Ministers from Keir Starmer downwards have sometimes seemed perplexed about what they see as the fuss made over their acceptance of hospitality in the last nine months.
From their point of view, free tickets to concerts and sporting events are a paltry form of compensation for the disruption to their private lives that comes from being a frontline politician.
One cabinet minister in the eye of the storm has complained privately that hospitality is par for the course in the private sector and that nobody can expect MPs to know who is paying for every pint of beer placed in front of them.
But critics say this argument fails to examine the motivations of the firms offering the freebies – companies very rarely act out of the goodness of their hearts, so the question should be not only: “Who is paying for this?” but: “What do they want?”
There is a commercial reason for firms offering to take ministers, special advisers and senior officials for dinners or lunches, or inviting them to events or entertainment.
They might want to get some insight into policy or politics, to establish a relationship that puts them on a friendly footing or even use the access to prove to clients that they have direct contact with decisionmakers.
It might not lead to specific contracts or favours but personal contact is the ingredient that makes for better relationships in politics and business – so no wonder it is sought by stakeholders.
What the Spotlight on Corruption report shows, though, is that the playing field is not level when it comes to stakeholders. Businesses are getting 23 times more access than charities, consumer groups and third-sector organisations to ministers in five key departments and their predecessors.
Defence companies, Saudi Arabian state entities, energy firms, tech firms, big banks and lobbying outfits have all spent money wining and dining ministers and senior officials in key departments over a five and a half year period.
As the campaign group’s report puts it: “There are legitimate questions as to whether corporate hospitality can help ensure decisionmakers are more well disposed towards the provider, and thus enables soft influence.
“We found considerable crossover between firms that are providing hospitality and those getting meetings, suggesting that these firms may be getting a second bite at the influence cherry.”
There is also a question of whether officials – politically neutral and in the service of the state – should be accepting free lunches at all. They appeared to rarely accept tickets to events but frequently accepted invitations to lunches and dinners, giving firms casual contact with the people running departments, who are not generally very accessible.
While ministers and special advisers are accountable to their constituents and can take personal and political decisions about who they associate with, officials are meant to be unimpeachably impartial.
For things to improve, transparency about who is getting hospitality and meetings is only the first step. One of the report’s recommendations is that more proactive measures are needed to get the whole of society represented in policymaking so that those with the biggest hospitality budgets are not the dominant voices around the table.
While the government is naturally keen to keep business on board, especially with relations at a low ebb after the tax rises in the budget, there is a case for non-business stakeholders to be getting a bigger hearing.
As the thinktank Demos argued recently, the delivery of the government’s missions depends on more of the public being involved in the process. When businesses can buy the attention of ministers and officials with meals, there is a risk of charities, consumer groups and other civil society organisations being squeezed out.
