Opinion Money trails,less opaque

Over the past few days,a sting operation coordinated by a newspaper and the BBC uncovered allegations relating to paid advocacy on the part of Patrick Mercer,a Tory MP. He had agreed to pose questions in the House of Commons on behalf of a fictitious Fijian lobbying company for financial gain. Close on the heels of this scandal came a second newspaper sting operation,which revealed that three members of the House of Lords were also apparently willing to exercise their influence in asking questions and lobbying in return for cash payments.

This sordid episode has cast a spotlight on the shadowy world of lobbying and its attendant practices. It has also served as a reminder of the coalition government’s inability to introduce reforms to an industry that is thought by the public to play its part in obfuscating a democratic decision-making process. In a range of spheres from defence procurement to transportation and civil aviation policy,health policy to school reforms,legions of lobbyists are regularly engaged in persuading legislators and officials to mould decisions to suit their interests. The toxic perception attached to the exercise of influence in such covert ways has only served to fuel voter disillusionment in how the government works and how decisions are truly made.

None of this is particularly novel though. In fact,in his days in the opposition,David Cameron had presciently warned that corporate lobbying was “the next big scandal waiting to happen”. He had decried the “far too cosy relationship between politics,government,business and money”. Yet in government,he hasn’t followed through with decisive action. This is despite already losing a cabinet minister to a lobbying scandal. Liam Fox resigned as defence secretary when it was revealed that his self-styled “adviser” was supported by entities with an interest in defence procurement. There are plentiful instances of ministerial offices working in proximity to lobbyists too. That is the inevitable result of the regular “revolving door” of personnel between government and the firms that seek to influence government.

The Labour party hasn’t demonstrated a willingness to convincingly wrestle with the issues either. In part,its timidity arises from the fact that its own tenure in government was bedevilled by scandals of a similar ilk. In the dying embers of the last government,three former cabinet ministers were filmed offering their services for money,one describing himself infamously as “a cab for hire”. Legislation on this nexus between government and money was articulated in the original coalition agreement between the Tories and the LibDems and regurgitated again in their midterm review. Yet,precious little has been delivered to date.

What can be done then? To begin with,the need for reforms to the rules on lobbying is painfully obvious. Granted that there may be some justification for interested stakeholders — whether political or business-oriented — to seek access to the government. Their perspective may inform ministers and,in some instances,actually help to refine government policy. Moreover,there is little to be gained by legislators working in isolation without some awareness of the practical implications of their formulations.

That said,the nub of the issue lies in the all too often secretive nature of such lobbying efforts. Worse still are circumstances when it involves a payment in return,whether camouflaged as a “consultancy fee” or as a straightforward inducement. What is needed is a statutory register for lobbyists and far greater transparency about their interactions with legislators. Such action would be welcomed by in Britain by the public. From a comparative perspective,that ought to interest other observers too — including those in India — who also continually grapple with such issues.

Ultimately,there is a larger public interest in knowing who is lobbying whom about what. Greater transparency will not eliminate all egregious behaviour,but it would mark a step in the right direction. The current scandal in Britain has exposed the shortcomings of a system that needs course correction. If public confidence in the parliamentary process is to be restored,radical reforms can no longer be avoided.

The writer is a London-based lawyer