Michael Kelly: Get these 'cabs for hire' off the Westminster road

IT IS not a word I've ever liked, "lobbying". It's got a ring of the clandestine about it.

It conjures up images of dark corridors of power, smoked-filled rooms, conspirators plotting to subvert the popular will for their own selfish ends. And yet it plays a necessary part in the political process.

However, the antics of Stephen Byers and Co confirm the public's worst suspicions. His claim that he's merely a cab for hire shows the contempt in which he holds the voters of North Tyneside. And yet he's the one showing his gullibility. Who would want an advocate stupid enough to get caught in this journalistic sting? After months of scandal about MPs' expenses and with only weeks to go in parliament, he doesn't smell a rat when his help is sought to lobby a government likely to be gone before summer! And his defence of his incriminating statements caught on camera? That he lied in exaggerating his influence so he could get the lobbying job! Unbelievable that until 2002 this guy was running a huge department of state.

Labour is now proposing a compulsory register of lobbying, which is a belated step in the right direction. But to control people as venal and stupid as Byers, Hewitt and Hoon will need more fundamental reform.

Because lobbying isn't going to go away. It's been an essential part of politics since Salome's mother sought the head of John the Baptist. More and more laws are being introduced. These laws are affecting more and more people in increasingly intrusive ways. And legislation is becoming ever more opaque as it relies on technical jargon which ensures precision but often at the price of clarity.

Where better to illustrate how the eagerness to legislate begets lobbyists than Europe? There are currently about 15,000 lobbyists in Brussels (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs and so on) seeking to influence the EU's legislative process. No wonder there's plenty of mayonnaise to spread about.

Individuals, groups and companies often recognise that a new law or a new twist in government policy will adversely impinge upon them. It is merely enlightened self-interest to want to have their voices expertly heard and to ensure their representations carry force with decision makers

Equally, any system of open and accountable government would want to take into account the views of affected groups among its citizens as part of the process of formulating legislation. That is why lobbying has been endorsed by the House of Commons public administration select committee, which argues "that the practice of lobbying in order to influence political decisions is a legitimate and necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals and organisations reasonably want to influence decisions that may affect them, those around them, and their environment. Government in turn needs access to the knowledge and views that lobbying can bring".

This philosophy is echoed in the statutory code of conduct covering both Holyrood and Scottish local government which states that for the parliament (or a council) "to fulfil its commitment to being open, accessible, and responsive to the needs of the public, it needs to encourage appropriate participation by organisations and individuals in the decision-making process".

It does, however caution that this desire to involve the public "must take account of the need to ensure transparency and probity in the way in which the parliament conducts its business". Holyrood has drawn up its rules in ways designed to make this more than just a pious sentiment.

But it has yet to be packaged for export. Because, while the Westminster guidelines pay the same lip service to openness and integrity, the rules that bind MPs are much looser and more forgiving. Thus, under the present Westminster system, it is acceptable for MPs to be retained and paid fees by companies and other organisations to lobby on their behalf – as long as it is declared in the register. Thereafter, there is no restriction on what that MP can do in and outside parliament to promote his chosen sponsors. He can speak, vote, campaign and lobby colleagues and ministers. And he can have as many "interests" as he likes.

Of course, should the MP be appointed to the government, he is required to divest himself of these paid retentions. But it is impossible to believe he can cast aside his loyalty to them as he cashes his last pay cheque. For years, Ken Clarke was a director of British & American Tobacco, a company dedicated to killing its customers both here and, even more despicably, in the developing world. He could well be business secretary soon. Is it credible for him to ask us to accept that he will be even-handed in relation to this industry? And he is just one of a long list of MPs on all sides who have cosy tie-ups with outside bodies.

These arrangements are unacceptable. There is no justification for an MP already on a full-time salary to do a full-time job for his constituents to pick up a further huge perk by moonlighting for a sectional interest. Holyrood recognises this as paid advocacy and bans members from taking up causes for cash.

And that's the simple, blunt solution to the conflicts that arise in Westminster. Members of Parliament should not be permitted to have any paid outside interest whatsoever. Their only earnings should come from their parliamentary salaries. It's a nice, clear-cut rule that tolerates no ambiguity. But the Tories will hate that, because they're the ones who can make the big bucks from their pals. They can derive some comfort from the fact that it would cause an outcry from union-sponsored MPs. But that, too, is a practice that must cease, to allow us to have legislators focused on the general interest, not lobbying for special groups.

This, in turn, is tied into the whole question of party funding. Any decent democracy would accept public funding of political parties as part of the necessary price of good governance, banning all outside contributions.

A start can be made before the prorogation of this tainted parliament by separating the politicians from the professional lobbyists who can be registered and identified as having axes to grind. They can then be viewed with the degree of suspicion appropriate to the cause they are championing. Lobbying activities will always be regarded with a jaundiced eye. But they can be better seen in the harsh light of scrutiny. MPs should be the ones shining the light, not hiding from its glare.