Lobbyists on the Attack
UKWatch.net - 26 Sep 2008
?That?s an oxymoron,? quipped new, New Labour lobbyist Derek Draper, responding to a flyer on ?lobbying transparency?, promoting a fringe meeting at this year’s Labour conference. Ten years out of the game and he’s as candid as ever. Beneath the stories that dominated the headlines at conference ? Brown?s future and the country?s fortunes ? another issue was brewing. That of lobbyists and their licence to operate under the radar of public scrutiny. The lobbyists in Manchester found themselves the focus of debate thanks to two back-to-back fringe meetings, one organised by the industry’s trade body, the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC), the other by thea href=“http://www.spinwatch.org/www.lobbyingtransparency.org” Alliance for Lobbying Transparency (ALT). ALT is a coalition of civil society groups, including Friends of the Earth, National Union of Journalists, Unlock Democracy and SpinWatch, who are concerned about the influence professional lobbyists have on public policy and the lack of transparency in the industry. Some lobbyists were possibly lured to ALT?s debate, Will Lobbyists Come Clean?, keen to be the first to read a new report by SpinWatch, which was launched at the event. The report, Spinning the Wheels: a guide to the PR and lobbying industry in the UK takes readers on a walking tour of the major players in the industry around Westminster, examining the links between their lobbyists and UK politics and revealing some of the industry?s common techniques and tactics. The fringe debate touched on much of the same ground covered by the Parliamentary inquiry into lobbying, which is due to report this autumn. Speakers John Grogan MP, David Miller of SpinWatch, Jon McLeod, UK Chairman of Public Affairs at lobbying firm Weber Shandwick, and Stephen Kingston, editor of the local grassroots magazine the Salford Star presented and debated many of the current concerns people have with professional lobbying. These include: the absence of transparency in the industry; the disparity in resources and access to political decision-makers between corporate lobbyists and the public; the revolving door between the lobbying industry and MPs, Peers and government officials; the apparent unethical behaviour of some lobbying firms and the weakness of self-regulation to prevent it; and the value of ?community consultations? conducted by PR and lobbying firms on behalf of commercial interests such as developers. Not long into the debate, heckling from the back began. Someone wishing to speak claimed that the level of debate was ?low? and the speakers were being ?nave? (which given the collective experience of the panel came as something of a surprise). When it came to questions at the end, lobbyist Robbie MacDuff rose to say his piece. MacDuff is a lobbyist formerly with Ian Greer Associates, now with Precise Public Affairs. He was recently appointed head of the APPC, the trade body established in the wake of scandals in the nineties involving Ian Greer Associates, to set standards and improve transparency in lobbying through self-regulation. In a lengthy speech, and reading from cards, MacDuff set out to defend the lobbying industry. What we need is transparency in charities, he said; lobbyists work pro-bono for good causes; regulation of lobbyists would create an exclusive ?elite? and deter others from lobbying etc. As he continued another member of the audience thought to ask him if he was in fact the fifth member of the panel, so intent was he on holding the floor. Chair Nigel Pivaro, formerly bad boy Terry Duckworth in Coronation Street, stepped in on a number of occasions to try and stem the flow, only managing to stop MacDuff with a look that was pure Terry. Despite the barracking from the back row, the panel and audience ? made up of progressive business, NGO workers, local councillors, media and lobbyists ? debated the issues for a further hour, raising questions, dispelling myths and unpicking arguments. And while some stayed on for a drink, others went back to the day job, lobbying into the night. According to sources, the APPC?s own event on lobbying the following morning passed without incident. With this fringe meeting held inside the secure zone, only those with conference passes were able to attend.

Migrants exploited for cheap labour
UKWatch.net - 26 Sep 2008
Detainees at the Campsfield House immigration prison in Oxfordshire are being “exploited for cheap labour” due to staff cuts, the Oxford and District Trades Union Council has revealed. The rejected asylum seekers, who are locked up for lengthy periods pending their deportation, are being paid 5 for six-hour shifts of cleaning and kitchen work. A statement by the Oxford and District TUC said: “We maintain our position that Campsfield is a shameful operation and should be closed. As long as it is open, jobs should be properly paid and be done by trained staff. For detainees there should be adequate recreational, educational and other provision? Detainees should receive an adequate financial allowance and not be obliged to act as slave labour for a multinational that makes big profits out of an operation that causes detainees enormous stress, uncertainty, general misery and often mental illness.” Tracy Ellicott from the Campaign to Close Campsfield told Corporate Watch that detainees are not forced by GEO, the company that runs the prison, to work as such. They are, however, “forced in the sense that they are locked up for 24 hours a day, uncertain of their future and with no money to purchase any essentials they may need.” She added detainees can apply to do certain ‘jobs’ in the centre, such as cleaning, kitchen work and in the library. But none of those she has been visiting was prepared to speak out about this as they are “too scared of retaliation.” The shifts are 6 hours long and detainees are paid 5 per shift, or 83p an hour. A GEO guard has reportedly said that, according to Home Office rules, they could only pay detainees a maximum of 24 a week. Radio Oxford quoted a statement from the Home Office two weeks ago to the effect that this was all above board and had been agreed with the Home Secretary. A Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) spokesperson said: “All detained persons are provided with an opportunity and encouraged to participate in activities to meet their recreational and intellectual needs. Individuals are entitled to undertake paid activities at rates approved by the Secretary of State.” As usual, GEO declined to comment. Since taking over the running of Campsfield in June 2006, Global Expertise in Outsourcing (GEO) has cut back on both staffing levels and educational, recreational and other provisions at the centre. Over the past year, GEO has sacked education workers, nursing staff have departed, staff turnover has increased, the welfare officer has left and in September, the chaplain was suspended. GEO?s main business is immigration detention centres and mental health centres throughout the world, especially in USA, UK, South Africa and Australia. It also runs a part of Guantnamo Bay base in Cuba. Private companies like GEO that run immigration detention centres make huge profits. Seven of the UK’s ten detention centres are run by private companies. The average cost for detaining someone in 2007/08 was 119 per day. “It is unbelievable that people who have done nothing wrong are not only locked up in prison like criminals, but are also being treated like slaves,” Ms Ellicott said. “GEO is obviously saving money by using their ‘captives’ to perform menial tasks for slave wages.” She added, “of course, they could save a lot more if these centres were closed altogether!”. The Home Office admitted migrants imprisoned in detention centres are “exempt from the minimum wage” but claimed they are “not forced to work.” A BIA spokesperson insisted: “This is voluntary and we are constantly looking for new opportunities to meet demand for this work.” However, according to the immigration law, all asylum seekers are prohibited from work and live on state support, which is fixed at 70% of what is deemed to be the bare minimum to live on. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 states that “it is contrary to this section to employ an adult subject to immigration control if… he has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.” The majority of those held in immigration detention centres are rejected asylum seekers (have not been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK) who are waiting to be deported back home.