Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Lobbying bill is inherently unfair

While Greenpeace might find itself facing more burdensome regulation of its campaign against drilling in the Arctic, Shell can avoid any regulation of its efforts to influence government policy in the other direction by using in-house lobbyists.

Screen Shot 2013-09-02 at 21.41.24

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 17.46.10

The Guardian, Monday 2 September 2013 21.00 BST

Some deficiencies of the transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill have been widely trailed. Part 1 of the bill fails to impose transparency obligations on all but a fraction of professional lobbyists. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of rules on non-party campaigning in part 2 poses a serious threat to campaigning by charities and others (Lobbying bill ‘could put charities at risk of prosecution’, 2 September).

Less widely trailed has been the inherent unfairness in the unequal treatment of these two parts of the bill. While Greenpeace might find itself facing more burdensome regulation of its campaign against drilling in the Arctic, Shell can avoid any regulation of its efforts to influence government policy in the other direction by using in-house lobbyists. While Friends of the Earth might find it harder to campaign for better environmental standards in the production of mobile phones, Apple and Samsung could avoid transparency obligations if their consultant lobbyists avoid speaking directly to government ministers and the most senior civil servants.

The government has said that part 2 of the bill is not intended to affect charities and other issue-based campaign groups, as only campaigning that affects the electoral success or standing of parties or candidates would be regulated. But there is much uncertainty about how the rules will apply to campaigning on issues that align with, or contradict, the policy of a particular party or candidate. When combined with threats of criminal liability and the impossibility of knowing for certain when a regulated pre-election period begins, charities and voluntary organisations may be more reluctant to engage in policy debates.

The bill was introduced just a day before the summer recess and its second reading will take place today, just days after parliament resumed. Many civil society organisations will be hoping that MPs are nonetheless able to give it the thought it needs and deserves.
Simon Steeden
Senior associate, Bates Wells Braithwaite solicitors

SOURCE

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.