Talk:European Centre for Public Affairs

Some press coverage of the ECPA:

3 of 18 DOCUMENTS

The Sprout

March 15, 2006

Media subsidies debate: Those who live in glass houses should shut the f---

SECTION: Pg. 27

LENGTH: 1805 words

DATELINE: Belgium

Publishers who complain about EU subsidies going to the their rivals need to check their own backyard thoroughly, before launching into their pathetic harangue, writes Martin Jay There's much talk at the moment of the role of the media, and subsidies shelled out to EU-friendly or-gans in Brussels. For many, an intensely boring subject, but the role of the European Commission and how it goes about using taxpayers' money to pump out puffed up 'news' about itself, or at the very worst, propa-ganda, is an important one: without the puff, would the EU, in reality, operate at all? But as any wise hack will tell you, very, very few magazines or newspapers, survive without some form of 'subsidy' - traditionally advertising. More increasingly though, in Brussels certainly, it is advertising which does not sell a product, but a political message aimed at steering regulators towards an agenda, which keeps many publications afloat. Who is the arbiter though over such 'subsidies'? Who defines what is ethical - or at least acceptable - over what is patently unacceptable in a democratic 'state'? Presently, no such organisation exists, although many argue it should be the International Federation of Journalists, (IFJ). Perhaps the problem also lies in the fact that the EU is not a 'state' (yet) and can not, therefore, be governed as such. And so, bereft of any real regulator, the media governs itself and hopes some of the more outlandish scams do not get spotted by a weary readership. But if the somnolent citizens of Europe were to know the true extent of the subsidies, they might stir. Then, and only then, could some kind of action take place. Yet how could that really take place? There aren't the mechanisms installed, (certainly not by the IFJ which takes a small subsidy from the EU coffers, incidentally). We journalists and publishers would have to present a concrete story, relevant to the breakfast tables of, say, Britain, with a caste-iron case, profession-ally put, endorsed, substantiated and verified. And here is the crux of the problem. The truth, like in most battles, is the first rifle volunteer to bite the gritty soil. Recently, the free EU news-paper 'EUReporter' published as a cover 'news' story a 2000 odd word rant about EU money being pumped into media outlets in Brussels. It itemised, without any real evidence, a list of news organisations which it claimed are funded, directly or otherwise, from the EU budget. The article failed however to have any impact whatsoever, but served as a perfect example of everything which is fundamentally flawed about the EU: hy-pocrisy. Sadly, its proprietor is probably heading towards a nervous breakdown as the verse was nothing more than a seething, angry and rather sad blither of sour grapes. Chris White is a funny, likeable guy. But as a former press officer of the UK Tories, he also knows how to spin a tale and make a news story look vaguely real. But this diatribe was anything but real, in fact, merely an end-of-career nuclear tantrum charged with bitterness and a deep refusal to accept his own failure as a publisher of a free rag which very few peo-ple actually read. Almost without failure, there is either a hidden agenda to what he writes, or a shocking, comical story to everyone he attacks for taking EU subsidies. But he does at least throw the spotlight on the very subject which is at the heart of the argument: if you accept that most Brussels media needs an EU subsidy, do you ban them (and therefore have no media), or accept them and allow those who cannot get an EU bung, to become a puppet to private sector backers? EUObserver This is the problem with Chris White's arguments. Pure sour grapes. Let's tackle the first one on his hit list: EUObserver. A website which offers news and comment, partly backed by a political group (INDEM) and further subsidised by part-time parliamentary workers (who receive salaries from the parliament as assis-tants). Our man is positively frothing at the mouth over this news organisation. He has even stated that his own newspaper will no longer take any campaign advertisements from Ukip, which signs the cheques for EUObs. What a hypocrite White is! Firstly, he has openly told friends that he would also like to have the same privileges that EUObs enjoys; and secondly, who does he think he is kidding by trying to distance him-self from INDEM/Ukip money? The few Tory MEPs who prop up his paper by small donations, and who see White as their lacky? Oh yes, it's widely known that Tory MEPs (former colleagues of White's) have helped ol' Chris out. And these Tories hate Ukip, thus obliging White to attack the small party - laughable in itself as White gives Ukip so much coverage in the same edition of the paper. And do these Tories believe White when he pretends to distance himself from the INDEM/Ukip slush fund? They must be fools is they do. One wonders if they know that White took Nigel Farage to lunch just recently and invited him to become a non-executive director of his company. Perhaps Farage's refusal - and thus block on White ever getting any INDEM money - has prompted this particular spasm of sour grapes? European Voice White's paper is quite right to attack the Voice for gaining a critical subsidy from the European Commis-sion - a