Chancellor Alistair Darling prepares Budget ban on lobbying by public bodies

 
 

2 article comments.

Chancellor Alistair Darling will launch a severe crackdown on public sector lobbying in next week's Budget, PRWeek has learned.

High stakes: Alistair Darling to unveil the Budget
High stakes: Alistair Darling to unveil the Budget

Darling will announce a ban on 'arm's-length bodies' hiring external lobbying consultancies when he addresses the House of Commons on 24 March. Under the plans, about 750 state-funded quangos would be affected - including 43 grant-giving organisations, 145 service delivery bodies and 54 regulators.

The move is intended to deliver millions of pounds of savings, but could have catastrophic consequences for some PR consultancies (see box).

The new policy has been drawn up by Treasury officials off the back of the Smarter Government review, unveiled last year by chief secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne.

The review set out tentative plans to reform arm's-length bodies, which receive £80bn per year of government funding. It stated: 'We will merge and abolish more than 120 ALBs and publish stronger governance proposals in the New Year on ALBs, as well as the results of a review by Budget 2010. This will deliver at least £500m in savings.'

A Budget day announcement on lobbying will be viewed as an attempt by Labour to outflank the Conservative Party, which has already promised to introduce restrictions on public sector lobbying.

Shadow cabinet office minister Nick Hurd has said the Tories would introduce 'rules to stop public sector bodies hiring lobbyists to bid for more funds or legislative favours'.

The Tories claim this would save the taxpayer more than £2m per year.

The move is likely to prompt outrage from public affairs agency bosses who believe it would force public bodies to provide the same function in-house, possibly under a different name. This could result in more public cash being spent on lobbying, it is argued.

WHO WILL BE HIT?

Weber Shandwick, Grayling, Fishburn Hedges and Connect Public Affairs are the big providers of public affairs consultancy services to government-funded bodies

In January 2010, The Sunday Times ran a front-page story on the Audit Commission's use of Connect Public Affairs

In December 2008, a Tory Party report said Fishburn Hedges received £990,710 from Jobcentre Plus.

 
X

You must log in to use Clip & Save

 
 

All Comments

 

Richard Ellis - 18 March 2010

Alistair Darling's plans are blatant electioneering, pandering to public misconceptions in a short-sighted and irresponsible way. Public sector bodies have a duty to communicate with the public and with each other. However the instruments of government are complex and it is a waste of the taxpayer's money to develop sophisticated skills in-house that are only used occasionally. As a result they have as much need to make use of public affairs practitioners as the private sector. They are responsible for making the most effective possible use of their budgets and this includes using those who bring specific skills and capabilities that might not otherwise be available to make government run as effectively as possibly. All parties should focus less on spin and more on effective communication of well thought out policies.

 
 

James Michael Convey - 18 March 2010

Nice to see the British Gov understands the deleterious effect this type of underhanded influence from the corporate sector, can have on the body politic. The US supreme court doesn't agree it seems, as they just recently "threw off" over 100 years of law in order to allow this sort of lobbying influence upon the US body politic. There is quite a hue and cry in Washington on this matter. Bravo to the UK Govt for showing common sense and leadership on this important issue.

 
 

Comments

 
 

To post comments please log in here

 
 
 

PRWeek Agency Showcase

 

Bulletins

You can sign up for our bulletins. Select bulletins you are interested in, enter your email adress an click the button below

Preview
Preview
Preview
 

Poll

Is it OK for journalists/bloggers to name and shame persistent PR professionals?

 

View Results