A round up of the week's lobbying news
'Dear World's Greatest Campaign Manager'
Further evidence this week that Lynton Crosby lobbied the government over tobacco regulations.
Last month it was revealed that Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party’s election campaign manager, lobbied Lord Marland, then Intellectual Property minister, against the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes. Crosby had shared documents with Marland making the case that such a policy had no basis in law. The move by Crosby came just days before it was announced that he was to become the Tories’ election guru.
Crosby's London-based lobbying firm, Crosby Textor Fullbrook (CTF), was hired by Philip Morris International (PMI) in the autumn of 2012 as it sought to derail the government’s plans, which are designed to deter younger people from taking up smoking. The deal is reported to be worth up to £6 million.
The latest revelations show that Marland wrote back to Crosby to let him known that his staff were working hard to make sure the “legal position” on plain packaging and intellectual property rights was clear. Marland signs off his letter to Crosby: “I remain your humble servant.”
Marland addressed his letter to “the world’s greatest campaign manager”.
Lobbying register unravelling
Representatives of lobbyists have issued a clear warning to the Cabinet Office: the “flawed” register of lobbyists introduced by the government to increase transparency will do the opposite if they’re not careful.
The Association of Professional Political Consultants, the commercial lobbyists’ lobby group, has warned that it will be "simple for any organisation to avoid the need to register" if they wish to.
Jonathan Hill, the man put forward by Britain for the job of EU Commissioner in charge of financial services regulation, has refused to answer MEPs' questions about his former financial sector lobby clients.
The slight comes after Hill was grilled last week by a group of Members of the European Parliament charged with scrutinising his suitability for the job. Having failed to impress, Hill was given a week to come back with better answers. Most were testing his grasp of policy, but one question in particular concerned his past as a lobbyist. The MEPs asked for:
“a complete list of the financial services clients you personally, or the companies in which you held directorships or shares, worked for?”
Hill had a 20 year career in lobbying before entering the UK Parliament, including co-founding one of London’s top-end lobbying firms, Quiller (with offices a stone's throw from Buckingham Palace). He sold Quiller in 2006, but retained shares in the new owners, lobbying group Huntsworth, until he was appointed commissioner-designate in July this year.
Hill’s response to the MEP’s reasonable request that they know for whom he lobbied in the past, is this:
“The information on financial services clients in the past that you request is not in my possession... This information belongs to companies in which I no longer have any role and which have also changed ownership a number of times.”
Instead Hill pointed to Quiller’s published list of clients going back to March 2010, when the firm signed up, rather late in the day, to the lobbying industry’s flawed voluntary system of disclosure. This leaves the MEPs, and the public, in the dark over who Hill lobbied for in the previous 12 years. Hill is also quick to point out that he has no directorships or shares in any financial services companies.
Hill appears to be willfully missing the point.
Lobbying is a business of insiders whose stock-in-trade is access to decision-makers. Hill, if appointed, will become one of Europe’s most powerful decision-makers. Anyone with a direct line to Hill will benefit enormously, especially Quiller’s financial sector clients. This is how lobbying works.
So, it matters to the City of London Corporation, the City’s most powerful lobbying group, that its lobbying firm, Quiller, is founded by the soon-to-be commissioner for financial regulation. It should come as no surprise that The Corporation warmly welcomed Hill's nomination. It would also matter to HSBC, another long-standing Quiller client, that its lobbyists have a direct connection to Hill. PWC, another recent client of Quiller, may also be rubbing its hands at the prospect.
How many other financial sector firms will join Quiller’s roster of clients if Hill’s appointment is waved through?
As Corporate Europe Observatory notes, the financial industry spends €120 million a year lobbying Brussels and employs more than 1700 lobbyists. It operates via 700 plus organisations, totally outnumbering civil society organisations and trade unions by a factor of more than seven. Hill would be the icing on the cake.
Hill’s statement acknowledges none of this. He ignores the context and focuses on the personal (“I have no incentive or reason to give anyone any kind of preferential treatment,” he says in his statement). But this is to ignore the nature of lobbying; the importance of having an inside-track to decision-makers; the underlying values and assumptions that someone like him, whose old firm has long represented the interests of big finance, adopts in the course of their work. Indeed, just this summer (and before Hill ditched his shares), Quiller was helping to promote a new code of practice to drive up standards of behaviour and competence in banking, which critics have rightly pointed out has no teeth because it is voluntary.
