An unforgettable visit to HEAL

For five days in January 2011, my friend Gabriella Wass and I had the privilege of visiting the HEAL Children’s Village in Andhra Pradesh and meeting some of the inspirational visionaries and volunteers who have made the project what it is today.

Having worked over previous months with my colleagues at PLMR to support HEAL UK gain local Peterborough press coverage for its latest fundraising efforts and to launch the new Paradise Village initiative, I was very excited about seeing it all in action. Gabriella, having recently completed a Masters Degree in Human Rights at the University of London, was also keen to visit the project – sharing a deep passion for supporting projects that improve the health and education of children from deprived backgrounds abroad.

From the moment we arrived we were struck by HEAL’s caring and loving atmosphere, and

howwelcoming and happy all the children and staff were to see us. Throughout our visit, Gabbi and I were continually overwhelmed by the generosity and kindness of our hosts – an ethos which clearly emanates from the core of HEAL’s approach as an entirely volunteer-run charity.The first activity that we had the pleasure of experiencing was an aerobics and dance session, led by Ann Garrett, HEAL UK’s Sponsorship Secretary. Alongside 200 beautifully dressed women in sarees, who had come to

HEAL from surrounding local villages to learn grassroots skills to take back to their communities (including maternal and infant healthcare, hygiene and basic education), we all embarrassed ourselves doing squats and star-jumps in time to the music – causing much amusement. The class soon turned into a massive dance session with all the children, who energetically taught us a few traditional and Bollywood-style dance moves – skills that we could never pull off with quite so much style!

Over the next few days, between more dance classes and being fed absolutely delicious South Indian food, Gabbi and I also managed to spend time singing and playing with the children, visiting the local town and going on a tour of some beautiful Hindu and Buddhist temples and shrines in the region. We were delighted to meet so many members of the HEAL team during our stay, including CEO Mrs Laxmi Tatineni, HEAL India Sponsorship Secretary Mrs O Vijayalaxmi, Mr Dhana Prakash, Managing Director of Model Dairy and major benefactor of the new Paradise Village, and Varma, on-site HEAL coordinator. Everyone was endlessly generous and hospitable – we ran out of ways to say thank you.

One memory that will always stay with us was the experience of watching Dr N Manga Devi, General Secretary and HEAL visionary, reading a bedtime story one evening to 15 absolutely captivated children. Her compassionate approach was deeply inspiring and a wider reflection of the loving environment that the HEAL children are surrounded by every day, and which they clearly absorb. Never was this more apparent than at the moment of our leaving, when many of the young girls tried to give us the little jewellery they owned. We were so moved by their generosity and made to feel very hopeful for their futures, which, through the atmosphere HEAL has created, will certainly be bright.

Gabbi and I are excited about jointly sponsoring a ‘Poverty Trap’ child through their education over the coming months and years.

Lessons in political correctness

As I’m sure many readers will have seen in this morning’s FT, Select Committee appearances can be extremely stressful for executives and one awkward question can break reputations, both individual and corporate, in a matter of moments.

Read today’s Financial Times for a great piece by Kiran Stacey, quoting my colleague Kevin Craig - working with a company such as PLMR can maximise your piece of mind and turn a Select Committee appearance into an opportunity, not only for a positive profiling for individuals, but for effective communication of a sector’s key messages to audiences within and outside Parliament.

As Kevin is quoted in the article;

In response, an industry has grown to protect these bosses and their reputations. Executives are now turning to professional political consultants to ask them to pr for appearances that have the potential to make or break their careers. More than 60 agencies advise thousands of organisations in the UK alone, and clients can range from major banks to rugby clubs. Kevin Craig, managing director of PLMR, one of these agencies, describes it as “a very significant sector right now”.

To view online, click on the following link (behind paywall): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ace0d6f2-3875-11e0-959c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Dv5s8LKx

Kathrine Bancroft in PR Week's Soapbox

PLMR's Kathrine Bancroft was featured in this week's PR Week Soapbox.

It has been a difficult couple of weeks for the Big Society. Steve Hilton’s brainchild has been under attack from all sides, from Big Society ‘tsar’ Lord Wei announcing he was scaling back his unpaid commitments because they were incompatible with having a life, to Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, who is stepping down as executive director of the volunteering charity CSV, saying the cuts are destroying volunteering.

Not that this is a new phenomenon. Since its inception, the Big Society has raised more than its fair share of quizzical looks. But recent interventions have upped the number of slings and arrows that the Big Society has had to suffer and will be causing a few jitters in the corridors of power.

Where once it had to withstand a barrage of theoretical dissing, its substance is now being challenged.

