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

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't