Blog:Cab For Hire
From Bolton Interweb
Helen Hywater, Westminster Correspondent, 26th March 2010
This week, former Labour cabinet ministers Byers, Hoon, and Hewitt prove that Labour sleaze is no better than the Tory sleaze that got that party thrown out of power 13 years ago. Tory sleaze is still a reason not to vote for them, but now Labour sleaze gives you little choice.
These three former Cab(inet Minister)s for hire were seeking to hire out their government expertise and knowledge and contacts when they leave Parliament in May. Politicians have been doing this since they first learned to walk on two legs so that really isn't a massive problem. But what it did highlight was the concept of lobbying and how it corrupts democracy. Byers claimed he had influenced government policy twice, for Tesco and National Express, to the detriment of the public they are supposed to serve as an MP. He then said he was lying, the companies concerned denied involvement, and the ministers who had supposedly been lobbied also denied any contact or influence. There are lies being told, but who by is for people to decide for themselves.
What cannot be denied is that large companies and corporate interest groups put a lot of time, effort, and money into lobbying activities, trying to influence government policy and laws to their own benefit. We want laws and policies that are well considered and for MPs to have as much information as possible with which to make their decisions. But the way lobbying is currently carried out is wrong, open to abuse, and verges on corruption at times.
On the one hand, you expect interested and impacted parties to contribute views and opinions but on the other hand there seems to be no way of ensuring balance. I recall at the start of the Blair administration a reception at Downing Street at which some big companies were represented. They somehow managed to persuade the government to legislate with the aim of reducing the ability of their sub-contractors to charge market rates. No doubt contributions to the party were made. This kind of activity is commonplace but not a leap to call it corruption. If not corruption in a legal sense then at least corruption of the democratic process. Voters do not elect a government so they can get into bed with big business to the detriment of those same voters.
Then there are charity lobbyists - is it good to make sure MPs are made aware of all the various charitable causes and issues, or is it misuse of charitable donations to try and influence legislators in favour of one cause, when invariably it is at the cost of another. There are also other types of cause that employ lobbyists to promote their side of any debate - climate change is one example, health is another. Who is to decide what is legitimate awareness and information, and what is designed to override the policies we voted for.
I don't have all the answers here. All I know is that the system is wrong, that it can and does corrupt democracy. Where is the line? How do you achieve balance? Could you ban lobbying even if you legislated - you can't stop MPs meeting people who happen to be in business and have an opinion. Would you want to, when the businessman is a constituent and the MP is genuinely interested in the livelihood of their constituents, that is part of their job.
I would suggest the whole issue of lobbying is reviewed but lobbyists would be lobbying from their perspectives - they are already doing that on all the news programmes. Maybe you have to draw up many different lines, not one big one. For a start, sponsorship of an MP by any interest group should be illegal. Sorry union-sponsored Labour MPs. Sorry Tory MPs who sit on a company board. When elected an MP must be free of any undue influence, completely independent other than of their party. Sadly we also have to take away sponsorship of parties to square that circle and legislate that parties can only be funded by individual membership fees that cannot exceed a specified amount, plus profits from things like clubs, topped up by public grants at election time. I don't like this one little bit but if it stops undue influence on the elected representatives then it is the lesser of two evils.
Next step is to ban lobbying within the confines of Parliament and at publicly funded events such as No.10 receptions. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the entertainment of lobbyists. MPs need opinions and information but this should only be obtained in fully transparent situations where all interested parties can and do have equal access.
Like civil servants, MPs should not be permitted to receive gifts and hospitality of any unless it is nominal and declared. This is supposed to be the case but seems to carry no real penalty so failure to abide by the rules should result in automatic recall of the MP, i.e. a by-election is called.
Charities and non-commercial interest groups might be hit badly by this but the preservation of democracy that is transparent and uncorrupted is paramount. Besides, equal and open access should not upset anyone that was not intending to do more than inform. Inviting comment and opinion from a balanced range of interests should make for better, not worse, laws.
So some ideas, not answers, and probably a few flaws in the ideas that would need ironing out. Can we trust politicians of all sides to implement measures of this nature. Sadly I would not hold out much hope of there being a majority on that score. Perhaps we need a few more scandals, more public outrage, and more independent MPs (including party MPs that have a mind of their own) of integrity. The latter is really the only long-term solution but 13 years of government seems to have corrupted some of the whiter than white politicians we elected after the cash for questions scandals of the 1990s. Having integrity seems quite easy on election but maintaining it in the Westminster culture seems altogether more difficult it seems.
© Evrose, 2010
