Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of NCVO, has attacked recent criticism of the Electoral Commission's guidance on the Lobbying Act, including comments by Acevo’s chief executive Sir Stephen Bubb.
In a blog, Sir Stuart has claimed that the guidance from the Electoral Commission is not perfect, but also not “incomprehensible”, as Sir Stephen Bubb recently labelled it in his own blog.
Etherington said: “This scaremongering is irresponsible and is in serious danger of deterring charities from perfectly lawful campaigning – a scenario not without irony.”
He said that current "hyperbole" about the Lobbying Act and its regulations have been “at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous”.
In his blog, Bubb had written that “the Lobbying Act will affect our historic right to campaign if we let it do so”, and that the Electoral Commission guidance is, although helpful in places, “based on a poorly drafted Act that is wrong in principle”.
Sir Stephen’s blog on the guidance, published earlier this month, was headlined “Censoring charities - the Electoral Commission and the Lobbying Act”.
Etherington’s blog seemed to criticise such assertions, writing: “When charities read that they will be ‘censored’ or banned entirely from campaigning, or that their board face jail if they make a mistake, the effect is not to improve their understanding, nor to provide a constructive solution, but simply to spread confusion and alarm.”
He added that “to characterise the Electoral Commission as out of touch or, worse, over-zealous prosecutors is wide of the mark”.
However, despite the accusations of “theatrical claims”, Sir Stuart did state that the guidance from the Electoral Commission had a number of “grey areas” and could offer more clarity, particularly for occasions when a charity’s policy is brought into the scope of the rules because a particular party or candidate endorses such a campaign.
Acevo responds
In response to Etherington's accusations of "scaremongering", Asheem Singh, Acevo's director of public policy, said:
“The Lobbying Act is a legislative aberration. The guidance produced by the Electoral Commission is unclear and inconsistent. The voluntary sector has been making progress with them by working together, in unity. It would be irresponsible to jeopardise that progress now.
"Ignoring this problem will not make it go away. On any rational, unbiased analysis, the Act still poses a significant risk and is already chilling the activities of charities. Acevo has worked with more than a hundred civil society organisations to arrive at common positions for the benefit of the sector and there is a strong view from them about the damage that incoherent guidance based on a flawed Act can do. We continue to make their case.
"This is no time for complacency. It would be a dereliction of duty to do anything other than continue to work in our collective interest - or claim that the Lobbying Act is anything other than a threat to charities' historic duty to campaign on behalf of our beneficiaries.”
Comments on Electoral Commission guidance
NCVO has written to the Electoral Commission with its suggestions on how the guidance could be improved.
NCVO’s policy manager, Elizabeth Chamberlain, has said that the key concern for charities is “how do they carry on with their campaigning in a way that doesn’t bring them within the scope of the rules?”
In a blog post for NCVO she said NCVO’s feedback to the Electoral Commission has included addressing the structure to rid it off the overcomplicated “tiered approach” by splitting it into two sections, one for “when a non-party campaigner needs to register” and one for “advice and guidance for non-party campaigners that have registered”.
Bates Wells Braithwaite comments on guidance
Law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, which has also released its comments on the Electoral Commission guidance, has called for the same two sections in order to simplify the advice.
Chamberlain has also reiterated Etherington’s calls for further clarity on the purpose test and how this would apply in practice, particularly if the subject of a charity’s campaign becomes the “dividing line” between political parties.
She also spoke of the need for a more detailed explanation of what is meant by “the public” in terms of the guidance, something that has been echoed by BWB.
Chamberlain said: “Charities have fed back that they would like clarification that their regular service users are not considered members of the public, because of an existing contractual relationship.”
BWB also stated that there are “fundamental problems with the purpose test as explained in the guidance”. It states that the combined effect of the guidance on this “incorrectly represents the law” and the organisation is concerned that uncertainty will deter legitimate campaigning.
BWB has also called for additional guidance on what it means to “alter or increase your campaigning”, stating that it cannot over-emphasise the importance of this to the sector. It has also called for a further definition and time frame over what the Electoral Commission guidance considers “close to the election”, which is when activity is more likely to be regulated.
The law firm has also made a number of specific comments on the guidance.