And by tying it so explicitly to that most dreaded of words – cuts – the Big Society’s detractors are really hitting the Government where it hurts.

Not that this will or can alter the course: too much has been invested in it, and there’s too much riding on it as the coalition’s good news story for it to be packed off to the policy graveyard. So the coalition will follow Winston Churchill’s motto to KBO – Keep Buggering On, that is. It is the only thing the coalition can do.

Read online here http://www.prweek.com/news/1053960/Public-Affairs-Soap-Box---Kathrine-Bancroft-associate-director-PLMR/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

Serving those who serve

Since the 1689 Bill of Rights, Parliament has been required to pass an act every five years that renews the Army, Air Force and Naval Acts. Whilst in1689 they could not have foreseen the rapidly changing face of war this allows Politicians the opportunity, and indeed the duty to ensure that the legal status of the Armed Forces adequately reflects what they are required to do.

The act was completely re-written in 2006 and made some significant achievements in bringing the bill up to modern standards, however following a commitment outlined in the Coalition document (but interestingly not in any individual party’s manifesto) the Military Covenant is to be enshrined for the first time in Clause 2 of the Armed Forces Bill.

Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual armed forces covenant report on the effects of membership on service people, which includes Veterans and their families.

The true need for this report has never been greater, particularly in the fields of Mental Healthcare. A recent study by the King’s Centre for Military Health Research[1] suggested that almost a quarter of Iraq Veterans admitted to suffering from mental ill-health, with nearly 5% displaying symptoms of PTSD. By projecting these statistics on to the 180,000 Service men and women who have been deployed to Iraq and to Afghanistan, we could be looking at as many as 48,000 Veterans suffering some form of mental ill health, with 9,000 potentially developing PTSD.

And that's not just 48,000 individuals suffering, that's also 48,000 families whose lives have been permanently affected by debilitating mental injuries.

The concern will be that while enshrining the covenant is a significant step to rebuilding our eroded Military Covenant, it is not known exactly what will be required to be included in the report. During the Second Reading Dr Liam Fox indicated that this was to avoid ‘long and complex’ legislation.

As the Bill moves into Committee stage tomorrow, we will have a while to wait before we see if the first armed forces covenant report will have any teeth, and while long and complex legislation affords nobody any favours, it is vital that this report reflects the true nature of the impact of war on individuals who have served their country, and ensuring proper care for individuals suffering for the sacrifices they have made.

Sara Kelly is an Account Executive at PLMR. She has previously worked in Westminster for Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP and campaigned in elections and by-elections. She runs her own blog.

---

[1] *What are the consequences of deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan on the mental health of the UK armed forces? A cohort study (Matthew Hotopf and Simon Wessely) http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/10TL1552.pd

How Not To Bury Bad News

Today’s resignation of Andy Coulson, No. 10’s Director of Communications, teaches us all a valuable lesson; the ability to judge when to brief a bad news story is a very useful skill to have in this sector, but misjudge an announcement and you leave the hole open for somebody else to bury theirs.

The last 36 hours have been full of newsworthy stories - a breakthrough in the Joanna Yeates murder investigation, the resignation of Alan Johnson and the subsequent rumours, and Tony Blair’s appearance in front of the Iraq Inquiry to name a few. Each of these stories on an ordinary news day would be enough to dominate the headlines. This amount of distraction would have buried most stories, unfortunately for the Government and Andy Coulson, his resignation has today eclipsed them all.

The consistent drip drip feeding of News of the World hacking scandals, the vigorous and sustained attacks launched by the Opposition and the Guardian newspaper, and rumours of Mr Cameron declining a previous resignation ensured that levels of anticipation were at a premium and any announcement of this nature was always going to be headline news.

What started out as an uncomfortable day for Ed Miliband – the resignation of Alan Johnson, the appointment of Ed Balls and Tony Blair’s final swansong – has ended with Labour on the offensive. To rub salt in the wound, the king of spin – no not Graeme Swann, Peter Mandelson – delivered a reminder in how to surf the wave of other people’s bad news as his announcement on a new job at investment bank Lazard was left almost totally untouched by the media.

I am not sure what the strategy was for today's announcement, nor how much of today’s timing was deliberate or just serendipity. What is clear is that if the aim was to get the news out on a day when other stories would dominate, then that has not been achieved.

Ted Ryan works at PLMR. He previously volunteered on the Rt Hon David Miliband’s Campaign for Leader of The Labour Party

All to play for - The General Election and the Life Sciences

Whichever party wins the 2010 General Election, the life sciences sector has a golden opportunity to engage with a new generation of decision makers.