privilege to distribute copies through the Commission's internal mailing system which consequently gives it a distinct advantage with advertisers. Bravo! But the mention of 'money' in the article is confusing. Where is the evidence that Voice receives dosh from the EU? Or is it that White is just angry again and has got confused. Incensed with jealousy and spite, his memory is playing tricks, it seems. Perhaps he has for-gotten the meetings he had with the Voice's editor 2 years ago, where he openly offered to sell his own pa-per to the Economist's EU weekly? He was promptly told to fuck off, which possibly upset him. And still up-sets him now as he sees the Voice clean up advertising. Just a small detail missing from the article. Lobby groups and PR outfits And then there is the all out assault on lobby outfits which receive EU money for EC projects. Wherever these organisations - like Hill & Knowlton or Burson-Marstellar - are involved in media operations, they are attacked by White's dismal paper on the basis of unethical journalism. Interesting concept. Perhap's White's 'journalist' who wrote the piece should have mentioned that a great deal of EU Reporter is funded by adver-tising - through thinly veiled advertorials - which are paid for, yes you've guessed it, by public affair/PR firms run by friends of White's. In the very edition where this diatribe is published is a full page 'article' by Tom Spencer who runs a lobby-cum-training institute called the European Centre for Public Affairs. The deal is 'publish my rant across an entire page and I'll pay for a quarter page ad' - made all the more unethical by the lack of 'advertorial' written above Spencer's article, so the humble reader is unaware that it is an advertiser posing as a journalist or writer. The same goes for the sugar industry - which funds a PR outfit run by David Zimmerman, another friend and advertiser; the same goes for 'articles' written by PA consultants for oil firms - which Chris charges 4500 euro each to publish. Let's turn to page 13. Oh, a commentary by Peter Gerwin-ski, the head of a German small firms software lobby, which, er, previously paid for pages and pages of ad-verting last year. And it just goes on. White has done everything he can to turn his 'newspaper' into a public affairs/PR journal where articles are paid for, per column inch and usually are tied to advertising deals - the very slur he chucks so pathetically at the European Voice and PA firms in Brussels. Not really very ethical. The European Parliament He even slams the parliament for its association with the 'ethics' of INDEM money and EUObserver. But wait. Doesn't White receive a substantial subsidy from this very institution? Indeed, he is allowed a privilege in the building which rival papers would pay scores of thousands of pounds to gain: he is allowed - against parliament rules - to distribute his arse-wipe journal, dumped on table tops and in key areas like the cafes. The parliament only allows this privilege for its own employees. Perhaps if White is so keen for parliament boss Julian Priestley to clean up, he should start by being firmer on this rule? This is a subsidy, after all, is it not? And clearly the parliament is breaking their own rules to assist and support White. What would happen to White's advertising revenue if he were not allowed to distribute in the parliament? The ethics of the company which publishes EUReporter And then we come to White's company, well, his many companies over the years which have owned a series of varied titles of the one free newspaper which trades today as EUReporter. Who actually owns it? The press room is buzzing of late by rumours that another PR firm, Quadrant Media, (yes, an advertiser) has bought a stake in it - all denied by White, of course. Quadrant are no doubt hoping to cash in on a lucrative contract from the European parliament, to host web-based news reports - another EU subsidy. But why is EUReporter running examples at the moment of these TV reports on their site? Is there a connection? And why did White move the company which owns EUReporter to Ireland recently? Was it linked to a former em-ployee - a trainee journalist - contacting the UK social security investigators, urging them to probe White's operation? And let's hope that no one examines back issues of EUReporter, as we wouldn't want the scores of journalists' by-lines to be checked to see if these names actually exist. As real people. Heaven forbid that articles were published and paid for by lobby groups, and dressed up as news stories. That would be too unethical! It is regrettable that The Sprout has to expose such inaccuracies in White's newspaper. But there is a real need to get the 'transparency of the press' debate going in Brussels if there is to be any free press in the EU at all. Unfortunately this particular strain of hypocrisy, from a man who is overcome with bitterness and jealousy, keeps the subject from ever seeing the light of day - as it feeds the adversaries of a free press with the suitable fodder to dismiss the subject outright. Instead of putting so much energy into crying like an over-grown baby about others who business plans appear to be sound, White should spend more time improving the dismal publication which he laughingly calls a 'newspaper' and 'independent'. Instead, he lampoons him-self like a sick child who relishes the grief that he is not feeding from the Brussels trough - whether it be EU coffers, or private sector loot. Is there really such a great difference?

LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2006

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Magazine

Copyright 2006 Sprout Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved

5 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Financial Times (London, England)

June 19, 2004 Saturday London Edition 2

Let EU electorate choose the Commission president

BYLINE: By TOM SPENCER

SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. 14

LENGTH: 366 words

From Mr Tom Spencer. Sir, The opaque and undignified inter-governmental fight over the nomination of the next European Commission president is the flip side of the slap in the face delivered to ruling parties in last week's Euro-pean election. Both seem designed to confirm the electorate's darkest fears that voting changes nothing and closed-door deals prevail. A transparent solution could be to let the people of Europe choose the president of the Commission with the vote that they cast in European parliamentary elections. Next time, candidates for the president's job should have to declare themselves by January 1 2009. US-style primaries could then be held in all 25 countries. I suggest starting with the five smallest countries (Malta, Luxembourg, Estonia, Cyprus and Slovenia) for a visually satisfying echo of New Hampshire. The five biggest countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain) would hold their party primaries on the last weekend of March. From the beginning of April, the campaign would be focused around the policies and per-sonalities of the six or so party-endorsed individuals aspiring to lead the next Commission. The impact would be positive. The electorate could judge both the individuals and their policies. Issues could be debated over a six-month period, rather than crammed into six days. The political groups in the European parliament, and their transnational political parties, would have to define themselves and their alliances before, rather than after, the elections. National political leaders would have to invest real, rather than token, effort into the campaign, but could thereafter concentrate on choosing the new president of the Council. If the current system remains unreformed, we must resign ourselves to European elections in which the voters alternate between damaging apathy and euro-sceptic anger. The problem is not the much talked-about absence of a European "demos"; rather it is the weakness of the current arrangements by which the democratic will of the people of Europe is supposed to manifest itself. Tom Spencer, Executive Director, European Centre for Public Affairs, School of Management, Univer-sity of Surrey (MEP 1979-84 and 1989-99)

LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2004

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DOCUMENT-TYPE: Letters

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Copyright 2004 The Financial Times Limited

11 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Financial Times (London,England)

October 25, 2002 Friday USA Edition 2

EU does not need a chief executive

BYLINE: By TOM SPENCER

SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 403 words

From Mr Tom Spencer. Sir, A move away from the system of six-month presidencies in the European Council of Ministers is in-evitable with enlargement, but it is wrong to present the issue as a choice between intergovernmentalism and the community method ("EU nears endgame in creation of a president", October 11).

    As always, the result of the current debate will contain elements of both. More important, any out-come will, and should, lead to a substantial increase in the power of the Council secretariat. In the unlikely event of the European Union adopting the Franco-British proposal for a president of the European Council with a five-year term, no one anticipates Europe's administrative business being solely in the hands of British or Spanish civil servants under a Blair or Aznar regime. Any such president would have to rely on the inter-national skills of an enhanced Council secretariat rather than their own national civil servants.  

