There is a famous story about David Lloyd George, honours salesman above all others, discussing with George V a planned trip as prime minister to Russia. “I suppose you’ll be meeting Trotsky,” asked a horrified King. “Sire,” the Welsh wizard is said to have replied, “sadly, I cannot choose whom I must meet in your service.”

There is a famous story about David Lloyd George, honours salesman above all others, discussing with George V a planned trip as prime minister to Russia. “I suppose you’ll be meeting Trotsky,” asked a horrified King. “Sire,” the Welsh wizard is said to have replied, “sadly, I cannot choose whom I must meet in your service.”
It’s surprising that this line of defence has not been on politicians’ lips more than it has been in recent weeks, and in relation to meetings with people who are much worse company, not to say a good deal less upright, than Leon Trotsky For there’s a great deal in this defence. In the real world, politicians spend a lot of time with people they may well like, but for reasons which actually originate from duty rather than personal choice.Businessmen are a case in point.

From the backbench MP concerned about employment prospects in his constituency, to the prime minister determined to secure a high-profile inward-investment decision, dialogue with those who drive the motors of capitalism is an essential part of the political process.For the most part we accept, without even thinking about it, that no self-respecting government would frame legislation of a broadly industrial or economic character at home or in Europe without consulting business interests And it goes further than that. Was it remotely wrong for the Prime Minister to restate his policy on the euro in private discussions with Carlos Ghosn, the boss of Nissan, just because he doesn’t do it with you and me? Hardly, when you consider that anything less might have resulted in the withdrawal from the UK of one of its most dynamic inward investors.Equally, there are few Trade and Industry secretaries who do not spend time applying discreet pressure, with varying success, on their colleagues in the Department of the Environment to speed up the cumbersome planning process when the location of an industrial plant, or a science park is at stake. It’s against this background, surely, that the current fuss over No 10’s interest in an early decision on the planning application to build the Wafic Said business school at Oxford should be seen.You may not, for whatever reasons, like Mr Said. You may well think the business school an architectural monstrosity. But to get excited about the fact that the brother of the Downing Street chief-of-staff happens to be at once one of Margaret Thatcher’s most trusted former civil servants and now chairman of one of Mr Said’s companies is surely missing the point in quite a big way.

Admittedly, despite the objections of some senior dons, Oxford University decided it wanted it. It was conceived as a prestigious and internationally competitive school. Was it really unreasonable for Downing Street to be interested in when there might be an announcement?But we are, of course, in a pre-election phoney war which has the capacity to magnify the mildly interesting to the status of major scandal. But this doesn’t, unfortunately, mean that everything about the Government’s relations with businessmen is perfect Including, as it turns out, small businessmen. And here there are several ironies, post-Hammond, in the fairly devastating House of Commons Select Committee report yesterday on complaints against the Foreign Office minister Mr Keith Vaz.True, most of the complaints were not upheld. But the one that was upheld was that he recommended an honour for a solicitor without, in the words of the Commissioner for Standards when she found in favour of the complaint, “disclosing that he had received financial benefits” from him, as required under the ministerial code of conduct. In endorsing the complaint, but in recommending no further action, the Labour-dominated Select Committee pointed out that “while there is no firm evidence” that Mr Vaz benefited from the solictor’s “£1,000 cash payment to a charity” it could have been seen as putting Mr Vaz under some kind of obligation…Small beer perhaps.

But Mr Vaz is also strongly criticised by his parliamentary colleagues for telling the Commissioner last December that he was not prepared to answer further questions. According to the Commissioner, he only agreed to some facts after evidence was put to him. Worse still, while Mr Vaz in not accused of trying to intimidate witnesses in the enquiry, Mr Colin Hall, the chairman of his constituency, is – for threatening a hostile witness with disciplinary and legal action because of what he had said to the Commissioner.Since the Prime Minister yesterday expressed his continued confidence in Mr Vaz, it’s hard to resist the temptation to compare this case with that of Peter Mandelson Two points are still worth making about the Hammond report. One is that while it it contains a great deal of important evidence, its conclusions stem from a political fix. It was surely always the case that Sir Anthony would decide that Mr Mandelson “probably” made the famous telephone call to Mike O’Brien which Mr Mandelson still cannot remember making and doubts he made. Anything less would have meant that the grounds for his departure would have simply vanished.