The MEPs, who Hill will face again today, should reject Hill’s weak response that he cannot lay his hands on a list of Quiller’s back clients. They understand that Hill's appointment would matter to those clients. They also understand that it matters to the people of Europe.
Thanks to Corporate Europe Observatory.
The Coalition has at last found someone to take on the poisoned chalice of lobbying registrar; the final stage in a tortuous, and under this government, fruitless process to shine a light on the murky world of lobbying.
The government's preferred candidate for the job is businesswoman Alison White, who was quizzed by MPs this morning. From her performance in front of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, White is confident of her ability to act as an independent regulator of lobbyists. She described herself as 'a very resilient and determined person'. She will need to be.
By her own admission, White is new to lobbying. She has no previous experience of working as a lobbyist, nor of dealing with lobbyists. This should be seen as an asset. Here is someone truly independent of the industry, ready to take them on. However, her lack of experience and knowledge, as members of the committee were quick to point out, could be a serious disadvantage.
Did she appreciate, as Paul Flynn MP put it, that "lobbyists are some of the most skilled, the most devious, the most persuasive people in the parliamentary family. You’re going to take on some very tough customers… What is there in your background to suggest you can take on these monsters?"
Ignore his language if you want. Flynn is making an important point. So much time has been wasted in the past five years since the coalition government promised to bring transparency to lobbying with a register of lobbyists. Its been a masterclass in lobbying, watching the commercial industry endlessly argue, shape-shift, distort and distract in a bid to hold back meaningful regulation of lobbying. They are professional persuaders.
Tracey Crouch MP asked whether White, given her lack of previous experience of the industry, might not notice any subtle changes made by lobbyists to avoid disclosure. Would she, for example, be able to call out those who relabelled their lobbying as more general 'communications', which would exempt them from the register. Crouch is a former lobbyist. She knows how they behave.
Just as crucially, did White understand the limitations of her role as registrar, asked Mark Durkan MP. That is, did she understand the limitations of her role as overseer of a register so limited in scope that it may not be workable in practice? Was she surprised by the limited role she would play, regulating such a tiny fraction of the lobbying industry? The past frustrations of the committee of MPs was palpable. In the past 18 months, they have gone all out to expose the serious failings of the government's proposed register.
What about the registrar's role in providing guidance on precisely which lobbyists must register? White quite rightly said it was early days and that she would be listening hard to the industry and others before determining exactly who would be covered by the transparency rules. However, she may find she has been left an impossible task. Will the register capture enough lobbyists-for-hire to provide meaningful information to the public? Will sufficient numbers of lobbyists be signed up in order to cover White's operational costs (the government's register being industry, rather than state, funded)? Will it cover law firms, like DLA Piper, and management consultants, like McKinsey, and force them to reveal their clients (I admire her optimism here)? Will it include think tanks, many of which provide the exact same services as lobbying agencies? White said her approach would be to positively 'motivate and encourage' lobbyists to sign up. She'll also need a massive stick.
Finally, what happens if the register fails? What if it doesn't reveal all that much, which is likely; or if its obvious failings are exposed when a lobbying scandal hits the headlines, which is also likely. Will White be prepared for her Newsnight interview to defend her register? From her answers, it is clear the government has presented the role of registrar as more of a behind-the-scenes, low-key office job than perhaps the Committee envisaged. It says a lot about the quality of the legislation. It's nothing to shout about.
This was a good introduction to the arena Alison White may soon find herself in (if her appointment is approved). For five years (and the rest), the policy has been dogged by misinformation and dishonest argument, attempts to stave off regulation by the industry, and by a complete lack of political will and seriousness about tackling the excesses and secrecy surrounding the UK's £2bn commercial lobbying business.
The government's register is designed to provide minimal transparency. We wish the new registrar luck in achieving this. The best place to start would be to listen closely to this committee of MPs.
As Martin Kettle writes in today’s Guardian: nothing else matters now in British politics. Yesterday’s poll showing that Scottish independence could be a reality in less than a fortnight is finally being given the space it warrants among London’s political commentators. Thus, yesterday’s revelation that Lynton Crosby lobbied a Conservative Minister on cigarette packaging just days before taking up his role as Tory election guru, has passed almost unnoticed. Crosby must be breathing a sigh of relief.
For Crosby-watchers – which includes anyone with concerns about the influence of tobacco and alcohol companies on policy, fracking firms on the UK’s energy strategy, and private healthcare lobbyists on the NHS – having concrete proof that Crosby lobbied the government is, though, significant.