The advantage of increased visibility for such a president is in any case illusory. The experiment with a high representative should have warned us of the dangers of awarding titles implying a degree of unity that does not yet exist. The last thing we need in a dangerous world is two presidents in Brussels, glaring at each other for five years from grand buildings, divided by hectares of contested turf. It would be far wiser to opt for a variety of the "team presidency" now doing the rounds in Brussels. A five-nation, 2 1/2-year presidency, sequenced with the five-year term of parliament, would share out all the portfolios except the chairmanship of the European Council, Coreper (the committee of permanent represen-tatives) and the General Affairs and External Relations Council. These bodies alone would continue to re-volve their chairmanship on the existing six-month basis. The reality would be co-ordination by the Council secretariat, but the principle of the equality of states would be maintained. Recent history should be our guide. Prime ministers may enjoy appointing one of their own as president of the Commission but, as Jacques Santer and Romano Prodi can confirm, they do not support them once chosen. Europe does not need a CEO - either as a chief executive officer or as a career enhancement op-portunity for retired national leaders. Tom Spencer, Executive Director, European Centre for Public Affairs, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK

LOAD-DATE: October 24, 2002

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Copyright 2002 The Financial Times Limited

6 of 26 DOCUMENTS

MAIL ON SUNDAY

August 15, 1999

Charlie's single aim; BLACK DOG

SECTION: Pg. 27

LENGTH: 645 words

BAD news for Sarah Gurling, the girlfriend of newly-elected Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy.
Dog can reveal the attractive 29-year-old PR girl is in danger of being signed up to an exclusive new club at Westminster.
Cruel wags are calling it Peggys' Club, because all the members suffer from Perpetual Girlfriend Syn-drome.
Honourable members include Gordon Brown's Sarah Macaulay and before wiser counsel prevailed Wil-liam Hague's Ffion. 
Dog can reveal tongues are wagging at Westminster over the 18-month romance between cherubic Charles and Sarah.
Fresh from his leadership triumph, Kennedy is preparing to whisk her off for a Bahamas holiday, fuelling speculation that wedding bells can't be far off.
Friends predict that, with the leadership under his belt, Kennedy, almost 40, will soon announce his en-gagement to Sarah, an adviser with lottery firm Camelot. But Kennedy is infamous for breaking hearts. Spite-ful gossips recall that earlier rumours of impending nuptials have all come to nothing.
Sarah's friends hope she won't be just another one of 'Charlie's Angels', who seem to get so close but never make it to the altar.
Advisers have told Kennedy a formal engagement to Sarah would allay his image as a Parliamentary playboy and be seen as a sign of growing political maturity.
But I can reveal that Kennedy has told confidantes he has no intention of going down on bended knee in the Caribbean. His message to friends has been blunt: 'We have no plans to wed. Sarah is a very busy pro-fessional person and I have been very busy of late.' Our advice to the two Sarahs is keep pegging away.
DISGRACED Euro MP Tom Spencer has bounced back from the scandal surrounding his bizarre pri-vate life. The 'happily married' senior Conservative, who had to give up his safe Euro seat after details of his long-term homosexual dalliances were revealed, has been given a new job.
He is to be temporary executive director of the European Centre for Public Affairs at Oxford Univer-sity's Templeton College, which was founded to promote religious and spiritual lifestyles.
Darling of the people
WHILE Tony Blair is off in Italy acting like some feted monarch, Dog is heartened to find that the Cabinet has at least one man of the people in its ranks.
My spies recently spotted Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling enjoying a plebeian day out with his family at Disneyland, Florida.
Unlike his boss, Presbyterian Darling eschewed any special treatment, much preferring to join the queue for the big dipper like everyone else.
I HEAR Junior Minister Angela Eagle is turning the air blue at the Environment Department. Civil ser-vants have been taken aback by the Anglo-Saxon richness of language used by the former Formby High School girl.
WHEN the Blairs attend the Palio horse race in Siena, much derided for its brutality, in the crowd will be Charlie Whelan, former spin-doctor to Gordon Brown, who is reporting on the event for a small circulation newspaper.
DOG sympathises with the Earl of Glasgow, who gave the following reason for failing to turn up for a House of Lords debate: 'I've got the bank on my back. The country park wasn't ready for the tourists and we didn't meet our target.
HIGHFLYING Cabinet Office Minister Lord Falconer has been wowing colleagues with his knowledge of pop music. Dog can reveal the reason. 'Charlie' Falconer's brother-in-law used to be Stevie Wonder's man-ager.
Alastair's burning desire
FORMER Tory chief whip Alastair Goodlad has been regaling the political salons of Sydney with an hi-larious story since Tony Blair appointed him to be our High Commissioner in Australia.
He met his wife Cecilia at a party when her hair caught fire and he dashed to the rescue to put it out. The ever-witty Aussies have nicknamed him 'Bushfire Goodlad'.

