Robert Marshall-Andrews

|

Only rules will do; Politicians need a code of conduct to stay out of trouble - The Sunday Independent

Article from The Sunday Independent

AS LOBBYGATE continues to unfold, let us praise an impeccable and legitimate piece of journalism which will change not only the rules but, with luck, the nature and personality of government itself.

Let us be glad that the Draper affair will force change that will let this reforming administration go about its historic business with the vigour of a clear conscience. Above all, let us curmudgeonly, ugly old buggers in the engine room of politics be grateful. For our lives have been brightened, and daylight has flooded in.

The implications of this story go far beyond the stomach-churning egos and semi-fraudulent behaviour it reveals. Profound issues are raised relating to the responsibility of ministers, the existence of Parliament and the protection of the press. First, lobbyists themselves. There is a growing awareness in government and party that the existence of this sub-parliamentary dross is our own responsibility. The pond into which the stone has been thrown is, rather, a tank of our own engineering. The invertebrates that have been driven splashing to the edge are stock that we ourselves have spawned. Protestations that they have achieved some independent oxygen are difficult to accept and herein lies the central problem for the government line.

Ministers, by and large, are not naive fools. As they watched their loyal lieutenants joining or forming lobbying organisations, did it not occur, even once, that there was at least a risk that past and present relationships might be deployed in the hope of commercial advantage? It must be worthy of investigation whether ministers, during this diaspora of the favoured and feted, gave instructions on the limits of future association. Let us hope that somewhere in the files of Whitehall are letters of which the following might be advanced as an archetype:

From the Minister without Imbroglio, Whitehall:

Dear Mr Mendelawcus Drophanger,

I understand that you have recently joined/formed the firm of Back, Scratchit and Bolinger as a parliamentary consultant.

Of course you are quite free to join whatever organisation you please but may I advance a word of caution. In the past we have enjoyed a close relationship based upon trust. In these circumstances it would be quite improper for you to approach either myself or any other government minister or official on behalf of any client of yours or Back, Scratchit and Bolinger for a considerable period, say five years.

No one is suggesting that such an approach would necessarily be improper, but you will appreciate that open government must not only be done but must be seen to be done. It follows from the above that you should not suggest to any client that you have influence based upon past relationships, for that would be misleading and may even be a false pretence warranting investigation.

Indeed, I would hope that you would bring the contents of this letter to the attention of your clients.

I know that you are keen to retain an interest in politics. May I suggest regular attendance at local meetings of the Rundown South Labour Party with a view, in due course, to achieving selection as a candidate for Parliament.

Yours sincerely

No doubt this or similar letters exist. If they do then they should be published without delay. If they do not exist then that is, at least, an unfortunate oversight and the need for ministerial guidelines is all the more urgent. If senior civil servants, with 400 years of ethical precepts from Pepys to permanent secretaries, are banned from the revolving door of commercial advantage, no less should apply to the Drapers and Mendelsohns and co.

Above all, implicit in such new regulation is the acknowledgement that this problem is the painful and necessary responsibility of government, to itself and to its parliamentary party to preserve the priceless asset of its own good name and the primary role of its elected members.

In this imperative lies the second issue raised by the Draper affair. The role of Parliament is once again on the agenda. Much criticism is made of the Parliamentary Labour Party. We are, it is said, compliant and dull, the fawning fodder upon which can be imposed the masonic mysteries of the Third Way. In small part this is true. As a generalisation it is wide of the mark. Furthermore, it ignores our greatest asset. The modern Labour MP, however dull and swottish, exudes financial virtue. Few would recognise an offshore fund if it leapt from the bath and bit them. Above all they do not owe their position to favours given or friendships maintained, nor do they inhabit the beau monde of apostate finance or the cringe-inducing Camelots of luvvie London. They do not "flutter" around the candle of politics. They are its wax, its taper and its flame.

Thus far the Government has relied, and been entitled to rely, on loyalty and toleration born of new endeavour. The Prime Minister would do well, however, to recognise that this is not an inexhaustible source. It will continue for so long as the Government is perceived to be from us and of us. Above all, it will last while the only legitimate route for the petition of government lies through the open agency of elected MPs. If these precepts are perceived to be broken to accommodate a court of knaves the fountain of goodwill could dry up.

The proposition is simple. The Prime Minister has a regal air but he must govern through parliament. Tony Blair might well reflect that there is no eminence grise in history, from Richelieu to Rasputin, from Machiavelli to Mazarin, who has not sown the seed of regicide. Derek Draper's business practices have highlighted a nasty and specific target, but at the periphery we can perceive the shadows of alternative government. For the health of Parliament these shadows, real or imagined, must be banished from the public perception.

The third great issue raised by this eventful piece of journalism is the existence of the Observer and newspapers like it. In a week when the House of Commons failed to adopt proposed changes in legislation that would have controlled the predatory price wars of the industry, the expose has demonstrated the necessity of a diverse press. As we move on seemingly irresistible currents towards the Third Way, the Tyranny of Enlightenment of a permanent centre-right, and as we await the final death rattle of the Conservative Party, ruthlessly impaled on the shaft of electoral reform, the need for countervailing forces could not be more stark.

The distance that has opened between the Government and the broadsheets provides cause for optimism, and the venom with which the Observer's article was attacked refreshing proof of the rift. Against this background, the merits themselves are of less consequence. Most illuminating of all, however, is the repeated refusal to investigate the allega- tions (particularly those relating to Roger Liddle) in the absence of "proof". Even the most junior lawyer may observe that inquiry is unnecessary into that which has been proved. At present, apparently, the serious allegations against Mr Liddle are based upon the sworn testimony of two journalists and relate to a conversation at a lobbyists' party. And they are serious. Whatever the rights and wrongs of blind trusts, corporate draw-downs, profit thresholds or any other form of commercial waltzing, Mr Liddle must have been aware that his position as an adviser in 10 Downing Street was a sensitive matter. In particular, any indication of influence would be open to misinterpretation.

No doubt, in due course there will be an investigation. Let us hope it will be thorough. If Mr Liddle is acquitted there will be dancing in Lambeth and Whitehall, but until that happy event there will be a shadow across the plain face of government. Conversely, however, the Government has been provided with a priceless opportunity to re-establish its bona fides, to strengthen the diversity of the press and to reinforce its links with its own backbenchers.

To this end I offer the following statement:

"The Government and party have carefully considered the detailed allegations which have been raised by the Observer. As a provisional judgement, we consider that this article reveals practices which can only raise grave doubts as to the sub-parliamentary activities of former advisers to ministers in government. There will be an inquiry, but in the meantime we make it clear that no minister or official in this government will deal with any individual purporting to lobby on behalf of others if that individual has within the past five years been employed with, or worked in association with, members of this government. For the avoidance of doubt we would reiterate that the legitimate way to petition government is through the open agency of elected Members of Parliament."

I hope this constructive suggestion is helpful. But then I have never been a political adviser.