Until yesterday we have had to accept both Crosby and David Cameron’s denials that he has been meddling in policy. We have been able to connect the dots – from Philip Morris International hiring Crosby’s lobbying firm to derail plans to sell cigarettes in unbranded cartons, to the government kicking these plans into the long grass – but never managed to see the full picture.
Crosby has always insisted that accusations that he used his position as Tory campaign director to influence the policy were “false”. In a carefully worded statement last summer, he said: "At no time have I had any conversation or discussion with, or lobbied the prime minister, or indeed the health secretary or the health minister, on plain packaging or tobacco issues.”
Now we have hard evidence that in late 2012 – just a fortnight before the Tories announced Crosby's appointment as their election strategist – Crosby lobbied his friend, Lord Marland, then minister for intellectual property and a former Conservative party treasurer, against the introduction of plain packaging.
Which casts doubt on the Prime Minister’s assurances just six months later that "Lynton Crosby does not lobby the government, he does not lobby me, he gives political advice and I think that’s a very clear situation.” If David Cameron had said that “Crosby has recently lobbied the government, but doesn’t anymore, now that he’s working at the heart of government,” that would have been clearer. As it is, the Prime Minister’s statements – which include an insistence that the furore over Crosby’s lobbying was a "media invention" – appear at best highly misleading.
What other policies might Crosby have been influencing? We know that his firm, CTF Partners, works, or has worked, for companies in alcohol, banking, property development, the oil industry, and private healthcare, as well as tobacco. But, unlike most agencies in the UK, it chooses not to voluntarily disclose the names of its clients. Nor does it need to, according to Cameron: "[Crosby’s] work, his lobbying, the lobbying business is a matter for the lobbying business," he said.
This, of course, runs counter to Cameron’s previous statements on the need to shine a light on lobbying and “force our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence”. "We all know how it works,” said Cameron of lobbying. “The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way.... I believe that secret corporate lobbying goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics,” (an issue Owen Jones alludes to in his discussion on what lies behind support for Scottish independence). It is absolutely in the public interest to know who is influencing which public servants and public policies.
CTF Partners has amassed a staff with considerable connections to achieve this aim. They include Mark Fullbrook, ex-head of campaigns for the Tories who deputied on Boris Johnson’s successful 2012 London Mayoral campaign and is married to Tory MP Lorraine Fullbrook; David Canzini, who has a 20 year career working for the Tories including director of party campaigning; Sam Lyon, former spokesperson for Boris and a large number of other Boris campaigners, including Isabel Mackay and Robin Knight.
The chances of Crosby being forced to reveal his clients under the government’s new rules for lobbyists are almost nil. The register of lobbyists, introduced in the much criticised Lobbying Bill, which was supposed to shine a light on who was influencing whom and about what, is a sham. But, Crosby may yet have to come clean about which commercial interests have hired his lobbying firm.
When he was first appointed as Conservative Party election supremo, Lord Ashcroft warned Crosby against “becoming the story” in Westminster. “I’m sure you’ll get on with the job and stay out of the limelight,” the Tory donor wrote. Crosby has largely managed to contain the story of his lobbying so far.
How much longer he will stay behind the scenes – and how much more of his lobbying will emerge – remains to be seen.
The past two days has seen the UK's education reform movement gathered in London. The Education Reform Summit 2014 was co-hosted by the Department for Education and a small think tank called the Education Foundation. Some on Twitter have been curious about this organisation, so here is a short extract from the 'education reform' chapter of our recent book, 'A Quiet Word', which takes a look at the extensive lobbying activities of the 'education reform movement' on both sides of the Atlantic.
From 'A Quiet Word':
Set up in 2011, The Education Foundation is described by its co-founder Ty Goddard as a think tank and reform organisation. It has, however, a particular focus on technology as a driver of reform. It hosts an ed-tech incubator programme, for example, to bring classroom products to scale. Google and Facebook are both advisers to the project.
The Education Foundation does not publish its financial backers, although it says it is funded by charitable foundations and leading businesses through its research, sponsored events and specific projects. Those named on its website include Google, which sponsored its first birthday bash, McKinsey, for which it hosted an event, and a collaboration with Facebook and the Gates Foundation on an education-centred ‘hackathon’, aimed at building experimental apps for schools.
The group has ties with the reform lobby in the US, from whose experience it is keen to learn. Goddard, for example, was visited in London by American lobbyists to discuss strategies on ‘growing the UK education reform movement’. Among those visiting was a lobbyist from US reform group, the Foundation for Excellence in Education.
