The Wardman Wire

Thank goodness for sleaze

This week has seen the return of a good old fashioned sleaze scandal. It beats the hell out of all this talk of economic meltdown and job losses. This latest scandal is a variation on an old favourite – cash for favours. This one involves the Lords (unelected), fake lobbyists (boo!), loads of money (ooh!) and advocacy to change the laws (aah!). The screaming headlines prove that these money grabbing fly by nights have done wrong and therefore should be locked up and while we’re at it, let’s put an end to these lobbyists too. Well, as is often the case, things are not so simple.

The Lobbyists

Firstly, let’s deal with the lobbying allegation. No lobbyists are implicated in this story, as it wasn’t lobbyists who approached the Lords in the first place – the clue is in the name: fake lobbyists. Furthermore, what is a lobbyist anyway? A lobbyist is anyone who approaches a decision maker in an attempt to change the law or preserve it as it is. That includes those who call themselves lobbyists by profession, to the old lady down the street who meets with her local MP to stop the local by-pass running past her house. In short, a lobbyist is someone who is getting involved in the democratic process.

Lobbying is a force for good

Of course, no one is worried about the little old lady getting involved, but surely these paid up professionals must be up to no good. There are, of course, rogue elements in all areas of business from doctors to bankers to estate agents and the Church. It does not mean to say all are bad. The same is true with the lobbying industry. Overall, their purpose can only be seen as good – they are experts in the political and decision making process and help those who are not in the know to engage in it. The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) itself has said, in its recent look into lobbying, that “Lobbying should be—and often is—a force for good”. Their investigation, incidentally, has failed to find any good examples of where the lobbying industry is corrupt or sleazy and is confused about what it should be doing – though it seems intent on being seen to do something.

No scandals

The lobbying industry has two main bodies that regulate it (albeit self regulation). They have a code of conduct that strictly rules out any cash changing hands between lobbyists and MPs – and quite rightly. Anyone accused of stepping out of line is finished in the industry – just look at Derek Draper. It simply is not in the interests of a lobbying firm to get mixed up in the murky world; because of the nature of the industry they are in they have to be whiter than white – far whiter than our banking industry has proved to be. The Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) has had one member in the past ten years who had any serious allegations made about it breaching its rules and the firm in question has jumped ship from the APPC even though the complaint was dropped. There have been no scandals involving lobbying firms who are members of the main associations that involve cash for access or favours.

The problems lie in the House of Lords

It is clear that the problem here is with the House of Lords. The allegations, put simply, are some fake lobbyists from the Sunday Times asked a bunch of Lords if they would change legislation in exchange for a healthy wad of cash. Four Labour peers were willing to talk. But have any of them actually done anything wrong?

The problem with that question is what does wrong mean? Have they done something that most of us would consider immoral? Possibly. Have any of them actually broken any House of Lords rules? It is too early to be sure, but it does appear that none of them have. Have any of them been foolish and naive and perhaps a little greedy – almost certainly. But there are no rules against that, unfortunately.

Have any rules been breached?

First up – not one of them actually accepted any money… which begs the question, why didn’t The Sunday Times push this story a little further before going public, that way they could have had a real juicy one. Secondly, none of them actually said they would personally act as advocates to the clients. Lords are perfectly allowed to give advice to clients for money and many do. What they are not allowed to do is “accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”. Did any of the four actually breach this rule?

The spirit is broken, but the letter of the rules?

My gut feeling is that they have broken the spirit of the rules, but it will be nigh on impossible to actually prove they have done any wrong-doing in terms of the letter of the rule. Even if they had got another Lord to act on their behalf and pocketed the money, it is still not clear that they would have done any wrong. This is why a police investigation is an absolute waste of time – we saw that with the cash for honours scandal. The problem is the rules are so undefined and contain nice little loopholes that it is very hard to pin blame and punishment on anyone.

A sad conclusion

So, if the lobbyists are not to blame and the Lords cannot be blamed, where does that leave us? Simple – and the answer is something I am grossly opposed to but have to admit is the only solution: full on reform of the House of Lords. These unelected, unpaid, un-whipped, virtually un-punishable men of privilege are just too outdated for a modern, open and fair democracy. It will be a sad day when the upper House is no more than a dumping ground for failed MPs, but I am afraid to say they are mastering their own downfall.