Assuming you haven’t been living underground for the past two weeks, you’ve probably noticed that Britain is currently in the grip of one of the most hotly-contested election campaigns in a generation. But as “election fever” (if that’s not too strong a description for a political event) sweeps the nation, you might be forgiven for asking what all the political to-ing and fro-ing means for your company’s bottom line. Beyond the slogans, poster campaigns and polling statistics however, it’s clear that there is a huge amount at stake for life sciences companies at this election.

First and foremost, with an “age of austerity” in the public finances ahead, it’s more important than ever that the life sciences industry makes a strong case for public investment in medical innovation. None of the parties has made it clear exactly where “efficiency savings” are going to fall – so communicating the vital importance of mechanisms like R&D tax credits now, before the big decisions have been made, is a must.

Another reason to keep a close eye on the debate is that the potential of the Office for Life Sciences (OLS) – widely seen as having made a good start in its task of forging a long-term Government strategy for the life sciences – has yet to be fully realised. OLS initiatives like the UK Innovation Investment Fund and the Patent Box relief on IP need continued political buy-in to make sure they deliver effectively.

So where are the “dividing lines” (to borrow a favourite phrase of Gordon Brown’s) between the parties on these issues? Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have all expressed their unequivocal commitment to science in the run up to the campaign – although that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a cosy political consensus.

Labour is going into the election championing its record on science, with the creation of the OLS a key achievement. Senior figures in the Party, such as Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, believe that strategic government support for the life sciences can help Britain emerge from recession; with the Prime Minister pledging last month that he will consider appointing a “Minister for Life Sciences” should Labour be re-elected. With finances tight, however, the key question is whether Labour is able to realistically back up this rhetoric with funding.

The Conservatives have also placed science high up on their list of campaign priorities, commissioning inventor James Dyson to report on how Britain can excel in science and engineering. What’s not clear, however, is whether the work of the OLS would continue under the Conservatives, although its success so far is reportedly acknowledged within the senior ranks of the Party. Above all, the Conservatives argue that Labour’s handling of the economy jeopardises stability in science funding, and that reducing Britain’s deficit and cutting red tape will better serve technology-based businesses.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, are probably closer to holding the balance of power in the political debate than they have even been. The party’s science spokesperson, Dr Evan Harris MP, has a significant life sciences presence in his Oxford West and Abingdon constituency and has spoken out about the need for improved access to finance for the sector. Should the election deliver a hung Parliament, the Liberal Democrats are, therefore, not without expertise in this area.

In many ways, though, the prospect of a change in government – although hugely important – isn’t the most seismic shift facing life sciences companies at this election. What may be more significant is that this year will see the largest turnover of MPs for a generation, with over 150 MPs expected to step down and many more to lose their seats in constituencies across the country.

It’s well worth life science companies investing time in making contact with their local MP after the results are announced. The sector offers high-tech employment, future health benefits to patients and a sustainable way out of recession for Britain’s economy, and MPs with little or no experience in the industry need to know about this. More importantly, attracting press coverage, navigating regulatory systems and gaining planning permission are all areas where having a local champion on your side in Parliament can pay real dividends for your business.

So who’s going to win? The Conservatives probably remain in pole position but there is still all to play for. In other words, we just don’t know yet. What is clear is that whichever party triumphs, life sciences companies have an exciting opportunity to engage with the political system as it evolves – starting in their own back yards.

http://www.plmr.co.uk/

http://www.capitalmsl.com/capitalmsl/uploads/news/files/lifesciencesspring2010FINAL.pdf

Rise of the 'Super NIMBY'

PLMR’s David Madden for Total Politics Magazine

‘Architect says Charles has abused his power’. Listeners to Radio 4’s The Today Programme on 16 June this year may have been interested to hear Lord Rogers of Riverside’s tirade against Prince Charles’s involvement in Qatari Diar’s last minute decision to withdraw its planning application for the £1 billion Chelsea Barracks residential development. The casual listener may well have been tempted to think ‘Oh dear, there goes HRH sticking his oar in again, single-handedly fighting off another of his monstrous carbuncles’.

On first appraisal it’s easy to dismiss this event as something of an amusing oddity (unless you work for RSH & Partners perhaps); after all, it’s not exactly often that the heir to the throne is going to write to the Chief Executive of a development company who happens to be a member of the Qatari Royal Family to put the kybosh on a planning application.