LOAD-DATE: August 16, 1999

LANGUAGE: English

PUB-TYPE: Paper

Copyright 1999 Associated Newspapers Ltd.

8 of 26 DOCUMENTS

The Scotsman

May 29, 1997, Thursday

European lobbyists are forced to conform

BYLINE: Francine Cunningham

SECTION: Pg. 28

LENGTH: 1072 words

A GROUP of dedicated students meets in a classroom close to the concrete jungle of European institu-tions in Brussels.  This is no ordinary evening class, but a programme designed to train lobbyists in the art of schmoozing, stroking and subtly influencing decision makers in the European Union.
Here, Euro executives learn the art of "coalition building" and developing "the methodology of a lobbying campaign".
They undergo multiple choice tests on their knowledge of EU bodies or examine a case study on the banana trade regime. 
Each student is introduced to a "godfather", a senior consultant who will act as his or her guide through the labyrinthine maze of European institutions.
At the end of this programme, run by the European Centre for Public Affairs, a Brussels think-tank, every successful participant is awarded a certificate.
Billions of pounds are at stake in EU legislation, state aid and competition rulings. An estimated 10,000 lobbyists now work in Brussels, often employed by multinational companies trying to shape decisions which profoundly affect their businesses. As the ranks of lobbyists have grown, so have calls for them to be con-trolled.  A new code of conduct which comes into effect today will tighten up the rules of the game.
Brussels lobbyists can be shy of their profession, preferring to call themselves "public affairs practitio-ners." They range from pressure groups such as the US National Rifle Association to the major German car manufacturers and multinational corporations.
Then there are all the trade union groups, non-governmental organisations, law firms and the regional governments vying for attention. Every conceivable sector is represented, from the EU mayonnaise and con-diment sauce committee to the International Confederation of Beet Growers.
The European Parliament based in Strasbourg and Brussels is a prime target for lobbyists.  They will now have to obey a clear set of rules or risk being refused access to the institution.
It took eight years of internal wrangling before the parliament finally adopted an eight-point code drafted by British Labour MEP, Glyn Ford.  "It is important to realise that this is not a voluntary code of conduct, it is compulsory.  Any lobbyist who does not sign up to it will not get a pass," said Mr Ford.
Under the new system, players will have to declare whom they represent and agree to abide by the new standards.
They must not obtain information dishonestly or sell parliamentary papers.  They have to refrain from of-fering gifts to MEPs and must declare any help they provide them.
Lobbyists also have to get approval from MEPs if they want to offer work to their assistants. This is aimed at assistants who sometimes combine "consultancy" work with other duties.
However, the parliament failed to back two of Mr Ford's toughest proposals.  There was insufficient sup-port for his plan which would have forced lobbyists to provide a detailed report each year of their efforts to influence decision-making.
The new code has been welcomed by leading Brussels-based consultancies, who are just as keen to keep out the cowboys.  Members of SEAP, the Society of European Affairs Practitioners, already have their own guidelines.
"We fulfil a valuable function which should be performed to the highest standards of professionalism," says Lyn Trytsman-Gray of the Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment.  "We are seeking to take part in public policy process and try to influence that through lobbying and communication."
In her eyes, the relationship between EU institutions and the lobbyist is one of mutual dependence.  "EU officials need industry to formulate their work," says Ms Trytsman-Gray.
Sessions at the European Parliament in Strasbourg are prime hunting grounds for lobbyists.  MEPs are regularly buttonholed on the way to the voting chamber.
Lobbyists try to influence legislation early, when it is being drafted by civil servants at the European Commission in Brussels. They also work on the Council of Ministers, the final decision-making body where lobbyists exert pressure through national governments.
The secrecy of the EU's decision-making process, especially in the Council of Ministers, is a bone of contention for many lobbyists. "Citizens knocking on the door of European institutions should find the door open," says Rodolphe de Looz-Corswarem of the European Confederation of Breweries.
It is one of the strange quirks of the new rules, that lobbyists are obliged to make sure that MEPs regis-ter any gifts or trips given to them.  This gives the impression that MEPs cannot be trusted to do this them-selves.
Catherine Stewart, a consultant with multinational clients, says: "The European Parliament must enforce its own sanctions, if it feels members do not abide by the rules." The term "gifts" has even been taken out of the code of conduct and replaced with the more ambiguous "benefits in cash or kind." Thus, teddy bears or commemorative mugs are unlikely to fall foul of the rules.
Lobbyists claim that they rarely give gifts, but admit to inviting MEPs and officials for meals and paid trips to see farms or industries.  "There aren't very many jollies nowadays," remarks Ms Stewart.
Governments may prove more generous with their favours than commercial companies. Many Euro-MPs came in for fierce criticism last year for accepting junkets to Turkey, at a time when the Turkish govern-ment was trying to persuade the EU to sign a customs agreement.
The new rules may help to bring the army of professional lobbyists into line, but it does nothing to re-strict the activities of MEPs who sometimes moonlight consultants for big business.  A German MEP, Elmar Brok, for example, is quite open about his role as vice-president of European Affairs for the media giant Bertlesmann. He claims this does not interfere with his parliamentary duties.
Ms Stewart says: "Some MEPs use their parliamentary privilege to act as consultants.
The European Parliament has to decide whether that is acceptable." In Brussels, the atmosphere is of-ten frenzied as lobbyists with conflicting interests try to get to the official or MEP with the most clout.
Under the new rules, lobbyists will have to temper persistence with politeness.
But there will be no end to the ear-bending and arm-twisting.

