Article from the UK Chapter of Transparency International

The Chemistry Club, which organises networking events, which civil servants were previously prohibited from attending by the Cabinet Office, charges senior executives between £1,300 and £1,800 to attend invitation-only functions in order to meet with MPs, Ministers and senior government advisors

Yesterday it was revealed that some companies have been paying a networking organisation for access to political decision makers. The Chemistry Club, which organises networking events, which civil servants were previously prohibited from attending by the Cabinet Office, charges senior executives between £1,300 and £1,800 to attend invitation-only functions in order to meet with MPs, Ministers and senior government advisors.

This is yet a further addition to several recent scandals which suggest that wealth can buy influence in parliament. Unfortunately it will increase the growing public unease about corruption in British politics. In a report published by Transparency International UK (TI-UK) last year, respondents were asked to rank several scenarios as a possible example of corruption and 86 per cent of respondents thought that “a seat in the House of Lords for a businessman who has made large donations to a political party” was potentially corrupt, the highest score for any of the scenarios.

This provides a sad commentary on the current state of the political system. As more such cases emerge, it strengthens the perception that there are more opportunities for people with significant wealth to gain access to those who shape this country’s laws and policies than for those without such resources. I wonder, in comparison, how much time the UK homeless community is afforded with the top movers and shakers of Britain. Will the Chemistry Club organise such events for them?

In any healthy democracy all interest groups should have equal access to the decision-making process. There should be a level playing field.

More must be done by the Government to eradicate the iniquity of the current system. Some steps are being taken – the Cabinet Office recently launched a consultation on the introduction of a public register of lobbyists. However, the term ‘lobbyist’ within this framework is narrowly defined as those who undertake lobbying activities on behalf of a third party client. Therefore, corporate in-house lobbying teams will be exempt from the proposed new rules and the plans do not require ministers to declare meetings with lobbyists who are also friends.

Further transparency is needed if the Government wants to be truly accountable to its public. It is my hope that when the Government publishes its final proposals for the register it will recommend that data on all lobbyists – including information on what they are lobbying for – will be made available. In order to have a system which is free from the risk of corruption, we need full disclosure of what is being paid to whom and for what purpose.

Further regulation is also needed for the movement of individuals between the public and private sector – often referred to as the revolving door. Moving through the revolving door can be beneficial to both sides, improving understanding and communication between public office and business. However, the revolving door also undermines trust in government because of the potential for a conflict of interest. TI-UK’s recent report, Cabs for Hire, revealed how this conflict of interest can result in an unfair lobbying advantage being afforded to certain companies due to previous or perceived future parliamentary links.

A system which is lacking in transparency is vulnerable to corruption and exacerbates the inequalities in our society which already exist. It is my hope that the Government will raise its game and implement a greater level of transparency.

Rachel Davies works for Transparency International UK

www.transparency.org.uk

Direct link to source