But, without wishing to enter into the argument about the constitutionality or otherwise of the Prince’s actions, this case highlights an interesting, and potentially disturbing, issue: the rise of the ‘celebrity’ objector, or ‘super-NIMBY’ if one will, and the disproportionate impact they can have on the planning process. For the uninitiated a NIMBY is someone who objects to new development close to home – Not In My Back Yard. A quick (and somewhat soul destroying) trawl through the comments submitted by readers of the related Times article on the same day – and this story was picked up by all the broadsheet websites - showed that the vast majority supported the Prince of Wales and welcomed his stand against ‘egotistical’ architects, ‘greedy’ developers and ‘totalitarian’ planning departments. Earlier in the same week Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster Council, had said that the Prince’s involvement had acted as a ‘lightning rod’ for other objectors, enabling more residents to come forward and register their objections.

In such an atmosphere, even if the application had not been withdrawn, it would have taken a brave Westminster Planning Committee – made up of course from locally elected Councillors, with a duty to consider the views of their constituents - to grant planning permission in the face of such high profile and vocal opposition, particularly when their own Council Leader had appeared to give his tacit support to the objectors and the future Head of State had provided their rallying call.

Of course, not all super-NIMBYs are quite as influential as the Prince of Wales. But Members of Parliament, active Councillors and even locally well known activists in a given community can have a huge impact on the fate of a planning application. It’s an important factor to bear in mind for developers who often will have invested many hundreds of thousands of pounds on their plans even before they are ultimately determined by a dozen people in a public chamber.

So, what are the motivations behind the super-NIMBY? Not all are moved by a distaste for modernist architecture as demonstrated by Prince Charles. Many may simply wish to reflect what they consider to be the views of the people they represent. Across the country MPs are looking to re-engage with their constituents in the wake of the expenses crisis and in the lead up to the next general election, which of course is now no more than a year away and may yet be called sooner. Lending their support to a popular local cause, such as the fight against a planning application, will doubtless be a temptation.

The same motivating factors can apply to local Councillors. Many Councillors will also be facing re-election in 2010 and those representing the three main parties will be looking to counter widespread public mistrust of the political ‘establishment’. A strong local cause to rally around, such as an unpopular planning application, will be music to many local representatives’ ears.

The rise of the super-NIMBY really comes hand in hand with increased local activism against large-scale and/or unpopular development proposals up and down the country. As local communities and activists become more involved in the planning process and also employ increasingly sophisticated campaign techniques, developers, by and large, have failed to effectively engage in debate, leaving the field clear for their opponents. Consequently, those taking the decisions – the local Councillors – often only hear one side of an argument and this cannot help but influence their final judgement.

Councils are, of course, seeking to involve developers in discussions with the community at an earlier stage. Each local authority in England has published a Statement of Community Involvement, which encourages developers to engage with local communities before submitting their plans and to take into account local concerns and aspirations before drawing up their final plans.

Many developers shy away from this process, which is not compulsory (except for major infrastructure plans), either fearing that they will face a barrage of objection, or simply through an unwillingness to invest time and money in a process for which they can see no real benefit. But this attitude is both short-sighted and potentially fatal to their plans. Failure to engage with the local community – and this can include residents, Councillors, community groups and the constituency MP - , simply reinforces the negative and prevalent stereotype of the ‘uncaring developer’ and leaves the ground clear for objectors to say pretty much what they want. Just as importantly, it represents a missed opportunity to promote the positive messages associated with an application – regeneration benefits, sustainability, job creation, infrastructure improvements and financial contributions towards schools and medical services to name just a few.

The real risk that is posed by developers’ failure to engage in community consultation and the wider debate around planning applications is that those making the most noise – and super-NIMBYs can be pretty loud – monopolise the dialogue to the point where it becomes a monologue. In these circumstances the democratically elected representatives who determine an application have no counterpoint by which to judge the case presented by the objectors. Subsequently, these un-filtered and un-countered arguments gain more weight in the minds of those decision takers: potentially resulting in the loss of a perfectly good development scheme, offering strong community benefits, because of the views of a disproportionately vocal minority.

The right to object, on material planning grounds, to a planning application is, of course, a fundamentally good thing. There have undoubtedly been many, many occasions when ill-conceived plans have been successfully opposed. But many cases for objection are based on very subjective grounds – one person’s landmark building is another’s eyesore – and developers, and for that matter supporters of schemes, also have the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard too.

After all, one might never be able to convince Prince Charles of the merits of modernist architecture, but developers who are prepared to communicate at an early stage can reap the benefits of simply taking the time to talk.

David Madden is an Account Director with the health and social care sector specialist political lobbying, media relations, crisis management and planning communications consultancy PLMR. http://www.plmr.co.uk/