Once again the spectacle of parliamentary corruption has been highlighted in London by the libel case lost by the former Conservative minister, Mr Neil Hamilton. He denied having taken bribes from the owner of Harrods, Mr Mohamed Al Fayed, in return for asking parliamentary questions and sued him for saying he had. Mr Hamilton now faces personal ruin and his defeat will certainly have political consequences in reinforcing contemporary Conservative disarray.
The case goes back deep into the series of affairs involving figures such as Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer in the dying days of the Conservative government led by Mr John Major and comes at an extremely awkward time for his successor, Mr William Hague. His credibility has recently suffered several hammer blows over the mayoralty of London and the defection of a prominent MP, Mr Shaun Woodward, to the Labour Party over the Conservatives' attitude to Europe. Although Mr Hague puts distance between himself and Mr Hamilton, saying this was all in the past, there is little doubt from the extraordinary publicity the case has received, that it will rub off further on Mr Hague's declining political fortunes. Mr Hamilton has been closely associated with the right-wing of the Conservative Party who have made the running recently on its European policies. Their credibility will be equally affected by these events.
The case has revealed the most callow and venal trade-offs between politicians and business, involving thousands of pounds in cash, gift vouchers, and hospitality at the Ritz Hotel in Paris in return for parliamentary services. As in the Aitken and Archer cases, systematic lying was a feature of this one. So too was the assumption that the libel laws could facilitate those in power and authority against campaigning reportage. The bizarre twist in this case is that Mr Al Fayed was himself the source not only of the bribes but of the information that he had extended them to Mr Hamilton, which were first reported in the Guardian five years ago. Since then, there has been a continuous tussle between that newspaper and Mr Hamilton.
The Hamilton case gained prominence in the 1997 election when he was sensationally defeated by the journalist Martin Bell on an anti-corruption platform. Parliamentary accounting of personal interests has since been tightened up considerably. Public awareness of the issues at stake has been heightened. And the weakness of existing libel laws in protecting the public interest has been exposed, despite the courageous determination of journalists and newspapers in resisting efforts to prevent them doing their job effectively.
Mr Hague's position as Conservative leader is probably not yet threatened, despite these recent events and warnings from prominent party members that he should become less stringent in enforcing obedience to the established party line on Europe. He believes the issues raised for British sovereignty give him his best prospect to recover political ground as the next election comes more clearly into view. As the Labour Party agonises over whether to put forward a more positive line about the euro going into the election in the face of continuing public hostility, there is a certain plausibility in Mr Hague's scenario. But it is undermined by the flow of revelations about sleaze exemplified by the Hamilton case.