This is an organisation that aggressively promotes online schools. It is financed by, among others, Gates and others in the billionaires’ club, as well as Pearson and Amplify, News Corp education arm. In 2013, Michael Gove, on one of his many trips to the US, delivered the keynote speech at the foundation’s annual conference. Topics discussed included ‘extreme choices through digital learning’ and ‘the art of communicating education reform’.
The Foundation for Excellence is run by Jeb Bush, brother of George. Bush is a keen advocate of virtual schooling, which has been pioneered in his home state of Florida. His foundation has come in for criticism, primarily for working with US public officials to write education laws that could benefit some of its corporate funders. It has also been accused of providing ‘a dating service for corporations selling educational products – including virtual schools – to school chiefs’. Goddard, though, sees Bush as a ‘pioneer’. The US delegation spent their time visiting UK academies and meeting with senior Department for Education officials. They even had a policy discussion in Number 10.
The Education Foundation also hosted a meeting of twenty-five education reform lobby groups in Washington, part-funded by the British government. Again, the purpose was to learn lessons from their US colleagues on how to secure system reform and introduce more ‘innovation’ to schools. It included some familiar names in the US privatisation / reform lobby: Democrats for Education Reform, StudentsFirst and the Foundation for Excellence in Education.
To find out more about the lobbying activity of these and other groups in the education reform movement, both in the UK and US, read Chapter 9: 'Reform: Opportunities to Profit' from 'A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain', published by Random House, March 2014.
On the eve of the Conservative Party’s annual fundraising dinner, the Guardian today reveals last year’s secret guest list and, with it, the murky world of political donations and lobbying.
The Conservative Party intended the list to remain private. Despite promises by this government to be 'the most transparent in the world', the public aren’t to know the company that they keep.
But, as the final preparations are made for tonight’s fundraiser at the Hurlingham private members’ club in west London, documents passed to TBIJ show the web of bankers, businesspeople, foreign interests and lobbyists that twelve months ago pressed the flesh with Conservative politicians.
Among those that David Cameron and members of the Cabinet spent the evening with are:
- Howard Shore, a banker with interests in shale gas who sat on a table with David and Samantha Cameron and who hosted another table with the energy minister Michael Fallon.
- Russian business men tasked with improving the country’s reputation in the UK, including Vladamir Putin’s judo partner, Vasily Shestakov.
- Former Goldman Sachs banker and onetime Conservative donor, Richard Sharp, who sits on the Bank of England’s independent finance policy committee.
- Nineteen lobbyists and PRs, most of whom don’t reveal their clients, but who are known to have represented Gulf states, fracking firms, oligarchs and banking giants.
Buying a seat at a minister’s table provides these already influential and advantaged individuals – there was an estimated total wealth in the room last year of £11bn – with an opportunity to forge relationships with our politicians, demonstrate their support for the party, and crucially open discussions with Ministers about their concerns.
The consequences of such a system – one that provides private access for the wealthy and well connected, while everyone else is excluded – are all around us.
To find out more: A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain by Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell is published by Bodley Head.
Here’s a little test for the government’s statutory lobbying register (when it eventually arrives).
Bob Neill, former Planning Minister has taken a job with a lobbying agency that has so far refused to sign up to any of the voluntary registers that the statutory register will replace.
This means that his new employer, planning specialist Cratus Communcations, does not currently declare its clients, which include housebuilders and developers.
Nor would it – probably – under the government’s new statutory system given the enormous loopholes. Nearly 40% of agency lobbyists (the only section of the industry that is covered by the new legislation) say they won’t have to register and declare their clients, as they “never” have direct face-to-face engagement with ministers or permanent secretaries (one of the criteria that triggers the requirement to register). Only 9% of agency lobbyists say they meet ministers or permanent secretaries regularly. The rest only do so occasionally.
This means that Cratus Communications, which now employs a Tory ex-minister that less than two years ago was responsible for local government and planning, is unlikely to start declaring who it is lobbying for any time soon. We’ll be as much in the dark as we are now.
“We must be the party that sorts all this out,” David Cameron said of lobbying in the run up to the last general election, singling out the problem of ‘ex-ministers for hire”.
What he’s done instead is give us a sham register.
In part two of his investigation into Europe's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group, David Cronin examines its corporate backers and efforts to boost trade ties with Israel.
