There is a common misconception that it is only those organisations that are heavily regulated that should engage with Government. That trend assumes that there are some companies that will be in the Government’s line of sight and that engagement is needed to help stem the flow of constant new regulations and/or red tape. For other companies, they assume the best approach is keep to their heads down and hope for the best.
This approach fails to understand the ever changing focus of Government, assumes consistency of approach and does not take into account the often competitive nature between Government departments.
Take the recent example of the Government’s efforts to ‘force’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) into what it sees as firmer measures over child Internet safety. Admittedly, this is an industry already in the public spotlight but the issue highlights how Government can conduct itself. The Government could choose to legislate in this area but that would mean being able to accurately specify what it wants – and it doesn’t seem able to do this. Instead it is conducting a campaign through the media trying to say that the industry is not doing enough (something the industry would vehemently deny).
A leaked letter from the Department for Education, blogged about by Rory Cellan-Jones, reveals that Government does not really know what it wants in any level of detail.
For instance, the Department wants the ISPs to fund an ‘awareness campaign’ for parents but admits that it has little idea what the campaign will be about. It wants to know how much each company will be willing to contribute to this campaign and obviously sees nothing wrong in making this request. The letter also demands a change in language on safety net filters which the industry feels is misleading but the Prime Minister believes will ‘improve how we communicate the current position on parental Internet controls’.
In lobbying terms, it shows that officials are often to left to pick up and deliver what the politicians want but with no detail being provided to them. Ministers then complain that the officials are blocking policy or are not delivering whilst not realising that there own approach to engagement or requests are the root cause of the problem.
It shows that organisations should not just accept what is put in front of them but should be prepared to push back and ask for the details. They should not be scared just because the Prime Minister is mentioned.
The letter suggests that the companies are also likely to hear from DCMS and the Home Office on the issue as well. This does not bode well and will mean multiple points of entry into Government and, it should not be assumed, a clarity or consistency of requirements from each Department (plus Number 10).
The letter apologises for the short, ‘very tight’, deadlines which fit the political needs not, it could be argued, the needs of the issue. It is not clear how the companies involved are expected to have considered the issues in the letter, not least the call for money, in the timescale available. Not a business-friendly approach.
Government has to be seen as being in charge and as we approach the next General Election we will see similar positions adopted particularly in relation to child protection, law and order, criminal sentencing and immigration. Both parties in the Coalition will want to show that they are taking steps to ensure that the public is protected even if it is not Government themselves taking the action.
Organisations need to be prepared for this type of approach by Government, appreciate that ideas do not always come formed and that ‘discussions’ often take place through the media.
All types of organisations can get dragged in, not just those who choose to engage and not just those from already regulated sectors.