|
PAUL WILENIUS: Everyone loves the high
life.But to taste it, takes money. The rich have lots of it, which can
help them get closer to powerful politicians. Yet some observers know
the dangers of mixing the worlds of politics and wealth. Ministerial links
with the Indian Hinduja Brothers brought down Peter Mandelson and other
heads may roll. So On The Record decided to take a look at the way parties
and Ministers rub up against the wealthy and set out for one of the biggest
political fundraising balls of the year.
When Tony Blair came to
power, he promised to sweep away Tory sleaze and bring in new cleaner politics.
But it's taken four years to bring in new laws to cap election spending
and to open up political donations to public scrutiny. And there are fears
this may not be enough to achieve his aim of making politics purer than
pure.
Most people were shocked
by the sleaze of the cash-for-questions affairs, which tarnished the Tories
and even Parliament itself. When spending on the last election accelerated
to a record �58 million, Tony Blair asked the Committee on Standards in
Public Life to try to regain public confidence in politics and halt the
party spending arms race.
LORD NEILL: We had quite a lot of evidence
from witnesses who thought they'd been some extravagance; it was overspending,
there were posters going up that in retrospect people thought might have
been better if the money hadn't been spent that way - and that was thought
to be excessive.
MIKE O'BREIN: I think there was serious
public concern about the level of funding and the costs of an election
and therefore people wanted to see some cap on the overall expenditure
of political parties.
WILENIUS: The Electoral Commission
will be set up under new laws which will come into force this week . Its
job will be to see that the Tories or other parties spend no more than
�20 million on an election campaign over a full year. This will be a �15
million limit, if Labour Party leaders decide, as expected, to go for an
election in May this year.
But party supporters won't
take this limit lying down. Big unions and wealthy businessmen can lavish
almost a million pounds each on their own campaigns, avoiding the overall
spending cut.
SAM YOUNGER: It does leave grey areas and
areas for interpretation and the staff of the Commission have already been
in very detailed discussions with the political parties themselves to try
to get some consistency into the guidelines as to what constitutes campaign
expenditure and what doesn't and how things are going to be calculated.
I think we're all aware we're not going to get it to work absolutely perfectly
and consistently first time around.
LORD RENNARD: There is a real danger I
think that some organisations may get round the limits, for example Euro-sceptic
organisations with the support of a few extremely rich people could perhaps
club together to promote their campaign in support of the Conservative
Party. It's quite possible that the trade unions, in addition to giving
money directly to the Labour Party, could use their financial strength
to promote the cause of the Labour Party in other ways and they could of
course co-operate together to do that.
WILENIUS: Because of the fear that
some party supporters will be able to get around the limit, there's mounting
pressure to make sure the �20 million overall cap on election spending
is trimmed even further.
TONY WRIGHT MP: I think I would probably
shave about five million off the figure that we are now talking about.
I think that would just help. I mean I can see why the parties don't want
to do it because you know they're into the business of fighting elections
at that sort of level. But it will help on all these issues about how you'd
manage party funding I think if you took the pressure of the total spend.
LORD NEILL: My view is that it should be
looked at to see whether people really need as much as the twenty - or
it's going to be fifteen million I think for this forthcoming election
- is it too much?; if it's over the top, cut it down.
WILENIUS: From the very beginning
Labour's hopes of keeping politics clean ran into trouble. There was a
string of scandals involving Ministers and wealthy businessmen.
PETER KILFOYLE MP: I just think that Ministers
are only people and most people would find that kind of attention seductive.
Ministers of course, some ministers did find it extremely seductive. That's
why, before the election, the Labour Party and opposition tried to run
courses to forewarn us about the dangers. There's nothing new in these.
But of course given the long time that we spent in opposition, all of the
best will and the best causes in the world was not going to stop one or
two of my former colleagues from becoming seduced by the trappings of power.
WILENIUS: So the charms of big
business have caused problems for Tony Blair's government. From Formula
One to the Dome it has tarnished the new Labour brand.
Some senior Labour figures
feel the only safe choice is for the taxpayer to fund political parties,
as this will protect them from charges of corruption. But for Tony Blair
throwing state funding into the mix is too radical, as he feels the voters
would just not swallow it. So instead party coffers will still need filling
up from the pockets of rich donors, unions and pressure groups.
PETER KILFOYLE: I think a very good case
can be put to the people of this country that it's in their interests to
take out these rather influential and unaccountable people by having some
form of state funding and it can be elective state funding, in the sense
that, there's no reason why when you cast your vote, you can have a box
which says, you know, "Do you want - I dunno - a pound of your tax over
a year to go to political funding? Yes or No."
MIKE O'BRIEN: The government's view is
certainly that there is not the support for State Funding, and that we
do not, as a government favour it. The Neil Committee was against it, but
in the long term future let's see how this debate develops.