The European Friends of Israel (EFI) has always been able to count on support from high-ranking entrepreneurs. After his death in August 2013, EFI issued a terse tribute to Yaron (Ronny) Bruckner, describing this Belgian investor as one of the group's founders. Bruckner had established Eastbridge, a Luxembourg-registered firm specialising in property and consumer goods that, according to its promotional material, manages more than €1.5 billion worth of assets. For much of his professional life, Bruckner had concentrated on Europe, yet had become more active in the US during the last decade of his life. In 2011, Eastbridge snapped up a Manhattan skyscraper that had previously housed the insurance giant AIG.
A document filed with the Belgian authorities states that Bruckner was formally nominated an administrator of the EFI in November 2011. 1 That document stipulates, too, that EFI members may pay an annual subscription of up to €5 million. That was a massive increase on the €1,000-per-year threshold for subscriptions which the EFI set on its inception.2 The increase indicates that EFI has been largely funded by its corporate backers.
On the eve of Europe's elections, in a two-part investigation for Spinwatch, writer David Cronin looks at the origins and connections of the most influential Zionist lobby group in Brussels.
Under David Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party has often conveyed the impression that it wanted Britain to disengage from the European Union. The impression jars with reality on at least one crucial issue of foreign policy: relations with Israel.
One little-known fact is that it was a few Tories who took the initiative to form what has become arguably the most influential Zionist lobby group in Brussels. European Friends of Israel (EFI) was established in 2006 by those who had been active in a similar outfit within the Conservative Party.
The EFI's chief instigator, Stuart Polak, had been director of Conservatives Friends of Israel (CFI) since 1989 (a position he still holds). Named one of the UK's 100 most influential right-wing figures by The Daily Telegraph in 2007, he has been credited with doing more than anyone else in promoting Israel's case among British conservatives. As a pressure group within Westminster, the CFI is perhaps unparalleled in terms of its clout. By its own estimates, 80 per cent of Tory MPs are signed up to it. These include a number of cabinet ministers: William Hague, the foreign secretary, joined CFI during the 1970s, when he was still a teenager.
Hannu Takkula, a Finnish Liberal MEP who has been involved with the European Friends of Israel since the beginning, confirmed that it is modelled on the Conservative Friends of Israel. A number of MEPs held discussions with representatives of the British Conservatives, he said, about forming a pro-Israel alliance that would act as a counterbalance to the Palestine solidarity movement, which according to Takkula, was ‘very strong’. He added that ‘some guys visited here’ (Brussels) from the Conservatives to explain how the CFI operated. 1
At least three Tory MEPs - Charles Tannock, Geoffrey Van Orden and Timothy Kirkhope - can be seen in a video filmed at the launch of EFI in September 2006. In a speech to that dinner, Tannock said: ‘We have been working very hard in the European Parliament for a number of years to build up a network of friends and tonight this is the realisation of our hard work.’
Tannock, a foreign affairs specialist, sat on the EFI's political board between 2006 and 2011. Despite the clear suggestion in his speech that he had personally taken part in some of the preparations for the EFI's establishment, Tannock's office denied he had done so. After repeated requests for a comment, his assistant replied that Tannock was ‘not involved in the setting-up of EFI at its inception nor was he involved with the idea of launching the group’. 2
Van Orden, a retired brigadier-general in the British Army who served in NATO's headquarters during the 1990s, refused to answer questions about what precise role he played in the EFI's early stages. Contacted by telephone, he alleged that I had ‘put something obnoxious’ about him on the Wikipedia website. When I insisted that I had never done such a thing, he said: ‘Or someone did on your behalf’. Following a vague threat - ‘I'll be in touch with you about that’ - he hung up.3 (For the record, I was unaware that the page devoted to Van Orden on Wikipedia referred to one of my articles until he drew this to my attention. Far from being ‘obnoxious’, the article in question simply stated that Van Orden was ‘especially close to the arms industry’. That assertion was no more than a paraphrasing of Van Orden's own words: in October 2013, he told me that as a Conservative spokesman on defence issues, he was ‘a strong advocate for UK industry, including the arms industry’). 4
Papers filed with the Belgian authorities state that EFI was officially established as a not-for-profit association by Stuart Polak, along with Marc Cogen, a Belgian academic, and Jean-Pierre Haber, a veteran Brussels official. Its stated objective was to ‘unify’ the various pro-Israel groups within the national parliaments of EU countries by coordinating their activities. Such groups would be linked to one in the European Parliament, according to these papers. 5
Throughout its history, EFI has enjoyed some success in straddling the political divisions within the European Parliament. Its supporters range from individual Greens to the extreme-right - although it has generally been shunned by MEPs from the far-left. Nonetheless, the participation of Marc Cogen meant that it had a neoconservative hue.
