2300 Hrs GMT
London Sunday 1 February 2009
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! Even Rees-Mogg echoes the very central [as in crucial] advice we gave to Brown.. Brown went OTT with debts-gluttony! Quit debts creating! We reiterate advice to Brown.
SCRAP DEBTS-CREATING CROSSRAIL...
Our analysis of Rees-Mogg will focus on HIS fallacy and his own ignorance….
Rees-Mogg has deliberately overlooked [or has failed to even spot] Cameron’s own sloppiness and failure to show that he will scrap wasteful scams starting with Crossrail..
[To be continued]
For reference only:
AADHIKAROnline quoting from the Times London web site, piece by-lined to William Rees-Mogg and dated 2 February 2009:
William Rees-Mogg
From The TimesFebruary 2, 2009
Cameron starts to show true Tory colours
The Opposition leader cares about the burden of debt - and that is a very Conservative concernWilliam Rees-Mogg
The opinion polls of last week were showing a big Conservative lead. YouGov, for instance, recorded Conservative support at 43 per cent, Labour at 32 and the Liberal Democrats at 16. Other polls produced a similar lead for the Conservatives, large enough to elect a Conservative government with a substantial overall majority.
The Labour Party has lost the benefit of the so-called Brown bounce. Even on the perception of “economic competence”, YouGov put David Cameron seven points ahead of Gordon Brown. The next general election cannot be postponed beyond May or June of 2010.
The global recession is becoming even more serious. Unless there is an early and unexpected improvement in the world economy, the Government's electoral position is more likely to get worse than better. There is no reason to think that delay will help Labour.
Perhaps we have reached the tipping point of political expectation, when the Labour ship will capsize and a Conservative victory becomes the general expectation. If so, people can be expected to turn towards the rising sun. It is at least the rational expectation that Labour will lose power, after 13 years in office, and that Mr Cameron will become the next prime minister. He has handled the leadership with considerable skill. One has to go back a surprisingly long way to find a Conservative Leader of the Opposition who has done the job as well. Yet there are still many people, including some Conservative voters, who say that they do not feel sure that they really know who he is, or what his main policies would be.
The public attitudes towards Mr Cameron seem to divide into three groups. His main support comes from the centre. He is popular with centrist Conservatives, with Blairite Labour voters and with some moderate Liberal Democrats. He is seen by older Conservatives as belonging to the Disraelian “One Nation” tradition, and stirs memories of Iain Macleod and Rab Butler in some older voters. It was the One Nation group that secured 13 years of Conservative Government from 1951 to 1964. In the present Shadow Cabinet that tradition is represented not only by Mr Cameron himself, but also by the return of Kenneth Clarke.
Strategically, Mr Cameron has placed himself in a centrist position not unlike that of Tony Blair. It is probably the strongest place on the political battlefield - the past four general elections, going back to John Major's victory in 1992, have been won by moderate leaders.
However, there are also criticisms of Mr Cameron both from the Left and the Right. The Left in the Labour Party tends to rely on the standard formulae of the party machine. Gordon Brown hopes that repetition will convince people that Mr Cameron is an ineffective leader who will do little or nothing. Presumably this line of attack has been tested in focus groups. But it has been undermined by the failures of the Government itself. It is not convincing to repeat that the Opposition would do nothing if voters are coming to believe that the Government's policies do not work.
There are, inevitably, Conservatives who would prefer a much more Thatcherite leader. They do not regard themselves as “liberal Conservatives”. But the Thatcherites are very loyal Conservatives who want their party to get back into office. They care about winning. Like the “old Labour” supporters who criticised Mr Blair, the Thatcherites will grumble, but they will also canvas and - above all - they will vote. Mr Blair never had too much difficulty with old Labour; after 12 years out of office one should not expect Mr Cameron to have too much difficulty with the Thatcherites, who were, in any case, proved right on some very important issues in their time.
There is also an interesting question. What does “liberal Conservatism” mean to Mr Cameron? He had a revealing discussion with Will Hutton in The Observer yesterday. A word he uses repeatedly is “responsibility”, a word that belongs to the Conservative tradition. There is an element of stoicism about the Conservative philosophy, and any stoic is a person who accepts his duty, and has the strength to carry responsibility. Mr Cameron says: “That word ‘responsibility' is really crucial for me: it's the golden thread that connects all our policies and positions.” He sees responsibility as being a personal matter - he does not want to put responsibility on to the State rather than the individual.
