Grayling
A Labour friendly lobbying consultancy before 1997. Jo Moore, the New labour spin doctor famous for suggesting to colleagues that 9/11 was a ‘good day to bury bad news’ used to work for Westminster Strategy after 1997 election and prior to landing job at DTI.
She tried to secure a senior post in the Department of Transport press office for one of her friends, with whom she had worked for a Westminster lobbying company. The story appeared in The Independent, but she still continued to push for the appointment of Ann Wallis, now a civil servant elsewhere in the Government.
A little-known figure outside Westminster before her 11 September e-mail, her rise to notoriety was steady. She honed her spinning skills at Labour party headquarters under Peter Mandelson in Millbank before the 1997 election and was known as the "the cleaner" by colleagues for her ability to "fix" difficult political stories. Her nickname was based on the intimidating character Winston Wolf, played by Harvey Keitel in the cult film Pulp Fiction.
She was feted at the highest levels of the Labour Party, and was even thrown a party at Downing Street after she left for a Westminster lobbying job at Westminster strategy. Ms Moore even wore a silver lapel badge in the shape of an ice pick - the weapon used to dispose of Leon Trotsky - during the party's crusade against Labour's left wing.
MPs and lobbyists yesterday concurred with a description of tactics used by lobbyists to influence the Commons committees that consider legislation, revealed in the Independent. Stephen Byers MP, a Labour whip, said the system was vulnerable because in deciding who to put on standing committees which amend proposed legislation, whips looked at who had spoken on a Bill's second reading. An MP's chances of being selected for the committee, "increase by a factor of 10", said Mr Byers, if he or she had shown an interest in the Bill by speaking on the floor of the House.
At a private conference on Monday, Michael Burrell, managing director of Westminster Strategy, Britain's largest lobbying consultancy, guided members of his profession and executives from major companies and organisations through tactics which can be used.
These included, Mr Burrell said, ensuring friendly MPs disguise their support of a client's position during the second reading of a Bill in the Commons. Speaking at that stage brings MPs to the attention of the whips, who select them for the committee. Once selected, they were more able to support the client's interests. Mr Burrell acknowledged this was a "Machiavellian" practice.
From Mr Michael Burrell
Sir: Your front-page story ("Secrets of the MPs who help lobbyists," 3 October) is not a balanced account of what I said at a conference on Monday and, subsequently, to your Westminster correspondent Chris Blackhurst.
After the conference he asked me to amplify comments I had made about the House of Lords. It rapidly became clear that he meant the House of Commons, since his interest was in standing committees which deal with Bills. The committee stage for a Bill in the Lords is taken on the floor of the House, not in a standing committee.
I repeated to him - common knowledge, not a "secret" - that MPs who wanted to sit on a standing committee for a particular B ill would seek to speak on Second Reading, since demonstrating an interest in the Bill in this way was one of the factors taken into account by the party whips when they recommend who should be on the committee.
I said that MPs who wanted to be on a committee would be well advised to demonstrate an interest in the Bill as a whole, rather than just a narrow point, and to speak in a moderate (not moderated) rather than an extremist way.
I was, indeed, angry, not for the reason implied - I have never known an MP who said one thing to get on a committee, and then said another - but because your reporter's question bore no relation to the point I was making.
Chris Blackhurst chose not to report one of the main pieces of advice I gave at this conference, as at every conference I have ever spoken at on lobbying - "Tell the truth".
Yours faithfully,
Lobbyists are encouraging MPs to disguise their true beliefs in the House of Commons in order to get on to powerful standing committees which amend proposed legislation. Friendly MPs are urged to speak against the interests of lobbyists' clients to be chosen for the committees. Once on the committees the MPs are able to drop their opposition and argue in favour of clients, according to one of Westminster's leading lobbyists.
This was part of a strategy set out yesterday before a private gathering at a hotel in west London of lobbyists and executives of some of Britain's biggest companies and organisations. Unknown to the speakers, a journalist from the Independent was also present.
Michael Burrell, managing director of Westminster Strategy, the country's largest lobbying consultancy, gave them a run-down on the legislative process and key steps towards influencing the path of a Bill. After advising them not to ignore Commons select committees - he singled out the Treasury and Civil Service Committee as a body with real power - Mr Burrell moved on to the way Bills reach the statute book.