Cogen had offered his unequivocal backing to the ‘war on terror’ declared by George W. Bush. His status as a professor of international law did not stop Cogen from trying to justify America's trampling on the rights of due process. For example, he has argued that the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay was permissible on the grounds that ‘members of private armies’ should be ‘tried outside the common criminal justice system’. He praised Israel for enabling the use of similar practices through its approval of a law on ‘unlawful combatants’ in 2002. In January 2009, he and several politicians signed a letter to Flemish newspapers defending Israel's attack on Gaza.
Both Polak and Cogen stepped down as administrators of the EFI in November 2011. 6 The previous year Cogen was reportedly suspended from his teaching post in the University of Ghent for ‘inappropriate behaviour’. He was subsequently hired by the VUB, the main Dutch-language university in Brussels. Cogen did not respond to requests for a comment but a colleague of his at VUB confirmed that he is still working there. 7
Cogen remains in contact with the Zionist lobby. The 2013 annual report of NGO Monitor lists him as a member of its legal advisory board.8 Run by Israeli academic Gerard Steinberg, NGO Monitor is dedicated to preserving Israel as an apartheid state, in which Palestinians face systematic discrimination. It campaigns against the public financing of human rights and peace activists who promote a ‘one-state solution’ based on full equality for Jews, Muslims, Christians and non-believers, accusing such activists of striving to ‘eliminate’ Israel.
Jean-Pierre Haber has a lower profile than the other founders of EFI. Now living in the south of France, he has considerable knowledge about the inner workings of the EU institutions. From 1973 to 1984, he was an economics adviser to the European Progressive Democrats - then a political group in the European Parliament that included the French Gaullist party and Ireland's Fianna Fáil.
Perhaps more importantly for a propaganda outfit like the EFI, Haber is considered something of an authority on promoting the EU. According to his curriculum vitae, he once headed the Euro Information Centres, a network of offices that provides assistance to small firms. He also sat on a panel of ‘experts’ on communications policy appointed by Jacques Delors, the European Commission's then president, in the early 1990s. Haber drafted that committee's final report. Unintentionally comical, the report complained of how too many of the statements issued in Brussels were replete with ‘incomprehensible jargon’ before recommending that a project aimed at making the European Union hip could be based on a slogan in the ancient language of Latin.
Arms industry connections
Such a ham-fisted approach to what is often misleadingly termed ‘public relations’ does not seem to have reduced Haber's appeal to European Friends of Israel. For it is important to stress that EFI is more concerned with shaping elite opinion than that of the wider public.
That might explain why EFI has been supported by those who benefit from activities that most decent people would find repulsive. During the first nine months of 2006, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) reported a profit of $115 million, a 247 per cent increase over the same period in 2005. As one of the largest suppliers of weapons to the Israeli military, IAI evidently did well from the attack on Lebanon in the summer of that year. The offensive enabled Israel to ‘battle-test’ its armed drones for the first time. Since then IAI has become one of the world's top drone manufacturers.
IAI (then called Israel Aircraft Industries) was among the sponsors for the EFI's launch; the company's information stall can be seen in a video taken at the event. Stuart Polak, meanwhile, doubles up as an arms industry lobbyist. The Westminster Connection, a consulting firm that he set up, puts ‘defence’ at the top of the list of the sectors to which it has provided advice. Elbit, another Israeli warplane-maker, has been named by The Sunday Times as one of his clients.
EFI's leading figures are reluctant to admit that they have received support from the arms industry. Gunnar Hökmark, a Swedish conservative MEP who was the first chairman of the EFI's political board, declined to be interviewed. When Hökmark was asked by email if he had any concerns about IAI's participation in the group's launch, his adviser replied: ‘It is profoundly insulting to believe that Mr Hökmark's deeply-felt support and engagement for the people who have been most persecuted and discriminated against in the world throughout history would have anything at all to do with who paid for a dinner five, six, seven years ago or whenever.’
Tannock's assistant stated that the British MEP did not have ‘anything to do with the fundraising at any time nor did he have detailed knowledge of all the sponsors of EFI events. And he was not aware, if it is the case, that Israeli defence contractors were closely involved with EFI as you seem to suggest when he was involved with the group between 2006 and 2011.’
Like most Israel lobby groups, EFI does not publish details of its donors. Marek Siwiec, a Polish Social Democrat MEP who chairs the EFI's political board at the time of writing, contended that it is a ‘transparent organisation’. Yet he refused to reveal how it is funded.
