Parliament called into question

SLEAZE is once again the toxic accusation tossed around Westminster, after MPs and peers were apparently trapped in yet another cash for access lobbying scandal. And it has shone the spotlight on a little-known aspect of Westminster life – the explosion in the number of all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs), at the heart of the controversy.

Three peers – including former North-East police chief Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate – were caught on film offering to set up an APPG to help a South Korean energy company lobby for new laws.

Days earlier, Tory MP Patrick Mercer resigned his party’s whip after setting up a group – and asking questions – to push for Fiji’s readmission to the Commonwealth, allegedly for £2,000-a-month.

So, what are these all-party groups? What do they do and why? Are they really a vehicle for political sleaze? And, if so, should they be curbed – or even banned?

LOBBYING SCANDAL: Tory MP Patrick Mercer, left, and Lord MacKenzie of Framwellgate, two of the three peers involved in the new scandal

There can be no doubt that APPGs are now a very big deal at Westminster. There are nearly 600 at present, the largest number since they began back in 1985.

They are not official parliamentary bodies, unlike select committees, but they are allowed to hold evidence sessions at Parliament and use its portcullis logo.

Many exist to foster links with other countries.

Indeed, there are groups spanning the entire alphabet, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Others were set up to tackle particular policy issues, in health, education and transport, while some exist to give MPs and peers an outlet to pursue their hobbies.

So, looking simply at the ‘As’, there is a group for accident prevention and to tackle antisemitism and alcohol misuse – but also a group for American football.

To set one up, an MP or peer must persuade 19 colleagues to join, of which at least ten must be from the Government party and ten from opposition parties.

Now, no one can dispute there are serious concerns about the murky funding of some groups, by arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies and foreign governments.

Many stand accused of producing reports that echo the views of their funders in relevant industries and of petitioning ministers on Government policy.

In return for their cash, companies are granted access to events at Westminster, often attended by ministers and other policymakers.

Some are even responsible for drafting policy reports.

An investigation by The Times alleged that several groups listed only the name of the lobbyist providing assistance – leaving the public in the dark about who was funding activities.

An internet communications group, for example, was accused of failing to declare properly the source of is support – more than £130,000 from BT, Google, Microsoft and others.

That all sounds decidedly fishy, but there is another side to the argument about all-party groups, one that paints them as a valuable part of our democratic process.

FOR example, Tom Blenkinsop, the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland MP, is chairman of the Steel Industry APPG, to promote thriving steel and cast-metal industries.

The Labour MP said he was eager to lead the group, to defend the large number of his constituents that work in steel and to ensure the industry was not lost to the UK altogether.

It has pressed to save a vital contract to supply Network Rail and to alert ministers to the jobs threat from a new carbon levy on heavy industries.

Mr Blenkinsop argued the steel group played a valuable role, saying: “It allows industrialists, and trade unions, to meet with MPs, so we can raise issues with ministers.

“It’s an excellent way for MPs to pick up expertise very quickly and to carry out politics in a more consensual, cross-party way than people see in the Commons chamber.”

Mr Blenkinsop said his group required very little funding, explaining: “Most of what we do doesn’t incur costs and we don’t get paid to go on any trips.

“As long as everything is transparent, I can’t imagine any issue with what we do. All our minutes and agendas are published.”

Away from industry, there are clearly groups in other vital areas, such as the APPG to cut the terrible death toll from carbon monoxide poisoning – the silent killer, as it is known.

Or, take the cardiac risk in the young group, set up and chaired by Kevan Jones, Labour MP for Durham North, to raise awareness of a danger that kills 12 under-35s every week.

It was prompted by the sudden death of 22- year-old Levon Moreland, in 2002, the son of a close friend of Mr Jones who has campaigned tirelessly for free cardiac screenings.

Another criticism surrounds the expensive trips taken by MPs, after 60 declared they had been paid to travel overseas, as members of APPGs, in recent months.

But the groups are far from the only route for eager-to-travel MPs. Indeed, trips taken by two North-East MPs recently, arousing criticism, had nothing to do with APPGs.

James Wharton, the Conservative MP for Stockton South, was criticised for flying to Sri Lanka four times in nine months – but those trips were not arranged through a group.

On the Labour side of the political divide, Grahame Morris, the Easington MP registered two trips to Chavez-ruled Venezuela – but they were courtesy of that country’s Electoral Council.

So, if some APPGs are important, but others unnecessary, and some are transparent, while others are murky, why can’t Parliament simply tighten up the rules?

The answer is that a cross-party report, one year ago, proposed exactly that, but it appears to have been gathering dust ever since.

Now the Committee on Standards has hurriedly announced evidence sessions next week, suggesting the weekend’s scandals may, finally, force Parliament to act.