Skip to main content

Doctors warn government that lobbying proposals could limit public health campaigning.

There has been much concern expressed that the Lobbying Bill could limit the campaigning activity of charities. Now, doctors’ leaders have warned that the Government’s proposed legislation lacks clarity, is excessively bureaucratic and could severely limit organisations, such as the BMA, campaigning on public health issues, including smoking, during an election year.

The warning comes in a new BMA House of Lords’ briefing, released today (21/10/13) ahead of an important debate in the second chamber on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill on Tuesday 22 October 2013. 

The Lobbying Bill would severely limit the ability of charities to campaign in a year in which there is a general election. The proposals have received widespread criticism and most recently from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lords Constitution Committee amid concerns that the proposals will curtail public debate by preventing charities, pressure groups, think tanks and other organisations from presenting information in the run up to an election. 

Some of these concerns have been recognised by the government, but the Bill still lacks clarity.  

Key points from the BMA’s briefing include:

Potential adverse impact on freedom of expression: The combined effect of vastly reduced spending limits and continued uncertainty around what activities fall foul of the Bill, such as production or publication of material made available to the public, would have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression.’

Lack of clarity: Despite the Government’s changes, it is still not evident from the wording of the Bill whether or not apolitical organisations, like the BMA, will be unduly restricted in what they can do. Absolute certainty is needed on whether and when the cost of activities will count towards ‘controlled expenditure’.

Excessive bureaucracy: The Bill currently proposes a system that would result in new administrative and regulatory procedures that would prove an immense administrative burden.

Dr Mark Porter, Chair of BMA Council said:

“Despite some improvements to the Government’s proposals, the Lobbying Bill still threatens to dramatically curtail the ability of organisations like the BMA to speak out on vital issues during the year before an election. This would include preventing doctors’ leaders from raising key public health issues, such as those related to smoking.

“The Government should not ignore the potentially huge and damaging impact of the legislation as currently drafted on all non-party political organisations. It cannot risk limiting our ability to speak on issues of public interest.

“We urge the Government to pause, listen and think again, rather than rush ahead with this ill-thought through piece of legislation.”

The government legislation as it currently stands could have the perverse effect of allowing lobbying by major corporations whilst restraining the ability of charities and other non-political organisations from campaigning. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As