Whose job is it to determine whether David Cameron’s lobbying on behalf of Greensill Capital fell on the wrong side of any ethical line? Over the past two decades the UK’s ethics landscape has blossomed – from an almost barren plain into a forest of regulators, investigators and advisers. Almost every scandal in public life led to the creation of a new post or body. And yet there is no ethical standards body with a remit to pronounce on the Cameron case.
The former prime minister is accused of using his political connections to lobby ministers on behalf of Greensill – an Anglo-Australian financial services company for which he worked as an adviser after leaving office. Most recently, it is alleged that shortly before the company – in which he held shares – filed for bankruptcy, Cameron unsuccessfully lobbied the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to allow Greensill to access Covid-19-related business support.
The regulation of lobbying activity in the UK is fragmented. If he were still a minister, Cameron would have been prohibited from such lobbying by the ministerial code which is usually enforced by the prime minister. The code requires ministers to avoid any actual or perceived conflict between their position and their private financial interests. Boris Johnson could ask the independent adviser on the ministerial code to undertake an investigation into any alleged breach of the code, although he would not have to concur with its findings. In fact, the post of independent adviser is currently vacant following the resignation of Sir Alex Allan, who quit after Johnson disregarded his finding against Priti Patel. But Cameron has not been a minister since 2016.
For two years after he quit as prime minister, Cameron’s decision to take a job with Greensill would – in theory – have been subject to approval by the Cabinet Office quango, the advisory committee on business appointments (ACOBA). In theory because, while former ministers and civil servants are supposed to ask the watchdog for permission before taking new jobs, in practice it has no teeth to bite those who don’t bother to ask, or to sanction those who ignore its advice, beyond the publication of its views. As Cameron began working for Greensill just over two years after he resigned as PM, he was not required to consult ACOBA, even though his little black book of prime ministerial contacts was hardly out of date.
Once Cameron became a paid adviser to Greensill, you might have expected his actions to be covered by the office of the registrar of consultant lobbyists (ORCL) which was established by the coalition government in 2014. But thanks to a fudge agreed between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the ORCL requires only consultant lobbyists to register and declare their lobbying activities, not those employed by firms in-house. The ORCL’s limited remit avoids the complexities of establishing a more expansive definition of lobbying, but also leaves a gaping hole in its regulation. The consequence is that firms such as Greensill can avoid the scrutiny of registering with the ORCL simply by employing advisers such as Cameron directly instead of as consultants.
Some of those who have raised questions about Cameron’s actions have called for an investigation by the committee on standards in public life (CSPL), the advisory body established by John Major in 1994 in response to allegations of “sleaze” against his government. But while it is the guardian of the “Nolan principles” intended to guide the ethical behaviour of all people with a role in public life, the CSPL has no remit to investigate individual cases – as its chair Sir Jonathan Evans confirmed in a letter to the Labour party yesterday.
The CSPL could undertake a more general inquiry into the issues raised by the Cameron case, revisiting its 2013 review, but not dig into the detail of his actions. Any such broader inquiry would have to balance the ethical risks of lobbying against other considerations: the right of former ministers and civil servants to earn a living after leaving office (increasingly relevant as many are now doing so earlier in their careers); the advantages of interchange between government and the private sector; and the benefits to government of greater external engagement. Government without lobbying would become detached from the realities of life beyond Whitehall; one of the problems during Brexit was the reluctance of businesses to communicate their views to government, lest they be seen as “unhelpful”.
While some have questioned the propriety of Cameron’s actions, no one has yet pointed to any rule that he broke in his lobbying on behalf of Greensill. What the case clearly demonstrates, however, is the fragmented and patchy nature of lobbying regulation in the UK – which allows former public figures to take up lucrative contracts on behalf of private interests without the discipline of transparency to shape their decisions.