'We got lobbying for free'

was far cheaper and better. We got our lobbying for less money."

Doubts are also expressed by clients. "There is no real need to employ lobbying organisations. These points can be made in periodic meetings with ministers and civil servants," says Anthony Pollington, secretary of the Construction Clients' Forum.

During the election, monthly payments totalling £8,000 were made to Lowe Bell by the Building Employers Confederation, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, the Major Contractors Group and the Federation of Master Builders. The arrangements were made through the contractors' umbrella organisation CIEC.

However, in parallel to CIEC's arrangements with Lowe Bell, organisations representing other industry sectors were separately paying Lowe Bell - leading to top level concerns about duplication.

A confidential document circulated in April 1997 said: "When BMP had also employed Lowe Bell, the workload of the political consultants probably had not increased in proportion to the greater revenue."

It said that a joint agreement should be considered with Lowe Bell to "reduce the combined expenditure", with the emphasis on employing them for specific projects rather than on retainer.

McDougall said: "I think Lowe Bell is a very good organisation and very good at PR. But if you total up all the money it got out of the industry, I don't think it got value for money."

Ian Deslandes counters that contractors saved money by banding together: "Far from wasting members' money the costs to each organisation were significantly reduced."

Brian Flint, director general of the Federation of Master Builders commented: "All these things were happening with the prospect of a new Government looming. The industry was looking at lobbying and felt it wanted to try something new.

"With the benefit of hindsight, we would perhaps have done things differently."

Nigel Chaldecott director general of BMP commented: "Our use of Lowe Bell was accepted by our leaders as worthwhile and economical." Exclusive by Keren Sall and David Nunn

Further controversy has broken out over the use of political lobbyist Lowe Bell by construction industry bodies, with specialist contractors claiming they got better results for free.

Suggestions that members' money was wasted on the service have been strongly rebutted by Ian Deslandes, now chief executive of the Construction Confederation as a mixture of "inaccuracies, distortions and innuendoes" (see letters, page 25). Deslandes says various contractor organisations pooled their resources in order to use members' money wisely.

He also corrects the innacuracy that payments were made by the Construction Confederation.

However, specialist contractors claimed last week that they got better lobbying for nothing through the efforts of their own members.

The claim comes from Alan McDougall who represented the Constructors Liaison Group during the General Election campaign. McDougall told CJ: "I doubt whether Lowe Bell's services were value for money."

McDougall was part of a confidential forum, the Construction Industry Lobbying Group, in which organisations from all industry sectors met to plan lobbying strategy during the run up to the election.

Documents from this forum show that specialists claimed they had mounted a successful three-year awareness-raising campaign without the help of politcal lobbyists. Last week McDougall said: "We did it through our members contacting local MPs. We found it was far cheaper and better. We got our lobbying for less money."

Doubts are also expressed by clients. "There is no real need to employ lobbying organisations. These points can be made in periodic meetings with ministers and civil servants," says Anthony Pollington, secretary of the Construction Clients' Forum.

During the election, monthly payments totalling £8,000 were made to Lowe Bell by the Building Employers Confederation, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, the Major Contractors Group and the Federation of Master Builders. The arrangements were made through the contractors' umbrella organisation CIEC.

However, in parallel to CIEC's arrangements with Lowe Bell, organisations representing other industry sectors were separately paying Lowe Bell - leading to top level concerns about duplication.

A confidential document circulated in April 1997 said: "When BMP had also employed Lowe Bell, the workload of the political consultants probably had not increased in proportion to the greater revenue."

It said that a joint agreement should be considered with Lowe Bell to "reduce the combined expenditure", with the emphasis on employing them for specific projects rather than on retainer.

McDougall said: "I think Lowe Bell is a very good organisation and very good at PR. But if you total up all the money it got out of the industry, I don't think it got value for money."

Ian Deslandes counters that contractors saved money by banding together: "Far from wasting members' money the costs to each organisation were significantly reduced."

Brian Flint, director general of the Federation of Master Builders commented: "All these things were happening with the prospect of a new Government looming. The industry was looking at lobbying and felt it wanted to try something new.

"With the benefit of hindsight, we would perhaps have done things differently."

Nigel Chaldecott director general of BMP commented: "Our use of Lowe Bell was accepted by our leaders as worthwhile and economical."