Tom Richmond: The scandal we waited to happen... and the solution we’re unlikely to get

My defence is this: prior to the introduction of Freedom of Information laws, it was the only way to force Ministers to reveal details that they wished to remain confidential.

In this instance, the answers helped bring about detailed monitoring of the newly-privatised rail operators and measures to enhance rail safety in the wake of a number of incidents in which trains had passed through red lights. My conscience is clear.

But here is the difference: not one pound was exchanged between the MP and the newspaper for whom I was working.

And it is why Patrick Mercer, the disgraced MP who has resigned the Conservative whip following the latest cash-for-access lobbying scandal, has come to embody the public’s growing exasperation with the failure of the main parties to clean up politics. Westminster, to paraphrase Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, is facing yet another “groundhog day”.

In many respects, there should be more people like Mercer in Westminster. Unlike today’s career politicians, he is a much-decorated soldier whose battlefield experiences should be helping to shape the national security debate.

How regrettable that he should be the latest politician to be afflicted by a regular malaise at Westminster: greed. The Newark MP was caught out by a company which offered him £24,000 a year to table questions in the Commons and set up a lobbying group on their behalf. The outfit was entirely fictitious – a fact which would probably have been discovered if perfunctory due diligence checks had been conducted – and the front for a newspaper sting.

Mercer is not alone. Three peers have also been snared by bogus firms set up to “entrap” those suspected of exploiting their privileged position, and to expose the inadequacy of existing regulations on political conduct.

Predictably, there’s talk from Clegg and others of a register of lobbyists before the next election. But I fear that it is just talk – it would do nothing to prevent a politician from accepting a sweetener – and it is simply a ruse to appease Joe Public until the news agenda has moved on.

As such, my advice is this: the Government should pledge decisive action on three fronts – House of Lords reform; the recall of errant MPs and a review of the salaries commanded by politicians.

First the Lords. Those awarded a peerage can influence the shape of government legislation for the rest of their life – even after a jail term. Many members are failed politicians whose loyalty has been bought. Others are associates – cronies to you and me – of political leaders. Few appear to join the Upper House on merit.

Yet, if there were elections to the Lords, it would legitimise their attempts to scrutinise government legislation and enable members to be held to account by voters. In short, they would become full-time peers employed by you and me.

This brings me to the second point. If Lords were elected, it would assist those, like Tory MP and environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, who believe the public should have the right to vote out rule-breaking MPs midway through a Parliament if they have broken a promise or been tarnished by scandal.

I agree with Goldsmith. The problem, however, is defining “serious wrongdoing”. It’s not easy – it would not have been difficult to generate 10,000 signatures to trigger a by-election in Sutton Coldfield immediately after Andrew Mitchell, the then chief whip, was being accused of swearing at the Downing Street police during the “plebgate” scandal. Now it appears that his Cabinet resignation was unjustified. His case contrasts with that of Mercer, who effectively admitted to breaking Parliamentary rules on “paid advocacy” when he resigned the Tory whip last Friday and said that he would not stand for re-election in 2015.

This dilemma was illustrated by this exchange in the House of Commons when the Deputy 
Prime Minister was asked to explain the Government’s inaction. “It was a manifesto commitment of all the main parties in this Parliament to introduce a recall mechanism, but we need to arrive at a common understanding of what constitutes serious wrongdoing and what does not,” said the Sheffield Hallam MP, whose Cabinet brief includes constitutional reform.

Tory backbencher Claire Perry was among those unhappy with the lack of ambition in this answer and her words are worth repeating.

“Does his reply not suggest that it is up to Parliament to define serious wrongdoing, which might give the impression to constituents that it is a case of the poacher turning gamekeeper?” she told Clegg. “Surely it should be up to the majority of our constituents, perhaps through some sort of referendum, to decide what constitutes wrongdoing. Whether it be crossing the Floor (of the Commons), disappearing and not helping constituents, being found guilty of fraud or whatever, it is surely our constituents’ job to determine that.” Her views capture the public’s mood – how can MPs be trusted to put their house in order when they have, once again, allowed the word “sleaze” to become common currency 20 years after it was introduced to the political lexicon following the first cash-for-question scandals, and from which John Major’s government never recovered?

The Clegg versus Perry exchange took place last November and, significantly, the issue was omitted from last month’s Queen’s Speech because of a lack of political will or backbone (delete as appropriate).

There is, of course, another solution. If elected MPs and peers were paid a salary that was commensurate with their level of responsibility, it would make it easier to ban politicians from holding outside business interests or accepting payments from lobbying firms. They would be expected to work full-time on behalf of their constituents.

Many will baulk at paying MPs more but this issue has been left unresolved for too long. In the meantime, public sector bosses regularly earn more than the Prime Minister and senior councillors can command allowances that compare favourably with a backbencher’s salary. The whole gravy train is off the rails.

For these reforms to happen, it requires firm leadership and the emergence of a new political generation prepared to abide by a strict code of conduct or face the consequences at the ballot box.

And that is the problem. The downfall of Patrick Mercer and others will deflect attention away from the serial failure of the three main parties to put the public interest first.

Three years have passed since David Cameron warned that political lobbying was a scandal waiting to happen following the expenses furore. And what has he done? Nothing. Will the law change before the next election? No. And the reason for that is this: too many MPs and peers continue to think that they are above the law and will delay and obfuscate because it is not in their interests to face up to Groundhog Day.