Mr Cameron introduces this concept of responsibility on a number of issues: corporate greed, the economy, society, the environment, welfare reform, City regulation, carbon emission, decentralisation. He does not consider that mere stateism is the best way to fix the excesses of the market.
As Mr Brown has attacked the Conservatives for failing to produce policies to deal with the world recession, it is interesting to read Mr Cameron's discussion of Keynesianism. He has thought seriously about the broader implications of policies of financial stimulus. “If by Keynesianism you mean a big fiscal stimulus regardless of the level of Government borrowing, I don't agree. The reason is simple: because the Government is already planning to borrow so much, if we borrowed a lot more we'd actually make the recession worse.”
The financial problem that Mr Cameron would have to meet after winning an election would be the repayment of government debt. There is nothing progressive, or liberal, about excessive debt. As George Bernard Shaw observed: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” Mr Cameron may well need to be a decisive as well as a liberal-minded prime minister. Debt may be the enemy. He cares about the burdens we are loading on to the future. That is both a Conservative and a responsible matter for concern.
Hide the form
Have your say
300 characters left
* Name
* Email
* Town
Country
* Required
Remember me
Terms and conditions
PrintEmailPost to del.icio.usPost to FarkPost to Yahoo!Post to Digg
Also in William Rees-Mogg
SOS - save our savers, unfairly punished
Also in Columnists
If I put Junior to work I might afford childcare
Real Women
More sex education please, we're British
Times Recommends
Obama's lethal game of beggar-thy-neighbour
Lift barriers blocking the rescue party
It is definitely all your fault
OUR COLUMNISTS
Columnists
SelectDavid AaronovitchAnjana AhujaChris AyresGerard BakerJoan BakewellSimon BarnesCherie BlairCamilla CavendishJeremy ClarksonRobert CramptonDaniel FinkelsteinMichael GoveMick HumeSimon JenkinsRachel JohnsonAnatole KaletskyIndia KnightDominic LawsonRod LiddleMagnus LinklaterBen MacIntyreBronwen MaddoxMinette MarrinCarol MidgleyAlice MilesCaitlin MoranRichard MorrisonMatthew ParrisMichael PortilloLibby PurvesWilliam Rees-MoggMelanie ReidPeter RiddellHugo RifkindMartin SamuelSathnam SangheraJane ShillingGraham StewartAndrew SullivanRachel SylvesterJanice TurnerGuest contributors
Blogs
SelectAlpha MummyArchive BlogDavid AaronovitchAsia ExileBaby BaristaBlockbuster BuzzGerard BakerCharles BremnerBig BrotherMary BeardComment CentralConsumer CentralCricket BlogEco WorrierFaith CentralFashionFormula OneRuth Gledhill Inside IraqAriel LeveIndia KnightMoneyRafael NadalNews BlogWilliam Rees-MoggRugbySinofileMick SmithSports CommentaryIrwin StelzerPeter StothardSurf NationTechnologyTravelUrban dirtVideoWimbledon
William Rees-Mogg
William Rees-Mogg has had a distinguished career with The Times and The Sunday Times. He was Deputy Editor of The Sunday Times before becoming Editor of The Times in 1967, a position he held until 1981. He was made a life peer in 1988. Since 1992 he has been a columnist for The Times, writing on a variety of issues. He has also been chairman of the Broadcast Standards Council and British Arts Council
Read more from William Rees-Mogg
Camilla Cavendish wins award for family justice campaign
Columns urging greater openness in family courts win Paul Foot Award
Cartoon
More cartoons
Peter Stothard
The Editor of the TLS writes on books, people and politics
A Don's Life
Mary Beard of Cambridge and the TLS on culture ancient and modern
Monty Python does it again
How the comedy team beat the internet
Comment Central
Award-winning Iraq coverage from Deborah Haynes
A series on the plight of Iraqi interpreters took the Tony Bevins Prize for investigative journalism
MOST READMOST COMMENTEDMOST CURIOUSMost Read
Skip Most Read
Today
Rafael Nadal consoles tearful Roger Federer
Two children should be limit, says green guru
Octuplets’ mother wants Oprah to turn...