WILENIUS: Both major political
parties have clearly not taken a shine to state funding, as they fear it
could be unpopular with the voters. But a growing number of Labour MPs
and smaller parties feel there could be another solution to impose strict
limits on the size of donations.
WRIGHT: The bit that we haven't
yet done and the Neill Committee wouldn't recommend this, but I think
we ought to do it, is to have a cap on individual donors, I would say a
figure of about a hundred thousand pounds.
WILENIUS: Transparency is the aim
of the new law, which will make public the name and size of any donation
over five-thousand pounds. But there is growing unease about the sheer
size of the recent gifts to the big parties. The Tories got the dazzling
offer of five-million pounds. This followed three eye-catching donations
of two-million pounds each to Labour. They're the sort of sums party leaders
will find it hard to walk away from.
LORD NEILL: I think the problem is big
donors means big influence. We had a recommendation, which the government
did not follow up, that there should be tax relief for small donations
up to five-hundred pounds - we thought that was an excellent plan to widen
the contribution to a much bigger field. That's been rejected.
O'BRIEN: Some have said that, that
sunlight is the best disinfectant, in order to clean up the sleaze in British
politics, what we need to ensure is that we have openness about the way
in which political parties are funded. There is however some public concern
that particular individuals might seek to influence political parties.
We'll have to see how that debate develops over the coming months. The
Electoral Commission can obviously revisit it.
WILENIUS: So even Ministers acknowledge
the dangers of relying on big cash gifts, and that they might eventually
have to do something about it. But cutting the size of donations may not
be enough to keep Labour looking neat and clean. Some influential Labour
MPs want much greater openness about meetings between Ministers and other
organisations.
KILFOYLE: Well what's fascinating
I think is that you do end up in a situation where you meet various business
people. I don't have a problem with that in itself, but it's who you meet,
and how they are determined as requiring access as opposed to other people
who don't. You suspect that there are networks that are going on, which
you are only faintly familiar. I always thought that that was rather unhealthy
frankly, mainly because these people, despite all of the rules, despite
all of the codes of conduct, they had interests very often which were inimical
to those of the government.
WILENIUS; Now there are moves to
tidy up the rules on Ministerial contacts. The Commons Committee on Public
Administration is to call for the creation of a public register, to pin
down Ministers' formal and even informal links with outside interests.
WRIGHT: There should be a register
kept inside departments of when ministers have contact with lobbyists,
and thinking particularly here of business lobbyists, so that when questions
are asked there is a lobby, there is a register that you can turn to.
I mean anything legitimately counts as a contact that could be construed
as any kind of lobbying.
LORD NEILL: I think there's got to be a
great deal of awareness now that private side of business, and the private
field is mixing very much with government on joint enterprises. And what
needs to be known is that this is taking place; what contribution the private
side is making; what they're getting out of it. And I think transparency
is absolutely critical here. We're talking about straight sponsorship,
my Committee is very much against any idea of the sponsor getting a kickback,
or some reward, for doing it. We really don't think it should be a sort
of contract, I scratch your back and you scratch mine, shouldn't be like
that.
WILENIUS: Raising money for political
parties has always been a serious business. And at this glittering event,
speculative investment in long term political futures is the name of the
game. In these glamorous and relaxed surroundings a thousand well heeled
guests can have fun mingling with the political elite in the Conservative
Party.
This is the Tory Party's Annual Winter Ball, the place where the worlds
of politics and business collide. Even though I have been preparing all
day, I'm still not allowed in. Like many similar Labour events, it is
strictly private and the media is banned.
For politicians wanting to promote a cleaner image, this is where the
real danger lies. Although they normally thrive on photo-calls and soundbites,
on fundraising and links with outside interests they go camera shy. And
if this persists, then the major parties will still find it hard to avoid
allegations of sleaze.
The biggest problem for new Labour is that voters expected so much. Ministers
hope that the allegations that they are just as sleazy as the Tories, won't
have a big impact at the next election. But there are fears that if they
can't shake off this image, they will eventually pay a high political price.
WRIGHT: I think there is a deep
cynicism about politics and politicians, I think there is a widespread
belief that collectively they are up to no good. That they will get their
nose in the trough if they are given half the chance. The only real way
to answer it though, is to make sure there is such transparency and such
openness, that these accusations cannot be levelled and that if they are
levelled people have protection against them.
NEILL: We are disappointed that
they haven't gone all the way that we want to go, we would like to have
a public register so that you could find out who was lobbying to achieve
what. The government I don't think wants such a register to be publicly
available, maybe they'll rethink it, but at the moment we haven't persuaded
them, and that, I find disappointing.
WILENIUS: For politicians the trappings
of power depend on popularity. So if they fail to shake off the impression
of sleaze, the time will come when the humble voters will take it all away.
|