LOAD-DATE: May 29, 1997

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUB-TYPE: PAPER

Copyright 1997 The Scotsman Publications Ltd.

9 of 26 DOCUMENTS

The Times

April 18, 1996, Thursday

Like cows to the slaughter

BYLINE: Robin Pedler

SECTION: Features

LENGTH: 809 words

Robin Pedler on the great BSE public relations blunder.

When John Major was interviewed after the Turin summit about the mad cow crisis, he said: Lessons will have to be learnt in dealing with future health scares. But the Government should already have been aware that there are well-established principles for crisis containment developed by companies. In attempt-ing to deal with the BSE scare, the Government ignored them. These are the points it ought to have under-stood and acted upon: 1. Put someone clearly in charge. An individual must be clearly identified and seen to be taking the nec-essary action. Most people expect it to be the head (chairman or prime minister) but it does not have to be. He or she must then co-ordinate the action and control the communication, internal and external. Internal communication is just as important. If members of an organisation are confused or under-informed, all kinds of rumours and speculation will emerge. Two contrasting examples from the oil industry illustrate the importance of someone being seen to be in charge. When the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground off Alaska, no one senior in Exxon spoke up for a week. When the chairman finally did so, it was too late. Yet when the Piper Alpha rig blew up, Dr Armand Hammer, Occidental's chief, flew straight to Scotland, said all the right things and gave the impression that the company was in control. The Government ignored this principle in two important respects. First, it was not made clear whether Mr Dorrell, the Health Secretary, or Mr Hogg, the Agriculture Minister, was in charge. Secondly, Mr Dorrell made it clear that he was not in charge but merely reflecting the views of the scientists. This made him look reactive and also broke rule 2. 2. Your scientific advice may be good, but by itself it won't convince the public. In the Brent Spar case, Shell had the advice of its own scientists and those of the British Government on its side. Two of them even wrote to the journal Nature at the height of the crisis to confirm their view that deep-sea disposal was the least environmentally damaging option. None of this did Shell any good. Greenpeace had made Brent Spar into a symbol. Mr Dorrell chose an even less valuable support group. Opinion surveys in the environmental area show that Government scientists are particularly lowly rated as sources of information. Two thirds of respondents rate them as unreliable. A majority would rather believe single-issue groups, friends or neighbours. 3. Take action early and exceed what is expected by a clear margin. If you fail to do this, you will eventu-ally be forced into a U-turn, destroying any belief you may have engendered that you really are in charge. If you decide on taking unpleasant action too late, what might earlier have convinced people will appear to be just another example of the organisation being driven by events. A successful example of taking the hit early was provided by Perrier. When some of its bottled water was said to have been contaminated with benzene in 1990, the company opted for a total worldwide product re-call. Thereafter it quickly recovered market share and pricing. The advantage of taking the early hit is that it kills off a scare's news value. While the media have the impression that there is more to come, they will keep digging and publishing. The Government has been amazingly slow to learn this lesson.