Michael Phelps admits to smoking cannabis...
MOST COMMENTED
Skip Editor's Pick
Today
Two children should be limit, says green guru
City Minister Lord Myners attacks bankers...
The 50 worst things about modern football
There's no new motor to drive the economy
MOST CURIOUS
Skip Most Curious
Today
Nothing builds a team like a nosedive
Er, um . . . we’re your humanised iPod...
Hello smartypants: baby chimps are as bright...
Earrings stretch fashionistas beyond limit
Focus Zone
Discovering Canada
Whatever you're into, however you travel, Canada has a wide range of options for the explorer in you
Holidays in the Bahamas:
The moment your toes touch the sand and your gaze meets water, you know you’re in the Bahamas
Business Solutions:
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Need to Know:
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Social Entrepreneurs:
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Business Travel:
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Discovering Canada
Holidays in Bahamas
Business Solutions
Need to Know
Social Entrepreneurs
Business Travel
More reports...
Services
Find a Lawyer
Free Money Guides
IFA Search
Business Directory
Times Corporate Gifts
Dating
Births, deaths, marriages
Place your announcement
Find a Lawyer
Cut your legal costs
Announcements
Search The Times Births, Marriages & Deaths
Online Sudoku with daily prizes
Popular Searches on Times Online
big brother blog | bollywood news | chess | dating | fashion | hallelujah | mortgages | music | oscars 2009 | podcasts | recipes | redundancy | robert pattinson | savings | slumdog millionaire | sudoku | twilight | university guide | wine
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
Classifieds
CarsJobsPropertyTravelCars
Skip Cars of the Week
Saab 9-3
05/2005
£13,500
Bentley Continental
08/2008
£109,950
Aston Martin DB9
2005 / 55
£59,500
Car insurance
Great car insurance deals online
Search for more cars and bikes
Jobs
Skip Jobs of the Week
Director of Education, Information and Access
circa £70K
The National Gallery
London
Business Development Director Designate
Six Figure Package
Q Com
West Midlands
Management Training Scheme
£27k - £30k plus benefits
Reliance
UK Nationwide
Change Control, Risk, Issues and Quality Manager
£25,104 - £31,611
National Policing Improvement agency
London
Search more Jobs
Properties
The First Group
High Return Investment Opportunities in Dubai and the Northern Emirates from £89,950
Genesis Homes
The smarter way to your first home
Ipsus01
Live free for a year
Diversity Works For London Going for gold?
How to achieve the gold standard
Search for more properties
Holidays
Skip Travel of the Week
United Vacations
Colorado
Ski the very best that North America has to offer!
CHIC by Thailand Offer!
Amari Emerald Cove Resort
Koh Chang from £925pp
12 days in Kerala
exploring the spice markets of Cochin,
floating effortlessly through the Backwaters on a houseboat
Travel insurance
Great travel insurance deals online
.
Search for more holidays
Place your advert now
Search Ad Reference:
Where am I?
HomeCommentColumnistsWilliam Rees-MoggContact usBack to topNewsCommentBusinessMoneySportLife & StyleTravelDrivingArts & EntsArchiveTimes OnlineTimes ArchiveGoogle
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
33rd year AADHIKAR
0225 GMT Thursday 06 June 2013
AADHIKAR Media Foundation Editor © Muhammad Haque
Founding News Editor
Shah M Azizul Haque
AADHIKAR Media Foundation established with the publication of AADHIKAR the weekly on Monday 19 December 1980 from London E1 UK.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! Another world exclusive commentary on the Sleazed UK House of Lords: CRASS role for Crossrail
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! Another world exclusive commentary on the Sleazed UK House of Lords: CRASS role for Crossrail
By © Muhammad Haque
2005 Hrs GMT
London Sunday 1 February 2009
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! That the 'Crossrail Bill' 'Select Committee' in the UK House of PEERS [that allegedly ‘scrutinised’ the costs, the impact and the ‘purpose’ of the "CrossRail Bill’ during January-July 2008] behaved in a way that was blatantly dishonest…
WITH ALL THE alleged revelations in and via the London Times news organisation of the past 8 days [inclusive] and the Mail on Sunday and elsewhere [following the ‘Sunday Times’ investigation focussing on the Four members of the House of Peers last Sunday - Taylor, Truscott, Snape...] it would have been ‘reasonable’ to assume that the ‘real faults’ have been brought out by the ‘mainstream’ media in the UK and by their platformed ‘commentators’, ‘ experts’ and ‘other peers’.