It was vital, he said, to "supply information and arguments at the crucial moments", such as when a Bill went to a standing committee for further consideration. Membership of such committees is decided by party whips after hearing the Second Reading debate. Mr Burrell said one tactic was "to get your supporters to speak but not support you. Then they might get on to the standing committee. It's a bit machiavellian."
He said the House of Lords was "more satisfying than the House of Commons". It was not easy to get results in the Commons "because of the power of the whips, but in the House of Lords you can change things". Mr Burrell named key policy-makers for lobbyists to target in an incoming Labour administration: Ed Balls, a senior adviser to Gordon Brown, the Shadow Chancellor; David Milliband, head of Tony Blair's policy unit; and Frank Field, the influential chairman of the Commons Social Services Committee.
Asked by the Independent for examples of MPs who said one thing to get on a standing committee, where they then said another, Mr Burrell angrily refused. "It was a joke, it was off the record, the whole thing was subject to Chatham House Rules. Private meetings whose remarks may not be attributed. The basis I agreed to speak was that it was off the record. I did not speak as if I was speaking in public."
When MPs spoke at Second Reading debates, they were told to temper their true beliefs. Once chosen to serve on the committee they could discount their earlier view. "If your objective is to make sure your case is heard, you are bound to advise it is put in a moderated way. Then there is a good chance the MP will get on the standing committee.
Mr Burrell has run Westminster Strategy since its foundation in 1986. His clients have included National Westminster Bank and the Corporation of London. Among those represented at yesterday's conference were British Aerospace and Cable & Wireless.
__________________________________________________
SQS and Science
Grayling's work for Scottish Quality Salmon in to support their policy communications work with elected members and officials in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. Our only role was to support SQS to ensure that policymakers were informed of the scientific facts on the issue. (John McGill, Grayling, hd of APPC Scotland)
The Sunday Herald January 18, 2004
The US study that sparked the toxic salmon scare has been strongly defended by leading scientists following allegations from the fish farming industry that it was biased and flawed.
"It is based on sound science and the results are undeniable," said George
Lucier, former director of the US Department of Health's national toxicological programme and author of more than 200 studies on toxic chemicals. He has been backed by at least three other independent US experts.
The study, by scientists from four US universities and published 10 days ago
in the US journal Science, analysed the levels of cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins and pesticides in 700 salmon from around the world. It found that farmed salmon were much more contaminated than wild salmon.
Despite the criticisms that followed, the conclusion has not been seriously
challenged. But the subsequent findings - that eating farmed Atlantic salmon "may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption" - has provoked bitter argument.
The counterattack has been led by the salmon farming industry, which was
forewarned of the study last October. It has alleged the research was biased because it was funded by a trust founded on US oil money.
The role played by the $ 3.8 billion Pew Charitable Trust, which funds
research into global pollution, was spelled out in the study, and highlighted by Science magazine, the journal of the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general federation of scientists. Any suggestion that Pew interfered has been denied by all involved.
Nevertheless, the Scottish salmon farming industry maintains it has been the
victim of a global conspiracy. "This was a deliberately engineered food scare orchestrated to attack the salmon farming industry in Scotland," said Brian Simpson, chief executive of Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS).
Science's editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy dismissed the allegations. He said that the authors were all respected members of academic institutions. "Pew funded the study but left the authors free to publish their results without review," he told the Sunday Herald, adding that Science's peer-review process "is among the most rigorous in the scientific community".
The levels of contamination reported by the study have been accepted by both the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS) in the UK.
"The levels of dioxins and PCBs found in this study are in line with those that have previously been found by the FSA," stated the FSA on January 8.
The salmon industry was first alerted to the Science study by a talk given
to an aquaculture conference in Vancouver, Canada, on October 27 last year. Charles Santerre, of Purdue University in Indiana, said: "Expect this bombshell to be spun in an unfavourable manner, so I think the industry needs to be prepared for it."
Although Santerre was widely quoted as a leading critic of the Science study
last week, it was not always made clear that he is a paid consultant of industry group, Salmon of the Americas