As late as Friday, March 29, Douglas Hogg, interviewed on his way to Brussels after a policy of limited slaughter had been decided upon, said: We have done anything scientists required. It may be that more will have to be done to restore public confidence.

He will almost certainly have to say that again. 4. Admit mistakes, don't blame others. Admitting that a mistake has been made, when it obviously has, does not enhance the impression of crisis. Rather it suggests that the person in charge knows what has gone wrong and can probably fix it. There is also plenty of evidence that some contrition can be very effec-tive in winning public opinion to your side.

When Exxon finally spoke up about the Exxon Valdez disaster, it was not to apologise but to blame the tanker captain for being drunk. It lost even more public sympathy. The owners of the Braer, on the other hand, maintained public sympathy by admitting their mistakes.

In the case of Government's handling of the BSE crisis everybody else is to blame, the scare is whipped up by the Labour Party, the Europeans are ganging up against Britain. This approach only serves to diminish the chance that anyone will be regarded as being in charge. The author is Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs at Templeton College, Oxford.

LOAD-DATE: April 19, 1996

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1996 Times Newspapers Limited

11 of 26 DOCUMENTS

Financial Times (London,England)

November 14, 1995, Tuesday

Exceptional resistance?

BYLINE: From Mr ROBIN PEDLER

SECTION: Letters to the Editor; Pg. 22

LENGTH: 165 words

Sir, Paul Abrahams' well documented article 'Bitter memories of the resistance' (November 11/12) is convincing, for the countries he covers. While, however, he ranges from Brittany to the steppes of Russia and to Greece for his material, he omits all mention of Yugoslavia. Throughout the disastrous developments of the last four years in that region, it has repeatedly been stated that Tito's partisans were effective, that they tied down a number of German divisions - some esti-mates go as high as seven - and that they liberated their country with little outside assistance. At a moment when governments are considering the deployment of 60,000 Nato ground troops in the region, it would be highly relevant to consider whether the received wisdom about the effectiveness of Serb-led partisans is correct or whether it, too, is due for historical revision. Robin Pedler, director, European Centre for Public Affairs, Templeton College, Oxford OX1 5NY

LOAD-DATE: November 14, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1995 The Financial Times Limited;

13 of 26 DOCUMENTS

Financial Times (London,England)

December 30, 1994, Friday

Need to achieve a better balance in social policy in Europe and the UK

BYLINE: From Mr ROBIN PEDLER

SECTION: Letters to the Editor; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 118 words

Sir, Peter Cooke's thoughtful letter was published in the same issue in which you featured a report, enti-tled 'Germany 'ahead of UK on labour costs' ', detailing the Confederation of British Industry's concerns that Germany's unit labour costs are reducing at the same time as the UK's are again beginning to increase. It would seem that the current policy of resisting the legal protection of employee rights is no guarantee of maintaining comparatively low unit labour costs, even when the comparison is with Germany, the Euro-pean country where those rights are most entrenched. Robin Pedler, executive director, European Centre for Public Affairs, Templeton College, Oxford OX1 5NY

LOAD-DATE: January 1, 1995

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

Copyright 1994 The Financial Times Limited;