That is not the case.
NOTHING has been said by a single one of those about what the House of PEERS DO get up to in their ‘ordinary’ behaviour.
That is when they are not acting as touts and tools for outside interests and parties who pay them.
The experience and the evidence of the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign against Crossrail over the past five years show that the UK Houses of Parliament are indeed not working for democracy. That in essence the key decision-making behaviour concerning the people and what the people have to say on all matters that matter is dishonest, unrepresentative opportunistic and corrupt.
The ‘House of Lords’ behaved as a stooged House in so far as the behaviour of the personnel in control of the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committee’ in that 'House’ was concerned..
We have published, since March 2008 when the lying took place, that the personnel involved in the ‘House of Lords’ ‘CrossRail Bill Select Committee’ had LIED to distort, misrepresent and to falsify the objections to the CrossRail Bill….
We have also shown in the past 11 months that the personnel were operating systematic obstructions to objectors in order that the objections to the CrossRail Bill could not be duly included or advocated on the record.
We have also shown that the KHOODEELAAR! objections were PRECEDED by our going on the record and publishing on various external web sites INCLUDING that of London TIMES our constitutional law principle and position to the effect that the ‘CrossRail Bill’ ‘Select Committee’ in the UK ‘House of Lords’ should be allowed to deliberate on the item without interference or influence by the UK Government or by any of its ministers.
That was our pro-active contributon in the reasonable 'hope' [!!!] that the Hosue of PEERS would uphold the principles and values of democratic accountability...
Going by the account published by the London Times news organisation [see item quoted below] even members of the House of PEERRS themselves do not know what they are doing…..even as they take part in legislative activities promoting the agenda of those who pay them..
[To be continued]
____________
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5627971.ece
"
Lords for hire
Members of the House of Lords should act primarily out of public interest. Yet some seem too ready to sell their services
Archer and Black to be ousted from Lords | Exclusive: Peers for cash investigation - new undercover footage | New secret audio recording | The scoop: how we broke the story | Insight: price for a peer to fix the law | Comment: Lords not so noble anymore | Red Box: the politics blog
Earlier this month Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, a Labour peer, walked into the public bill office in the House of Lords with a clutch of amendments to a proposed law going through parliament. The clerks checked the amendments and agreed to their publication.
O’Neill, president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, was trying to change a bill about the construction industry so that it would favour his organisation’s members. He is paid a fee by the group, but does not disclose how much.
Then last weekend O’Neill, a former MP, picked up The Sunday Times and was aghast. The newspaper carried extensive reports about members of the House of Lords who were apparently willing to assist in amending laws in return for payments. The reports were already making waves and O’Neill realised the amendments he had put forward could be badly misconstrued.
Related Links
Leading lady to drag her peers into line
Elections will strengthen accountability
“I had tabled amendments in the way I used to do when I was a backbencher,” he explained last week. “To be frank, I didn’t really think about it too much. Then I read at the weekend the exposé and thought, ‘God, I shouldn’t be doing this’.”
On Monday he hurried back to the bill office and asked for his amendments back. “I went into the Lords, saw the chief whip, spoke to the house authorities and took the necessary steps to get all the amendments removed,” he said. “I gave explicit instruction that everything in my name should go.”
One of the fundamental principles set out in the code of conduct for the House of Lords is that members “must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; another is that members “must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the house or committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment”.
Had O’Neill broken the rules? He thinks not, on the grounds that he is not “paid specifically to put down the amendments”. But like many peers he is now uncertain over the interpretation of the rules. “I felt it was a grey area and the simplest way to get out of the grey area was to withdraw the amendments,” he said.
The Sunday Times reports had thrown light on an aspect of the Lords that has gone untested for too long: the impartiality of its members. Could they be bought? Many lords recognised the danger at once.
Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the upper house, took a call from an elderly peer who said: “It’s the first time in decades of service I am ashamed to be a member of this house”.
Baroness Royall, the Labour leader in the Lords, issued statements and hurried into print, declaring that: “If there are abuses, they must be rooted out.” As media reports of the furore spread, Lords from both main parties gathered in crisis meetings. Various peers hurried to declare interests that they had previously not included in the public register.
