THE BRIEFING Reputation LOOSE CONNECTIONS Lobbying scandals could see politicians lose their tether to the real world, says Leon Emirali
I RECALL THE multiple meeting requests that would come from so-called lobbyists, back when I was an aide to a cabinet minister. Whether they came from trade organisations, charities or household-name blue-chips, many of them had the potential to be truly valuable. Conventional wisdom suggested that a government minister stood to benefit from valuable face time with senior figures with experience of the ‘coal face’, and who could have something insightful and relevant to say. Yet these requests often left me with doubts. Tasked with managing the minister’s reputation, I’d always be mindful of the quarterly transparency publications, which would lay bare any meetings the minister had with external organisations. What are the optics of a meeting with a trade association ahead of a tax cut for their industry? How would it play in the papers if the minister met with a captain of industry who later became a donor to the party? In a sense, these were all questions that
shouldn’t have needed answers. They were superficial; distractions from the real business of governing. Yet, even then, debate was raging around lobbying scandals and standards in public life. It would have been remiss of me as a guardian of the minister’s public image not to think twice. Lobbying has been thrust into the headlines recently, but such controversies aren’t new. Perhaps the most famous lobbying scandal of modern times is the 1999 ‘cash for questions’ episode that cost Neil Hamilton his job in government and his place in Parliament. The scandal led to John Major launching the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which still proves controversial two decades later. Boris Johnson has taken a similar course
of action. Following the revelations around David Cameron lobbying ministers on behalf of Greensill Capital, the government commissioned Nigel Boardman – a senior figure at the law firm Slaughter & May – to lead a review into the blurred lines between the private and public sectors. The review is
Nigel Boardman published a review of lobbying practices
wide-ranging, and among the 19 formal recommendations there are many that could lead to major changes to the way business and politics interact. Perhaps the most noteworthy recommendations are those that would apply to individuals within government and those who have recently left Westminster. In particular, there has been a call for greater transparency around any second jobs held by civil servants, and for ‘open space’ between past, present and future employment. That’s difficult to implement for many reasons. First, around a quarter of the civil service work part-time. Should they be restricted in their activities outside their employment by the state? That could result in the standard of civil servants plummeting; many would be deterred by a lack of career flexibility. We, the taxpayers, could also be worse off. For some talented individuals, a role in public service appeals but the pay packet doesn’t. In those instances, a flexible role helps the Civil Service (and Parliament) attract talent it could otherwise not afford. (At the same time, of course, conflicts of interest must be declared and avoided.) The other group Boardman focuses on is the ‘political civil service’ – in other words, ministers and their advisers. He wants to give sharper teeth to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA), the body that determines whether senior figures can take up certain external appointments after leaving
government. Essentially, Boardman wants ACOBA to act more quickly and close the loopholes that enable former ministers and advisers to essentially lobby the government they previously worked for. In light of the Cameron/Greensill affair, Boardman rejected calls for prime ministers to be treated differently. This is an oversight that I believe will need to be addressed. Cameron himself suggested that a ‘special ACOBA’ could be launched to consult ex-PMs on what roles they may want to take on after leaving post. But Boardman chose not to include any special rules for former PMs, saying it would not be called on often enough to be valuable. Perhaps – but if the ultimate objective is to restore public faith in our democracy and elected leaders, it is former prime ministers who will come under the most scrutiny after they’ve left Number 10 behind. In the US, the Former Presidents Act provides ex-leaders with lifetime support – an arrangement designed to protect the integrity of the office. It includes a pension of around $200,000 per year and funding for a private office. One of the benefits, in theory, is that it stops ex-presidents indulging in the business of touting their influence and knowledge for monetary gain. Had something similar been in place in the UK, perhaps Cameron would have thought twice about getting his hands dirty with Greensill. The arrival of the Boardman report is welcome. Something has to be done, but its recommendations aren’t sophisticated enough to prevent future mishaps. They also threaten to weaken the link between business and politics that keeps our leaders tethered to the ‘real world’. Policymaking is a tricky business and we are increasingly seeing ‘generalist’ ministers in charge of departments that have no relation to their background or expertise. In these instances, the value of lobbyists has never been higher. We mustn’t let headlines get in the way of good policy. S Leon Emirali is a former aide to a cabinet minister and is a communications and reputation consultant
MICHA THEINER/CITYAM/SHUTTERSTOCK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
