Dont ask me why, but London's central shopping area was full of Italians today. Recently, the UK media has focussed on Greece in its coverage of the euro crisis, but should the BBC and its broadcast rivals now be booking airline seats for Rome? Working in Brussels at the launch of the euro, I remember all too well the gossip there which alleged that Italy had added the value of its black economy to the official staistics in order to join the euro community. Hearing so much Italian this afternoon made me think of the euro crisis not so much in term of markets, but in the international nature of companies. Most UK consumers will know of EDF and O2, but few will realise that one is a French company and the other, owned by Spain's Telefonica. If the economic woes continue, I can well imagine the demands for more lobbying to come from boardrooms in Frankfurt or Madrid. How that might be received in other markets, such as the United Kingdom, is an interesting question. What is sure is that the PR industry faces a challenging time.
Last night's summit in Brussels over the debt crisis in Euroland has brought some certainty to the markets. Whilst we await the details, what is clear is the creation of a 'two- speed' Europe - led by the Euro-using community, with a secondary tier of membership for the others. When I was first in Brussels at the launch of the new currency, my German friends would ask why the UK had not joined the Euro. As with many simple questions, I could never find a really succinct answer. The conclusion was that the 'Brits' were not serious about the EU and would suffer as a consequence. The current decisions over national debt and the euro has reinvigorated this issue - the sight of David Cameron and the other leaders from non-Euro countries being dismissed from the meeting can only be a signal example of what might come. If economic issues are now to be determined by the Euro-club alone, this may well change the shape of EU government. Most issues could be classified as being 'economic' - take agriculture or transport policy. It is worth pondering whether UK lobbyists or public affairs people will have the influence they have enjoyed until now. The French phrase for two-speed is 'a deux vitesses' - which resonates more with me than the English equivalent. Apart from a possibility of reduced influence, what effect with this have on europhobia in England? I say England, because recent surveys have shown far greater support for the EU in Scotland and Wales. Whilst most people will find the outcomes of last night's summit a struggle to understand, the possible political consequences are clearer, but have enormous significance and potential to create all sorts of further difficulties.
A month ago, Peter Wynne Davies completed his second report on how public affairs can benefit businesses for the publisher, Thorogood. Whilst the public affairs market has grown in recent years and become far more competitive thanks to cuts in UK government expenditure, several new factors have surfaced in the profession. The report highlights the growth in social media to communicate quickly to key audiences, the rapid improvement in how trade associations communicate (especially in the Brussels arena) and the effects of devolved government within the UK. The growing professionalism of the industry has also resulted in teaching and preparation for the CIPR Diploma in public affairs. Whilst public confidence in the political classes continues to be fairly low, it is encouraging to hear politicians defend the real contribution that public affairs and its exponents have on legislative and regulatory issues. The report will be available on November 15, but can be pre-ordered with a discount - More information at www.macdonaldwynnedavies.com/resources.php
Periodically, Europe returns to the top of the political agenda. Today, as EU civil servants grapple with issues surrounding the euro and debt, there is a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on Europe, forced on David Cameron by his own political innovation, the petition system. The last public vote on the EU was in 1975, so two generations of UK voters have grown up feeling a democratic deficit in not being able to influence a growing dynamic to centralise more power in Brussels. Having worked there, I am constantly asked for my views on a possible withdrawal. I always remember the words of a former French colleague, who was horrified at such a prospect. The key British contribution to the EU, according to him, was to moderate with common sense some of the wilder aspirations of EU civil servants. In the debates over the euro and member state debt, it is increasingly clear that the Franco-German machine is again at the fore. The results of tonight's vote on the debate are already known, but the European 'issue' will not go away. Perhaps lobbyists should regard Paris and Berlin as new targets, rather than Brussels?
I have followed the recent media coverage of Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary, and his 'adviser' Adam Werritty with great interest. Inevitably there has been a renewed call from the media and some in politics for a statutory register of lobbyists. But would the Werritty case be covered by such a register? Of greater interest, but not yet spotted by the media, is the system whereby the EU pay NGOs large amounts of money to participate in 'public debate' on issues ( eg the environment). This money goes into NGO central funds and supports campaigns to oppose or overturn EU and member state policies. But EU money is public money so, is it right that public money is used to fund NGO campaigns against government policy? Should tax-payers' money be used by unelected NGOs to counter government policy. A register of lobbying will identify PRIVATE money used to influence government, but this is PUBLIC money provided by the tax payer. On which register is this declared? Answer - nowhere!
Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is now an accepted part of the UK's political arrangements. Whilst Westminster might be perceived as losing more powers to Brussels, it is fair to say that elected members in the devolved bodies are only too keen to extend their range of competencies. Recently, the Welsh Assembly Government decided that it should really call itself the Welsh Government, with all the implications that a one word deletion would imply. One change in the area of public policy has surprisingly gone unremarked. Take the environmental issue of the billions of plastic bags given to customers every year by supermarkets. Following a successful measure to reduce usage by the Irish government, The Welsh Assembly voted to add a financial surcharge to every bag used in Wales. Now the Westminster government is taking public representations about adopting its own forms of restrictions on the bags. In Scotland, debates continue about how they might act to curtail the vast consumption of alcohol in the country. How long before Westminster wakes up to the health potential of state intervention? This ability for public policy to cross newly established boundaries of competence and pop up almost anywhere is an aspect of devolution that has yet to attract much academic interest. For those in the public affairs arena, this is an important new factor in the area of issues management that they ignore at their peril. Devolved governments want to be seen to be different - but public policy solutions now seem to be more fluid than the original architects of devolution might have imagined.
The registration of lobbyists has been a long-running issue. In Brussels, despite years of debate, there is still little consensus. Some public affairs practioners have registered with the European institutions and some are resolutely opposed. February saw the establishment of the UK Public Affairs Council, a self-regulatory venture created by the three main organisations (CIPR, APPC and PRCA) representing the industry. Public Affairs people see this as a debate between themselves and politicians but this ignores the poor reputation the lobbying industry has amongst the general public. As PA practioners we believe that the industry should be as open as possible because the alternative will be a statutory requirement imposed on us all. Whether UKPAC satisfies politicans and the public remains to be seen. We have registered with the scheme and perhaps if more of us are open about the work we are doing with clients the industry's reputation will improve over time.
|
 |
|
