Labour's own cash-for-questions scandal

 

Shortly after the 1997 election was called, the question of the House of Commons cash-for-questions report became one of the biggest issues in the news.

Journalists asked for the Commons report to be made public since it would allow voters to be in full possession of the facts, allowing them to make a judgement on the MPs under investigation.

Tory staff were desperate to allow publication. Why? Because nothing in the report could possibly be as damaging as refusing to publish it.

But we weren't allowed to have our way. Senior ministers informed us that this simply would not be possible, since there was a process to go through. This was a report to the Commons, that would have to be considered by MPs and published by them. And that couldn't happen, because the Commons wasn't sitting.

I recall our frustration. Respect for one traditional view of procedure was being allowed to override political common sense and, as it so happened, the best democratic outcome. We staff reflected that new Labour wouldn't have allowed that to go on. They would have found a way to get the thing out there and end the row.

Peter Mandelson would have done, Alastair Campbell would have done.

We didn't. And the result was a political disaster (for the Conservatives) - the row carried on until election day.

Watching Labour ministers respond to the Green affair, I realise that what had happened to us has now happened to them. Respect for one interpretation of the rules is leading ministers to take a stance that is both politically very damaging to them and doesn't serve the public interest either.

Harriet Harman understands this. She said that while police operational independence must be respected, she is concerned about what happened and wants to protect MPs. The response of other ministers - particularly the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Geoff Hoon - has been tone deaf.

It's what happens when you've been in power a long time.

I thought Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell were back. Not on this one they weren't.