Although EFI has held quite a few events on the European Parliament's premises and been able to avail of that institution's facilities, it is not subject to the same rules covering other cross-party alliances (‘intergroups’ in Brussels parlance). Administrators of those ad hoc alliances - dealing with subjects as diverse as hunting, Tibet and minority languages - are required to declare all financial support which they receive. As EFI functions largely in the same way as those ‘intergroups’, I asked Martin Schulz, the European Parliament's president, why it wasn't registered as one. His office referred my question to a ‘citizens' enquiries unit’, which claimed that the EFI is an ‘informal grouping’ comprised of both MEPs and representatives of national parliaments. EFI's ‘informal’ nature means it publishes neither a full list of politicians affiliated to it nor even rudimentary details of how it is funded.
An EFI staff member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that it relies on ‘private donors from Europe and Israel’. The source admitted that one of these donors has been Alexander Machkevitch, a mining magnate with dual Kazakh and Israeli citizenship. Machkevitch's support had been limited to ‘a single project’, the source claimed: financing a visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank for a few hundred MEPs and members of national parliaments in February 2011. That visit was described as ‘the largest ever mass gathering of European parliamentarians in Israel’ by The Jerusalem Post.
EFI did not sign up to an official register of ‘interest representatives’ (a synonym for lobbyists) until August 2011 - almost five years after the group's inception. While it is not mandatory for lobbyists working in Brussels to join this database, they have been offered incentives to do so. Most significantly, obtaining an access badge to the European Parliament is effectively conditional on taking this step.
EFI's entry in the register is scant on details. It says that the organisation had a total budget of €400,000 in 2012, all of which came from donations. Intriguingly, it maintained that less than €50,000 of that sum was directly spent on ‘representing interests to the EU institutions’. Six staff members had been granted access badges for the European Parliament. These included its director Elinadav Heymann, an Israeli who had previously been a foreign policy adviser to Britain's Conservatives and their colleagues from several other right-leaning parties in the European Parliament, and who had served as an Israeli Air Force ‘intelligence analyst’.
In 2011, I asked EFI if it received any money from Zionist organisations in the US. ‘I promise you 100 per cent that no [we do not receive such funding],’ an EFI spokesman said.
Yet in a form submitted to America's Internal Revenue Service for the 2009 tax year, the New York-based Near East Forum stated that it had given $33,000 to the EFI. When I contacted that forum's office, a staff member told me it supported ‘organisations in Europe that help Israel.’ Asked if the forum was Zionist in outlook, the staff member responded ‘I guess you could say that’.
The Near East Forum also gave $53,000 to the European Jewish Development Fund (EJDF) in Brussels that year. Describing itself as ‘a source of centralised funding’ for projects that ‘promote Jewish pride’, the EJDF boasts of playing a ‘vital role in informing world leaders of the historical and current character of the Middle East and in lobbying on behalf of Israel’. Just one outfit is listed under the ‘public affairs’ category in the ‘what we support’ section of the EJDF's website: European Friends of Israel.
The EJDF was set up in 2004 by Moshe Garelik, an Italian-born rabbi with American citizenship. Over the past decade, Garelik has helped make Zionists more visible in Brussels by forming a number of organisations. Among them are the European Jewish Community Centre. Ostensibly a meeting place for Jews working in Brussels' European quarter, its activities are not purely religious or cultural in nature. On occasions, it has teamed up with EFI to host receptions to mark Jerusalem Day - an annual event celebrating Israel's 1967 capture of East Jerusalem - in the European Parliament.
Garelik has quite literally given his blessing to Israel's crimes against humanity. In 2006, he toured Israeli army bases to emphasise his support for the attack then being conducted against Lebanon. He reportedly tried to lift the spirits of Israeli soldiers with ‘holy words of encouragement’.
EFI is not an exact replica of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential pressure groups in Washington. In 2011, AIPAC raked in more than $70 million in donations and grants. While there is much opacity surrounding the Zionist lobby this side of the Atlantic, it is safe to assume that no organisation within it commands a remotely similar war-chest.
Some evidence of cooperation between EFI and AIPAC can nonetheless be found. Ranaan Eliaz, who had previously worked with the Israeli National Security Council advising prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, has stated that he was ‘instrumental’ in establishing EFI. He had been a staff member of AIPAC in 2004.
Key players in EFI have clearly made a point of studying how AIPAC works. Dimitri Dombret, EFI's first director, confirmed to me in 2009 that he had met AIPAC representatives in Washington a number of times. More recently, EFI has sent as many as 70 delegates to the annual AIPAC conference. Photographs posted on EFI's Facebook page show Elinadav Heymann, the group's current director, speaking at a side event held during the conference in March 2014.
