Call for inquiry into Labour's £192m advertising 'splurge'

Andrew Grice Political Editor
Thursday 26 July 2001 00:00
Comments

The Government's annual spending on advertising rocketed by 70 per cent to a record £192.4m before the general election.

Conservatives demanded an investigation by public finance watchdogs last night into what they called "a pre-election splurge" at the taxpayers' expense, designed to boost Labour's electoral prospects.

The figures released yesterday show the Government was Britain's second biggest advertiser in the financial year to March, just behind Unilever, which spent £197.9m, and ahead of Procter & Gamble on £132.7m. The data reflects a hike in government advertising in the first quarter of this year – when Tony Blair planned to call an election in May. Whitehall departments spent £62.8m, making the Government the country's biggest advertising spender, well ahead of second-placed Unilever on £34.3m.

In the year up to the 1997 election, the Tory government spent £69.3m. Under Mr Blair, the budget rose from £59m in his first year to £105.4m in year two and £113.4m in his third year. That has been dwarfed by the £192.4m spent last year.

The departments with the biggest rises included Education and Employment (up from £20.4m to £36.9m); Health (up from £17.9m to £26.2m); the Inland Revenue (up from £15m to £21m) and Social Security (up from £8.1m to £20.9m).

The Tories described several Whitehall campaigns as a waste of money, claiming a television blitz to tell pensioners of the minimum income guarantee cost £150 for each person receiving the benefit and that an anti-fraud campaign only served to encourage benefit fiddles.

Another controversial campaign was one by the Department of Trade and Industry to publicise new rights for workers to take paid holiday leave. This cost £2.5m and some civil servants are believed to have been uneasy at the use of television commercials.

Andrew Lansley, the Opposition spokesman on Cabinet Office issues, has written to Sir John Bourn, the Auditor General, asking him to investigate the campaigns. He said the publicity should have been paid for by the Labour Party rather than taxpayers.

Mr Lansley said: "Ministers clearly took decisions designed to create the impression of positive activity in order to disguise their failure to deliver and encourage the electorate to give them a second chance."

David Willetts, the Opposition spokesman on work and pensions, will ask the Commons Public Accounts Committee to investigate the increase in spending and will urge the Cabinet Office to bring in guidelines to prevent a repeat ahead of future elections.

He said: "We need much greater controls and policing to stop such a re-election splurge in government advertising. People do need to know their rights but is it very suspicious why the Government wanted to do it just before the election."

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "Advertising or other paid means of communication are only used when communication is an essential part of implementing policy or programmes. These are important public information campaigns, such as public-sector recruitment, anti drink-driving and raising awareness of how to tackle car-crime. There are strict rules to ensure they are in no way party political."

The Tories claim Britain is unusual in having the Government as one of its biggest advertisers. But Labour insists the trend was established by the Tories, noting that spending broke the £100m-a-year barrier under Margaret Thatcher, who ran campaigns to promote "enterprise culture" and schemes for the jobless.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in