David Maddox: For Foulkes Sake (7)

This whole mirky business about cash for amendments in the House of Lords has encouraged the resident Nats in Holyrood to participate in one of their favourite sports - Foulkes bating.

It is not as if the noble Lord George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock, MSP for the Lothians and would-be Rector of ancient University of Edinburgh (pictured), minds having fun poked at him by the SNP. He seems to positively love the attention.

But with the political world aghast at revelations that four Labour peers were allegedly willing to accepts tens of thousands of pounds to influence legislation, it seemed an ideal opportunity for the Nationalists to raise the issue of Lord Foulkes's consultancy Carrick Court, which helps out the legal firm Eversheds.

The first shot across the bows came on Monday morning from one of my favourite SNP bloggers, Calum Cashley, the party's candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith and researcher in Holyrood. He quoted the following item from the Code of Conduct for MSPs:

5.1.6 The section of the Code on General Conduct (Section 7) sets out the standards expected in relation to acceptance of hospitality, gifts and benefits. In addition to this and the statutory provisions in the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, Members:...should not accept any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on Parliamentary affairs or on how to influence the Parliament and its Members.

He then quoted Lord Foulkes's entry on the register of interests:

I am a director, as is my wife, of Carrick Court Associates Ltd, a consultancy business. Carrick Court Associates receives remuneration of between £45,001 -£50,000 per annum for my work from Eversheds LLP and GovNet Communications (as Chairman of the Editorial Board). I work approx 3 days per month in relation to the consultancy. As a Director of Carrick Court Associates I estimate that I will receive between £15,001 and £20,000 per annum in expenses and dividend. [Registered 24 May 2007, Amended interest 4 July 2007, Amended interest 13 July2007].

"Hmmm..." Mr Cashley concluded thoughtfully at the end of his blog.

Within a few hours the SNP spin doctors were around quietly mentioning to journalists that maybe Lord Foulkes's dealing should be looked into, suggesting that he was breaking Holyrood rules and even hinting that he may be not too dissimilar to the four lords currently sitting on the naughty step.

All this may have been valid had they not tried a similar trick last year when an SNP student activist, Andrew Harlick, made a formal complaint about this to the Standards Commissioner Jim Dyer.

Mr Dyer, the bane of Wendy Alexander, has not been known for holding back when something smells fishy, but in this case he dismissed the complaint because "not only was there a lack of evidence, but there was no evidence at all" to support it.

Lord Foulkes concluded at the time that this proved the complaint was "purely politically motivated." Which, strangely enough, was what he had to say about the latest attack. He says that the Eversheds work purely relates to his House of Lords activities in terms of explaining how things work there.