This weekend further evidence has emerged of practices that might highlight the ambivalent role of parliamentarians. They include Baroness Valentine, the £185,000-a-year chief executive of the business group London First, tabling amendments to a planning bill, in an attempt to make changes for which her own organisation had campaigned. She said she was acting in the best interests of London and development and had always correctly declared her interest.
Baroness Coussins, who provides corporate responsibility advice to the food and drinks industry, tried to stop and then mitigate the impact of a bill on alcohol health warnings. She said she had always declared her interests. And Lord Berkeley, who earns about £40,000 a year as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, tried to amend bills on Crossrail and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in the interest of the freight industry. He says he was acting independently and correctly declared his interests.
Just as with revelations 15 years ago of MPs being paid to ask questions in the House of Commons, the implications are far-reaching. The result of the cash for questions scandal was the imposition of more rigorous rules and greater transparency for MPs. Politicians of all parties believe the same must now happen for peers.
Lord Campbell-Savours said: “I have seen a lot of very, very upset and angry people. It is inconceivable that the rules will remain the same after this. Too many important people are too angry for there not to be change.” Another Labour peer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “These events make the case for urgent reform of the Lords vital.” McNally said: “I am grateful for The Sunday Times jolting us out of our complacency. We have been unbelievably complacent. Urgent reform is needed - as soon as possible.”
THE Lords have long guarded their privacy. When the committee on standards in public life was set up after the cash for questions affair, it always intended to investigate the Commons first, then the Lords. Peers were none too happy at the prospect.
They preferred to investigate themselves, and gave the task to a committee headed by Lord Griffiths, a law lord. Among those who argued that the House of Lords was honourable enough to police itself and should exert its primacy was Lord Archer, the novelist who was later jailed for perjury. Others were less convinced of the probity of all members of the upper house. Lord Lester, a lawyer who had recently become a peer, gave evidence to the Griffiths committee that one of his legal clients had paid peers to amend legislation.
“I got into huge trouble,” Lester recalled last week. “I was attacked and sent to Coventry for six months. The culture at the time was one in which peers were openly being paid large sums to sponsor legislation. And no one thought there was anything wrong with it.”
Griffiths did come up with some powerful conclusions on how members should behave. In setting up new rules, he told the Lords that they should always act with honour and not accept financial rewards for parliamentary influence. “I should have thought that was self-evident,” he told the house, otherwise a member would be “perceived by the public outside as selling his voice and, worse still, selling his vote”.
For all his exhortations, the resulting code of conduct for Lords suffered from several weaknesses. First, unlike the Commons, there was no independent scrutineer. Second, sanctions were feeble: lords could still be kicked out of the house only by an act of parliament. Third, even though Lords had to register outside interests, they did not have to give full financial details - again, unlike MPs.
If members declare a “parliamentary consultancy” - being paid for advice about parliament - they have to give details. Hardly any lords declare such consultancies. Instead far more declare “nonparliamentary” consultancies, which supposedly do not relate to their work in the Lords - and for which they do not have to give details.
The system grew to be so lax that in 2007 a Labour peer, Lord Hoyle, admitted taking money from an arms company lobbyist and introducing him to the government minister in charge of weapons procurement. It caused concern, but no reform.
Other peers failed to declare their interests during proceedings in the house. In October last year Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked a question in the Lords about gas storage - without declaring that he wasa paid consultant to Canatxx, a gas storage company. Taylor apologised a week later.
The Sunday Times decided to investigate further and sent undercover reporters, posing as employees of a lobbying company, to contact Taylor offering to hire him as a parliamentary consultant. The aim was to find out whether, among other things, Taylor would be willing to change legislation.
Nine other peers who already had consultancies or were company advisers were also approached in the same way. Seven peers agreed to meet the reporters; and three Conservative lords failed to return repeated calls.
When the reporters met those peers who did accept the overtures, they explained they were working for Lou Li Jiang, a fictitious Hong Kong millionaire who was supposedly setting up a chain of retail outlets across the UK. The lords were told that Mr Lou wanted to amend the Business Rates Supplements Bill, which was going through parliament.
