Lobbying scandal spreads to House of Lords

Lord Cunningham, Lord Laird, Lord Mackenzie accepted cash for lobbying.

And now the House of Lords has been dragged into the lobbying scandal. Following an investigation by the Telegraph and Panorama that has just ended Patrick Mercer's career, three members of the House of Lords were filmed offering to lobby ministers for cash. Lord Cunningham, Lord Laird and Lord Mackenzie told undercover reporters from the Sunday Times they would ask parliamentary questions to benefit a ficticious firm, and set up an all-party group as a lobbying vehicle. They also revealed that some peers were hiding conflicts of interest via job-swap deals, pulling strings for each other's clients in parliament. However all three deny any wrongdoing.

“The rules are very complex, but let’s not accuse all members who were involved in all this of being corrupt when in fact they aren’t," Lord Mackenzie told Radio 5live. "They’re simply trying to find their way through the morass of rules – it’s very difficult at times. But I’m quite clear I’ve broken no rules, I’ve asked no questions for money, and I’ve lobbied no ministers and nor would I do.”

He called for a reform of parliamentary rules to make them clearer.

As they stand, the rules for House of Lords members ban them from acting as advocates, hosting functions in the Lords or attempting to influence parliament, and, since 2009, "seeking to profit from membership of the house" in any way, even if they declared a financial interest. During the secretly filmed conversation with reporters, detailed in today's Sunday Times, Mackenzie explained how one could work round them:

“There is a rule that you shouldn’t host a reception in parliament where you have a pecuniary interest,” he said. “I thought that’s bloody nonsense. Nonetheless ... how would you get round that? “I just say to a colleague who has nothing to do with it, would you host a function for me?” He added: “Of course, I do the business anyway, but that gets round it.”

Jack Cunningham with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Can Philip Hammond save the Conservatives from public anger at their DUP deal?

The Chancellor has the wriggle room to get close to the DUP's spending increase – but emotion matters more than facts in politics.

The magic money tree exists, and it is growing in Northern Ireland. That’s the attack line that Labour will throw at Theresa May in the wake of her £1bn deal with the DUP to keep her party in office.

It’s worth noting that while £1bn is a big deal in terms of Northern Ireland’s budget – just a touch under £10bn in 2016/17 – as far as the total expenditure of the British government goes, it’s peanuts.

The British government spent £778bn last year – we’re talking about spending an amount of money in Northern Ireland over the course of two years that the NHS loses in pen theft over the course of one in England. To match the increase in relative terms, you’d be looking at a £35bn increase in spending.

But, of course, political arguments are about gut instinct rather than actual numbers. The perception that the streets of Antrim are being paved by gold while the public realm in England, Scotland and Wales falls into disrepair is a real danger to the Conservatives.

But the good news for them is that last year Philip Hammond tweaked his targets to give himself greater headroom in case of a Brexit shock. Now the Tories have experienced a shock of a different kind – a Corbyn shock. That shock was partly due to the Labour leader’s good campaign and May’s bad campaign, but it was also powered by anger at cuts to schools and anger among NHS workers at Jeremy Hunt’s stewardship of the NHS. Conservative MPs have already made it clear to May that the party must not go to the country again while defending cuts to school spending.

Hammond can get to slightly under that £35bn and still stick to his targets. That will mean that the DUP still get to rave about their higher-than-average increase, while avoiding another election in which cuts to schools are front-and-centre. But whether that deprives Labour of their “cuts for you, but not for them” attack line is another question entirely. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496