Although EFI has not published the names of those who comprised these delegations, a note on its website states that they have boasted ‘leading parliamentarians, business executives from across Europe, experts in foreign policy and policy-makers relating to the Middle East’.
Part 2 of this investigation, which looks at EFI's corporate backers and its lobbying for trade deals, will be published 21 May 2014.
1. Interview with the author, 18 February 2014.
2. Exchange of emails between office of Charles Tannock and the author, March 2014.
3. Interview with the author, 25 March 2014.
4. Exchange of emails between Geoffrey Van Orden and the author, October 2013.
5. Annex to Moniteur belge (Belgium's official journal), 31 August 2006.
6. Annex to Moniteur belge, 10 January 2012.
7. Telephone conversation with the author, 30 April 2014.
A businessman who spent a year as an adviser to the UK government has revealed his shock at the influence and access lobbyists have with ministers.
As “entrepreneur in residence” at the Business Department, Lawrence Tomlinson had an unrivalled view of how lobbyists operate. He concluded that finance lobbyists are seen as "indispensable" by ministers.
What was shocking, he said, was the "influence of certain organisations, trade associations and individuals within government," singling out the British Banking Association, who he noted “have their foot through the door” of government and are capable of overwhelming attempts by others to change policies.
Tomlinson added that, while lobbying can serve a valid purpose, the process must be transparent, and conflicts and interests must be declared. He also criticised the common practice where former senior officials and special advisors who write government policy go on to work for major corporations: “In parts of government, there is a revolving door with the large corporates who have a deep interest in government policy,” he said.
"The conflicts of interest are plainly apparent, and the number of lobbyists and force they have, can hardly be matched by the business community. These interests need to be made more transparent to prevent these conflicts having an impact on our policy making processes.”
The laughable response from the government to Tomlinson's damning observations was to point out that David Cameron had just introduced a register of lobbyists, which he claims will shine a light on lobbying. It is widely acknowledged that the register introduced by the Coalition in January is a sham. For a start, it would not include the British Bankers Association, or any lobbyists working in-house for corporations (large or small). In fact, it deliberately excludes more than 80% of the UK's £2billion lobbying industry. And then, it requires those lobbyists that fall into its tiny net (with massive loopholes) to declare nothing of their lobbying activity.
Tomlinson, who has seen lobbyists operate from inside government, is right to speak out. His remit was how to improve policy for small firms. He has seen with his own eyes that SMEs don't have a hope in hell against the influence of big business and bankers.
As Spinwatch's Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell set out in their new book on lobbying, A Quiet Word, large corporations have been allowed to become dominant in government. The amount they spend on lobbying and the associated influence of their lobbyists has bought them a structural advantage. They are drowning out everyone else.
A Quiet Word also notes, as Tomlinson does, that rather than being seen as parasitical, corporate lobbyists should more accurately be viewed as subsidising government. As lobbying activity has increased, so our government has become ever more dependent on lobbyists to function.
As the book reveals, politicians can on occasion be candid about this: "Lobbying is absolutely fundamental to the way we legislate in the UK, right across the board," according to Tim (Lord) Razzall, a politician of forty years’ experience, at the 2011 Liberal Democrat Conference. "The lobbying organisations do your . . ." He corrects himself: ". . . a lot of the work for you." Legislators are "inundated" with appeals from lobbyists whenever laws are being crafted. "Very often" the way to get changes to proposed laws is simply to email them over. Do politicians actually take any notice of the overtures of lobbyists? "Absolutely," said Razzall. The government takes a "huge amount" of notice.
And why do large corporations spend disproportionately more on lobbying that anyone else? Because they see lobbying as a tactical investment. Put simply, lobbying pays. It delivers a financial return. And the payback can be "astronomic", as the FT noted yesterday, describing the return on lobbying by hedge funds in Washington.
When it comes to lobbying, it is the case that there is a corporate elite and there is everyone else (SMEs, NGOs, the public etc). Transparency in lobbying is one small step to addressing the disparity. It is one that this government has yet to take.
To discover more about corporate lobbying, and how commercial lobbyists buy access and influence to our government, get hold of a copy of A Quiet Word: Lobbying, Crony Capitalism and Broken Politics in Britain by Tamasin Cave and Andy Rowell. "A timely account of how voters are conceding power to a silent industry", says the Mail on Sunday.