6 August 2009

Yesterday’s papers revealed that government spent some £37million in 2007-08 lobbying itself. Taxpayers’ money, in other words, is being used by public sector bodies and publicly-funded think tanks and charities on political campaigning - or 'government lobbying government'. Matthew Sinclair of the TaxPayers' Alliance, authors of the report, thinks this is “shocking”.

What’s shocking is what the report doesn’t reveal. £37 million represents a tiny fraction of the £1.9 billion UK lobbying industry, the vast majority of which is spent by business. If anything “distorts decision making in favour of the interests and ideological preoccupations of a narrow elite” to quote the report, it is this.

The budgets of Alcohol Concern or The Campaign for Better Transport - both mentioned in the report because they receive some public funding – are positively dwarfed by the vast amounts spent by the alcohol and car industry on influencing government. Ban public funding of public interest campaign groups - as proposed by the Taxpayers’ Alliance  - and you leave industry-funded lobbyists to monopolise debate and capture the ear of government.

One group that comes in for criticism in the report is the UK Public Health Association (UKPHA), which received a grant of £84,090 from the Department of Health. The Taxpayers’ Alliance seems to disapprove for two reasons: that it is involved in political campaigning, and, somewhat inexplicably, that UKPHA has put out press releases drawing attention to the link between health and climate change.

It’s debatable whether wider society shares their criticism of a not-for-profit group committed to “eliminating inequalities in health, promote sustainable development and combat anti-health forces.” What’s certain, though, is that people would be scandalised by the actions and tactics of those lobbying against the interests of public health.

Specific details of industry lobbying campaigns are rarely shared with the public, for obvious reasons. 'The best PR is never noticed' being the industry rule. However, one example that did escape is a case study from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) ‘Excellence Awards’  2002. It documents a campaign orchestrated by PR and lobbying giant Hill & Knowlton on behalf of The Crop Protection Association (CPA), aka the pesticides industry.

At the beginning of 1998 the Government began the process of introducing a tax on pesticides. The aim was to reduce their use in response to increased concern about their impact on public health and the environment. In September the CPA commissioned Hill and Knowlton to fight the tax, which it set about doing, first by reframing the debate.

According to the CIPR document, its stated strategy was to avoid “fighting the issue on the 'wrongs and rights' of pesticides” – a fight it would no doubt have lost given the public’s growing disquiet with industrial farming.  Instead it planned to focus on the impact of the tax on “wider issues of farming and rural life.” How far this is from the profit-seeking motives of CPA members like Monsanto, Dow, BASF and Bayer.

The campaign “used the farming media to drum up opposition [to the tax]” and “to create a strong grassroots campaign”. But crucially, Hill and Knowlton’s people were at pains to keep their activities out of the public eye. “The strategy was to avoid the national media as this would attract a strong response from the environmental NGOs,” it explains. Not exactly the "constructive and intensive dialogue with relevant stakeholders" that the CPA claims to engage in.

The campaign also succeeded in persuading third parties inside government to lobby on their behalf, pitting one department against another. “The campaign used the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Department for Trade and Industry and the territorial departments to lobby against the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury. Number 10 was also lobbied and brought their influence to bear.” Which puts a whole new face on 'government lobbying government'.

And it sought to capture the attention of MPs with stunts: “sending hops to MPs with an interest in beer and a bread roll to MPs with wheat crops in their constituency to look at the impact of a tax on UK hops and wheat.”


Realising that  “just saying no [to the tax] was never going to be enough,” the industry fought government intervention with voluntary measures. These managed to “convince” Government (including No 10) “that the industry was serious.” It also managed to create ‘consensus’ by co-opting others into the process of drawing up alternative measures to the tax.  

In March 2001, the Chancellor accepted the CPA's proposals. As the document states: “The tax was defeated saving the crop protection industry millions of pounds.” And Hill & Knowlton was shortlisted for a CIPR 'Excellence Award'.

Sophisticated media manipulation, fake grassroots campaigns, using third parties to separate the message from the self-interested messenger, delaying action with voluntary measures, co-opting possible critics. These are all commonly used tools and tactics of the lobbying industry. They are employed by industries from car makers to energy companies, retailers to food manufacturers. They cost a lot of money and they are largely hidden from public view. It is they that distort decision making in favour of the interests and ideological preoccupations of a narrow elite. And it is them that we should be worried about.