Blenderlaw

uk lobbying regulation bill – second reading September 3, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : lobbying , add a comment

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill 2013-14 is having its second reading in Parliament today (Richard III, fracking, BSkyB, and tobacco have featured in the debate). The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee issued a call for, and received, written evidence about the regulation of consultant lobbyists under the Bill. Many of the submissions argued that the Bill would create uncertainty and risked reducing rather than enhancing transparency with respect to lobbying. The Committee took oral evidence today. Meanwhile, charities and even MPs have expressed concern about the Bill. The NCVO published legal advice it obtained about the Bill from Helen Mountfield QC which identifies a number of problems of uncertainty. For example:

Much of the activity which charities and VSOs undertake is, by its nature, policy-orientated and therefore ‘political’ in the widest sense. In my view, many materials produced by charities and VSOs compatibly with the guidance in the Charity Commission Guidance CCR9 are capable of falling within the definition of ‘election materials’ (in s85(3) PPERA as it stands), or of being for an ‘election purpose’ (in s85 (2A) and s85(3) PPERA as prospectively amended by clause 26 of the Bill)… For example, an anti-poverty charity which advocates continuing to spend a particular proportion of GDP on overseas aid and publishes material saying so during the relevant period could ‘reasonably be regarded’ as intending to promote or procure electoral success for a party or parties or candidates who advocate the same in connection with future elections, even though such material could reasonably be regarded as also intended to achieve another purpose such as maintaining a high level of public expenditure on poverty reduction abroad. Thus, expenditure on materials of this kind during the year before a general election could well fall within the definition of ‘election materials’ in PPERA as it stands.

financial services lobbying July 10, 2012

Posted by Bradley in : financial regulation, lobbying , add a comment

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has published a number of articles about lobbying in the financial services context including this one about the FSA’s meetings with trade groups (and here’s the link to the story at the Guardian) which refers to minutes of meetings (which I would love to see). But of course these meetings happened in a context where politicians were telling regulators not to over-regulate, and not to gold-plate EU measures. The directive not to over-regulate came from the same place as Agius’ comments about the competitive international context in which Barclays operates, and trade associations have been dedicating huge amounts of effort for years not just to meeting with politicians and regulators but to developing sophisticated rhetorical and even theoretical arguments to support what they want from regulation. I remember one announcement for an FSA conference which explicitly stated that it would provide an opportunity for regulated firms to interact with their regulator. And, in December 2008 I asked:

whether it is really possible to have effective representation of consumer interests in a structure where the consumer representation is funded by a regulator which is committed to not frightening regulated firms too badly.

On some issues we seem to have moved on a bit from this point. But as to the larger question of how we develop policy in an environment with appropriate levels of scepticism about the arguments financial firms make about regulation, I am not at all sure. And by appropriate levels here I am concerned not only with the risk that regulation may be too lax but also that sometimes it may be too restrictive.