Government Advertising (Hansard, 29 May 2002)

§ Lord McNally
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to strengthen independent oversight, audit and scrutiny of government advertising paid for from public funds.

§ The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, there is independent oversight, audit and scrutiny of government accounts through the National Audit Office and the Committee of Public Accounts. Following a quinquennial review of the Central Office of Information, the chief executive of the COI will have an additional role as the Government's chief adviser on marketing communications and information campaigns, working with the director of communications and strategy at No. 10 Downing 1352 Street. This will strengthen the co-ordination and planning of departmental publicity strategies across Whitehall.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, as the Answer makes clear, the last line of control in these decisions is a political appointment in the shape of Mr Alastair Campbell? Did the Minister have an opportunity last Sunday to see the "Panorama" programme? It contained some of the most public and stringent criticism I have ever heard of government malpractice by a former permanent under-secretary; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. Does the Minister not think that it is time for a Civil Service Act which gives civil servants the strength to condemn government abuse of power before they retire?

§ Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, Mr Alastair Campbell will not be able to intervene in the Central Office of Information. Carol Fisher, the executive, will continue to report to me as Minister for the Cabinet Office. I did have time to see the programme in question, and I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, was concerned about the increase in government spend between a pre-election year and an election year. In 1999–2000, the figure increased from £118 million to £192 million. Looking back, however, I discovered that during the noble Lord's tenure as Cabinet Secretary, real-terms spending trebled from £66 million in 1985–86, two years before the general election, to £192 million in the year of the election itself. So there is a cycle in these matters. That is undoubtedly one of the issues that will arise if there is consultation—to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, may wish to contribute—on a Civil Service Act.

§ The Earl of Northesk
My Lords, going back to the 1980s, does the noble Lord recall these words: You can see quite clearly that the purpose of this is not to give us, the public, the facts, but is to sell the government's political message and that's quite wrong"? Can the noble Lord explain what has happened since 1988 to make the Prime Minister change his mind so radically?

§ Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, one of the differences between the type of advertising campaigns used in the 1980s, to which I have referred, and more recent ones is that whereas much of that exceptional trebling of spend in the year before the 1987 general election was devoted to privatisation advertising for British Gas and BP, advertising before the most recent election focused on issues such as recruitment to the Armed Forces, the police and nursing. The latter campaigns turned out to be extremely effective.

§ Lord McNally
My Lords, when will the Minister realise that this Government were elected to change behaviour from the behaviour they "inherited" from the last lot, not to offer us the defence, "Well, they did the same"? When is the penny going to drop that 1353 excessive spinning and abuse of public funds for political ends works against the Government and their reputation, not in their favour?

§ Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, I stress that very clear and well-established conventions guide government information officers in commissioning advertising. The conventions have been place for 20 years and dictate that the subject matter should be relevant to direct government responsibility, should be objective and explanatory in tone and not tendentious or polemical, should be conducted in an economic manner, and should not be liable to misrepresentation as being party political. I suggest that that is the case with this Government's advertising.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, above all, advertising by the Government should not be economical with the truth? Does he also agree that a good deal of government advertising is worthless in that it does not do the intended job? In those circumstances, will the Government examine the advertising budget to see whether a lot of money is being wasted that could be saved?

§ Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, I remind the House of the famous quote that 50 per cent of every advertising budget is wasted; the only difficulty is working out which half. The COI's total advertising spend in this area is £192 million, as opposed to BT's spend of about £100 million. Considering the volume of government expenditure, that is a very small percentage of total turnover. There is not only a rigorous system of scrutiny by an advisory committee on advertising, but audit through the National Audit Office, and oversight by Cabinet Office Ministers to ensure that the money is well spent. The quinquennial review gave a very good bill of health to the Central Office of Information.

§ Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, as there obviously is concern about potential abuse in this sphere—from which the Government gain very considerable power and access to the public exchequer—and since neither the NAO nor the Public Accounts Committee are necessarily the appropriate people to study the propriety of these matters, will the Minister advise us on whether the Committee on Standards in Public Life has been asked to examine the situation and, if so, whether it has done so? If not, and if the Government are so confident of their position, will they undertake to remit the matter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life for examination?

§ Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, as I said, we have a very thorough system of oversight, audit and scrutiny. We have had no complaints on this matter from the National Audit Office. Moreover, the chief executive, Carol Fisher, has made it quite clear that, as accounting officer to the PAC, she stands accountable 1354 to Parliament on these matters. We therefore believe that allegations of weighting advertising towards the last quarter of the financial year are tendentious. It was very forcibly alleged, for example, that the 50 per cent spend in the final quarter of the financial year was deeply reprehensible. However, one should compare that 50 per cent to an average spend of 49 per cent in the same quarter in the past seven years. As I said, and as an examination would reveal, there were similar changes in expenditure under previous governments.