Chamber have a particular responsibility to scrutinise legislation and to ensure proper process. This Bill falls short of the standards we can expect. We cannot allow those shortcomings to undermine the proper engagement of all sorts of non-party organisations in campaigning.
Do you agree that the Bill should be paused? I look forward to reading your comments below – and to seeing you in the chamber later today.
It appears to me that those who have succeeded through the democratic process are convinced that their mandate is omnipotent. It is important to mention that the rest of us are interested in our freedoms which have achieved or granted over several centuries prior to full democracy in 1928. Voting once every five years does provide the foundations of our freedoms, but there are many institutions which need to speak truth to power between elections. Lobbying MPs is part of that process. If lobbyists can buy the attention of politicians, the fault is with the recipients of any dubious emolument not the provider. There is a need to make enforceable rules which govern MPs, not lobbyists.
Pause is always good. It gives time to reflect and lessens the chance of regret.
If lobbyists can buy the attention of politicians, the fault is with the recipients of any dubious emolument not the provider.
==========
Twaddle.
You can ask as much as you want, but if the numpties and crooks in parliament pay them your money, then its parliament that are to blame. They can always say no. They should always say no.
This Hardtalk video sums up the perks and blatant bribes Lobbyists engage in.
Here in the UK it is exactly the same as the US. We are simply a satellite of that regime. So, we follow along looking for the so called ‘good life.’ The single difference here to the administration there is, we never jail offenders. We just shoot the messengers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cM0FE50bsg
And as you can see, it’s rampant in our midst. Why, this little lark is how our PM maneuvered himself into position of leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bodmNlqZa0w
And for those who have little idea of what a lobbyist does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZ4n5MNKqk
<i<It is hard to think of another issue that could unite Conservative Home, Labour List, the Countryside Alliance and the Lancashire Badger Trust, ….remarkable unanimity has been achieved.
Very witty! Lady whatzit once invited me to join her particular lobbying organisation but must be a bit simple about things like that ‘cos I could not understand what they wanted me to do.
I presume that they use Parliament.tv to the full to verify which way people are thinking… and voting.
The coop example on the other thread I have given certainly suggests that more thought should be given to the power of the lobby and also to the powers of members, which in the case of the coop have been alarmingly in adeuate used by HoC
Lab+coop members to the fatalerror of the oop bank and some of the business too no doubt.
If US Hedge traders can target ‘ornery UK companies, over 10 years and make huge profits at the end of it at the expense of mainly poor UK cooperators, in such a dishonest (but entirely marketed) way, once the lobbying had been done, what hope is there for UK enterprise at all??
I had my say at the time, same as now, but I was completely ignored.
How might democratic-improvement material be successfully Lobbied
such as is being published ‘Not-For-Profiteering’ and ‘Already-Paid-For-Out-Of-Our-Taxes’
via
http://www.earth2.co ;
http://www.lifefresh.co.uk ;
http://www.shammmo.net ;
http://www.me-myself-and-aye.net; ?
If not possible to be egalitarianly lobbied
and therein to be ‘verbatimly’ so represented,
then how might such find ‘champions’
or genuinely impartial ‘parliamentary advocacy’ ?
Please ?
Lord Ramsbotham, you seem to be a bit of a contradiction; a military man who avoided being a redcap but instead upon release went straight to prison, as its governor of course.
You are quite right in what you say. It’s the quality of legislation that matters, really matters. Many have spoken of unintended consequences arising from poorly thought through legislation.
Two words can be replaced by a single word ‘accident’. It seems legislatures everywhere are having accidents. A former Republican Senator from Maine, Olympia Jean Snowe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe
gave her thoughts on the legislative process on Bloomberg TV in May of this year. She was interviewed by Charlie Rose who talked of her recent book “Fighting for Common Ground: How we can fix the Stalemate in Congress”. A strong advocate of bipartisanship she recalled meeting President Obama for the first time, saying:
“Mr President, I worry we’re losing the art of legislation. And when the history of this chapter is written, we don’t want it to conclude it was here that it became an antiquated practice….”
When you considered coming to the House of Lords did you ever consider that you would become an artist, the practitioner of an art in order for you to do your job effectively?
Virginia in the interview says that the fall in standards is due to a lack of bipartisanship and too many newcomers. You have addressed the bipartisan issue but you are still a newcomer, however one doing the right thing.
The Duke of Edinborough visits Belgium where he no doubt receives first hand, council from its Royal House on the subject of a lengthy prorogued Parliament.
The electorate is angry: some 400 or more MPs including all of the cabinet might lose their deposits at the next General Election. This is because Coalition and Commons have set out to antagonise the electorate with a view to returning another coalition.
With so many newcomers it’s conceivable that a government could not be formed and when one was formed the quality of its legislation would leave a lot to be desired. The issue of whether MPs are paid during a lengthy proroguement may see its old hands enter bankruptcy disqualifying them from office.
it’s conceivable that a government could not be formed and when one was formed the quality of its legislation would leave a lot to be desired. But not nearly as bad as the 2001-2005 majority of lab 160, which had just about the worst effect possible on legislation…… a war. Co-alition should Daedalus, be very good for debate since it reduces the idiocies of
outright aggression for the sake of it.
However I really can not see the Ramsbotham objection that the The TU’s will not be properly represented,unless it is some Xbench double speak. The Labour party IS the Trade Unions, and at the last count how many labour members were there in each House?
My comment above about the Ccop Group and its bank is rather a different matter. The Coop has its own party and party conference, and was certainly not properly represented when the IACC(Interntional Association of Chartered Accountants) set out to eradicate the cooperative difference in 2001. The Coop party is merely in lawful association with the labour party but certainly does not get the house, or even lobby support that a couple of hundred labour members could have given them in the last few years. The Coop has lost 2/3 of its bank possession to outside interests, entirely thanks to that lack.
One wonders who Lord Ramsbotham is with and whom against, what his real agenda is or whether he is getting (if you will allow the expression) screwed up by the party which is not a party, the X bench.
Some members of that convention are far right in their opinions, and very much against labour principles of any sort.
Perhaps he should join the labour party and be with the descendants, both genealogical and spiritual of some of those convicts who were sent to Oz in 1834, and who were the cause of the foundation of the labour party.
It is so difficult to know where to sit in their Lordships’ chamber the apparent far right, on the speaker’s right, being occupied by clergy some of whom may well be socialist in their views, and on the speakers’ left, most of the hereditary peers benches. So the left may not be left and the right may not be right. What is more, some far right, so called “independent” members, sit opposite the speaker, with the rest of the Independents, the “don’t knows
enough” crowd, trying to work it all out crowd, whereas in fact they have a throoughly good understanding of their real place in the chamber , well separated by the Chair from their diametrically opposed thinkers on the other side. In the peers’ chamber these people have to sit alongside, either the clergy,(by tradition seated on the right,of the Lord Speaker, the government side) if they are far left, or alongside the hereds, if they are far right(but, by tradition ,seated on the left,of the Lord speaker, the opposition side)
To be on the X-bench and worrying about the Trade Union links with the Labour party and not knowing it, and asking for delays, seems surprising.
The Noble Lord, governor of governors, may flit from one side of the X-Bench to the other, which might give him some latitude of thought and still be amongst friends, and i can only assume that he sits cheeck by jowl
with Labour party members who know exactly where their loyalties lie.
MOST in the other place, are nominated by the TUs and are convenors in their previous incarnations. It is sometimes said, although mistakenly, that becoming a Labour MP it is essential to be a Union Convenor in the first place.
What is the noble lord’s problem or is it a learning curve for him?