PSD will vote against CDS, PS and PAN proposals to legalize lobbying | Transparency



[ad_1]

If D. Palmira is on the street with the president of his parish council and decides to talk to ask her to finally fix the sidewalk whose sidewalk is broken, the mayor will only be able to hear her if it is included in the register of the council, the council or the Parliament . Exaggerated? Perhaps, but this is the PSD reading of the proposals to regulate the lobbying that CDS, PAN and PS want to discuss. Therefore, the Social Democrats intend to vote against all three diplomas when they are brought into the room after this week’s adjournment.

Accounts made, only these three parties add 116 deputies, to which the IL is added, which means that the votes against PSD, Bloco, PCP and PEV -and eventually the remaining unregistered deputies and André Ventura- do not arrive for failing the lobbying.

Rui Rio, who already in July 2019 detained the socialists and centrists, after the president’s veto of the first text approved by Parliament by changing the PSD vote from abstention to against, does not agree with the terms of the proposals that are now on the table. At that time, the president of the PSD argued that the issue was too delicate to be dealt with at the time of the elections and that the new composition of the Assembly of the Republic should address the issue. The PSD had made the text of the PS and the CDS viable by abstaining, but before Marcelo’s veto and the return of the diploma to Parliament, it voted against.

The social democratic reading is that the rules created increase the distance between the elect and the voters because they create bureaucratic obstacles that prevent a citizen from addressing any public entity complaining about a personal interest, according to the audience source of the bench. The CDS and PS proposals do not regulate the profession of lobbyist, they only regulate the activity of the lobbying, which was something that the PSD always refused to do in the Transparency committee in the previous legislature. The PAN is the one that has proposals on, for example, the impediments of lobbyists.

The texts consider lobbying all contacts between entities or citizens with public entities in any form: from letter to phone call, from SMS to message on a social network, from events to participation in public consultations on legislation. In addition, they involve all the organs of sovereignty and public administration (down to the municipal level), which means thousands of people and entities. And it involves registration at all levels where contact is made.

Now the PSD says that it sees in this myriad of demands a clear impediment of contact between the citizen and any public entity, promoting an (even greater) distance between voters and elected representatives by hitchhiking in an idea of ​​supposedly increasing transparency. This was also one of the arguments used by the PCP and the Bloc in 2019 when they voted against the lobbying, claiming that currently any citizen has easy access to those elected. In the background, says the PSD, it creates opacity and bureaucracy. Added to this is the fact that sanctions are only provided for the citizen or company and none for the public agent in the event of non-compliance with the regulations.

Source from the Social Democratic Bank says that the party is in favor of creating instruments that increase the transparency of the relationship between public affairs managers and companies and citizens, but for a law to be respected and efficient, then it must be done. for it to be fulfilled, which, says PSD, is not possible in this case, nor does it see how it can be changed in the system proposed by the parties.

In the drawer of the legislative initiatives of Parliament, however, it will continue, postponed sine die, a bill delivered in November by JSD deputies very similar to those that the PSD will fail. Questioned by the PUBLIC about the fact that it was not programmed in conjunction with the three remaining bills, the leader of JSD, Alexandre Poço, limited himself to saying that “the non-dragging was a decision of the bank’s management”, obtaining more explanations.

[ad_2]