[Ip-health] The Times: Sleaze curbs to prevent firms from 'buying' MPs

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

The Times

May 26, 2006


  Sleaze curbs to prevent firms from 'buying' MPs

By Sam Coates, Political Correspondent

RELATIONS between MPs and lobbyists face their biggest overhaul in more
than a decade after an investigation by /The Times/ revealed how
business pays for influence.

Parliament=92s sleaze watchdog said yesterday that it was determined to
limit the activities of lobbyists who are giving financial support to
supposedly independent groups of MPs that investigate controversial
policies in which they have a commercial interest. The watchdog held an
inquiry into the activities of MPs and lobbyists after /The Times/
discovered that representatives of the nuclear, pharmaceutical and
drinks industries were funding the activities of politicians and even
writing policy reports.



The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards called on all lobbyists
yesterday to reveal their client lists and urged MPs to act with caution
when dealing with those who did not. One in five refuses to sign up to
the voluntary code to say who clients are.

Sir Philip Mawer, the commissioner, has moved to close a loophole that
allowed lobbyists to withhold the names of relevant clients. He also
said that charities who helped MPs should reveal the name of any company
that gave them more than =A35,000, a move that would have wider
repercussions in the charity sector.

The recommendations, which could be implemented early next year, would
represent the most significant rule change since the
=93cash-for-questions=94 affair that cost the careers of several Tory MPs.

The /Times/ investigation focused on the role of all-party groups =97
supposedly independent groups of MPs with a common interest in a subject
=97 and revealed that six had failed to disclose the source of their
financial and secretarial support. The rules state: =93Where a consultancy
provides benefits (eg, secretarial services) at the request of the
client, you must state the name both of the consultancy and the client.=94

The Committee on Standards and Privileges upheld a complaint against
three of the groups: Intellectual Property, Patient Safety and Pharmacy.
The consultancy firm, Luther Pendragon, which provided secretarial
support, has now listed the groups=92 backers on the Parliament website.

The Mobile Communications, Export and Fire Safety and Rescue groups
escaped censure because the lobbyists involved =97 Doug Smith and Nicholas
Lansman from Political Intelligence =97 argued that they were operating
independently of their clients, some of whose interests overlap with the
work of these allparty groups.

However, Sir Philip has proposed a change in the rules to prevent this
defence in future. He said: =93It would, in my view, be inappropriate if
the requirement to identify clients of a consultancy with an interest in
a particular group assisted by the consultancy could be intentionally
circumvented simply by the device of funding the assistance out of the
general fee income of the firm, rather than by a specific grant from, or
at the specific request of, a named client.=94

The committee also found that the Mobile Communications group failed to
register two areas of financial support, worth =A36,500, from BT and O2.

/The Times/ investigation also discovered that several industries were
writing policy reports in the name of all-party groups. Sir Philip has
recommended that all press releases, reports and other publications
provide the name of the author, the organisation that provided
secretarial support and any relevant clients or sponsors.

The report found no evidence that all-party groups were being =93suborned
by outside interests=94, although it added that they were =93not neutral
surveyors of a particular area of public policy, but conduits . . . for
pressure to change public policy=94.

Sir Philip said that MPs must find a better way to distinguish all-party
groups from select committees. He suggested that the Speaker write to
chairmen of all-party groups to make sure they did not give the
impression that they had =93institutional status=94.

The Committee on Standards and Privileges has asked relevant parties to
submit opinions before the summer recess.


*THE PRESSURE GROUPS*



*What are all-party groups?* Enable MPs and peers with shared interests
to discuss issues and act as a pressure group

*How many are there?* They have mushroomed from 148 in 1986 to 442 this
year

*How official are they?* Formally recognised in 1985. Registration is
compulsory for any group that includes MPs from more than one party and
has at least one officer from the Commons

*How important are they?* The Parliamentary Commissioner said: =93Those
with a special interest in a particular issue have the potential to gain
considerably from the access to an all-party group=94

*How do they differ from select committees?* They are not an official
part of the parliamentary process, have no limit on the number of
members and have no formal powers to request the presence of ministers