THE REAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

to persecute Geoffrey Robinson

AT FIRST it must have seemed an unmissable opportunity. After years of enduring Labour sanctimony over secret Tory benefactors, mystery sleaze and so on, there now came to dejected and demoralised Conservatives the chance to get their own back — complete with prima facie cases to answer.

Within months of sweeping to power, it would seem, Labour had its own list of shame: Lord Simon and his BP shares; Formula One sponsorship and the mil- lion-pound bung; Lord Sainsbury's Victo- ria supermarket and his million-pound donations; the Geoffrey Robinson tax havens.

As fast as each new 'affair' came to light, so came the pronouncements of Conserva- tives about the impression of impropriety, potential conflicts of interest, the appear- ance that ministers could be bought and sold.

But . . . but, the impression of impropri- ety is not the same as actual impropriety. A potential conflict of interest is not a real conflict of interest. A prima facie case, as any lawyer will tell you, is not the same as a conviction.

In Labour's period of opposition, British politics embarked down a dangerous road in which every action was considered sus- pect unless it could be proved otherwise. It was not satisfactory for a businessman to give a bucket-load of money to the Tories because he shared their philosophy and wanted to see them re-elected. There had to be something else in it for him. This allegation was encouraged by the some- times striking coincidence of major donors and new Tory peers.

For many years the Conservative dam held, but ultimately the foundations were swept away in a tide of 'sleaze' which was sufficiently real for the public to believe that the government was riddled with cor- ruption. Small matter that almost all the charges against the Tories were not actual- ly illegal; they seemed grubby enough to do the trick.

Now in opposition, where the Tory strat- egy seems to be to mimic Tony Blair wher- ever possible, the Conservatives are running their own sleaze scares. Some of them do consist of points worth making. There certainly seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy in a Treasury minister dabbling in offshore trusts while his party tries to close down such 'loopholes'. The obfusca- tion and downright conceit of the Labour party over its 'Bernie' did much to fuel the row over the retreat from the ban on tobacco sponsorship for Formula One.

However, when pressed, Tories usually admit that they do not believe Tony Blair was bought off by Bernie Ecclestone. Nor do they believe Lord Simon was anything more than naive in his attempts to hold on to his BP shares when joining the DTI.

There does seem to be a crucial differ- ence between the Labour and Tory approaches to this matter, however — one apparently lost on William Hague. When Labour ran sleaze scares it was part of a deliberate strategy to undermine not only the Tories but all that has traditionally supported our political parties. Labour does not like private funding of parties; it does not like political honours. It is doubt- ful of the motives of businessmen who dole out cash to politicians. Labour does not like MPs having significant outside interests. It is not afraid of the profession- alisation of politics and is deeply uncon- cerned at the notion that all MPs be required to disclose in detail every penny they earn.

Consequently Tony Blair was not afraid to ride the sleaze tiger because he had no immediate desire to dismount. He may be edgy about the voters' desire to foot the bill for state funding of political parties, but the principle of the thing does not concern him unduly and he clearly wants to move further away from trade union bankrolling of Labour. Remember, the notion of refer- ring the entire issue of the funding of polit- ical parties to Lord Nolan or his successor was a Labour election pledge. Thus, in opposition, Mr Blair had nothing to fear from raising the sleaze standard, although in government he runs a second danger, of which more later.

The Conservative party, by contrast, believes in the right of private citizens to make private donations to political causes. Until very recently it believed in their right to do so anonymously. It does not favour full-time politicians without outside inter- ests, does not want MPs to be forced to publish them, is absolutely inimical to the notion of state funding of political parties and pretty unhappy about spending caps on election campaigns.

Tories do not believe that businessmen make these donations in search of political reward. They know their benefactors like to become peers and knights, but titles are never guaranteed and do not always mate- rialise. Asil Nadir gave the Conservatives £440,000 of other people's money and all he received was a prosecution. They also know that the most prominent business leaders do not need to buy access to minis- ters. If Lord Sainsbury wants a meeting with Tony Blair he can almost certainly have one, regardless of whether he has given money to the party.

Of course, if the Tory position has changed and it is now uneasy about the ramifications of private donations to politi- cal parties and hostile to businessmen retaining outside interests when giving up lucrative salaries to enter public office, then it must continue as it is doing.

However, if it has not, then William Hague might do well to consider exactly whether this opportunistic opposition merely for the sake of opposing (though given the supine nature of many Tory front-benchers perhaps one should be grateful even for this) is a wise long-term strategy. Where, as with Geoffrey Robin- son, there is a separate case, then by all means it should be pursued with vigour, but where the charge boils down to weasel words such as impression of impropriety or possible conflict of interest, perhaps Tories should be asking which long-term interest they serve by blackening the public's view of the body politic.

This leads on to the second, ultimately more serious, issue at stake. It is the rela- tively simple proposition that the public, already contemptuous of all politicians, needs little encouragement to view them in an even dimmer light. Continual accusa- turns and counter-accusations are placing British politics on one of its periodic downward spirals in which appearances are taken as reality and charges are equat- ed with convictions. It is an Americanisa- tion which Britain can do without, for it drives away talented people and under- mines the discussion of serious issues. Tony Blair has placed an unsustainable standard at the heart of British politics Which is not probity but the absolute appearance of probity.

In politics all actions have consequences. For the Tories, the result of their forays into the sleaze jungle may be to create a momen- tum for reforms they fundamentally oppose. For Labour it may be the creation of a rhetorical standard against which they will be judged but to which even honest politi- cians cannot possibly adhere. Politicians of all sides, but Conservatives in particular, should remember the old adage that even the longest journey begins with a single step. Before placing another foot forward they Should decide whether this actually is a jour- ney they wish to make.

The author is chief political correspondent of the Daily Telegraph.