One of the peers, Lord Oxburgh, was genuinely bemused by the idea that he might be paid to help amend a bill he had no interest in. Over a cup of tea in the Lords, he told the reporters politely but firmly this was work he wouldn’t do.
Lord Rogan, a former president of the Ulster Unionists, was even more forthright. “If your direct proposal is as stark as for me to put an amendment down or help to put down an amendment that’s a nonrunner: a, it’s not right and b, my personal integrity wouldn’t let me do it,” he said.
However, a number of Labour peers were willing to give assistance. They were Lord Taylor; Lord Truscott, a former energy minister; Lord Snape, a former government whip; and Lord Moonie, a former defence minister. Last week all four made it clear during their discussions with The Sunday Times that they did not think they had broken the rules.
So what did they agree to do? Taylor, a blunt 79-year-old, told the reporter that amending legislation for paid clients was the sort of work he had done before. He claimed that he had changed legislation for Experian, the credit check company. When the reporter asked him what his fee structure would be, he replied: “Some companies that I work for will pay me £100,000 a year . . . That’s cheap for what I do for them.”
Over lunch with two undercover reporters in mid-January, Taylor said he would work to amend the rates bill and talk to ministers to make the case on behalf of the Far East client. He agreed a fee of £10,000 a month. Truscott was initially careful when he met the reporters for afternoon tea in the peers’ dinning room. Though he said he was willing to help the reporters for his normal fee of £2,000 a day, he said that he would draw the line at lobbying. By the end of the meeting, however, he was offering to contact other peers, officials and ministers.
Realising the the campaign to amend the rate bill might take more work than he had originally thought, he e-mailed the reporters offering to do three days’ consultancy a month, at a rate equating to a fee of £72,000 over the year.
Moonie made it clear that he could only operate within the rules as he saw them. But he said he would be able to identify members of parliament to whom the reporters could make their pitch and help find members who would put down the amendment for them.
Snape at first said he wouldn’t be able to work on amending the bill if he was being paid directly by the Far Eastern client. However, he said he thought he could do it if the lobbying company was paying his fees, which amounted to £24,000 a year. “The obvious question that the registrar would ask me would be, ‘Who’s paying you?’ So it has to be either yourself, again it doesn’t particularly matter to me, provided I could do it on a blanket basis.”
He believed that if he was paid by the lobbying company and not directly by the client, that made a difference. He also drew a distinction between presenting a general case that might benefit all new businesses and an amendment aimed at a specific client. TO many people it might seem self-evident that being willing to accept money from people seeking to amend the law was dubious at best. If an amendment had general merit, why should they be paid at all? The four Labour peers, however, denied any wrongdoing when the The Sunday Times confronted them with what they had said. Taylor, who had left messages on one of the reporters’ phones saying that he was already meeting ministers, denied that he had taken any action.
Taylor: They [the reporters] just asked me about what is happening and so on and I gave them my advice but I am not contracted with them in any way.
Reporter: Oh, I understood you had agreed to a consultancy fee of £10,000 per month.
Taylor: Oh no.
Reporter: And that you had already started doing work for them.
Taylor: Oh no.
He then claimed he had known from the beginning that he was dealing with undercover reporters. “I was playing them along,” he said. One of his real consultancy clients, Experian, does not appear to have been impressed. It severed links with him last week.
Truscott said: “What I could do was obviously follow the legislation as it goes through the house and keep them informed, but I specifically said that I would not put forward the amendments myself and they would have to identify people to whom they should make their case.” Landis+Gyr, the Swiss-based “smart meter” company that employs Truscott as a consultant, ended his contract last week.
Moonie admitted that he had offered to contact the relevant minister, but explained: “I made it clear to them while I could write to John [Healey, the local government minister in charge of the rates bill] on their behalf, obviously not using House of Lords paper . . . I didn’t say that I would use House of Lords paper.”
Moonie said he had “agreed to seek to help to find a way of trying to amend the legislation” and added that “to assist somebody in finding a way of getting an amendment put down, yes of course it is within the rules”.
Snape argued that he had acted properly because, although he might be paid, he would have been acting for the good of new businesses generally. He said: “I said I was quite prepared to discuss with them how legislation could be changed which would benefit businesses throughout the UK. And if they wanted to take me on as a consultant for their company my usual fees were . . . which I went through.”
His lawyers sent a letter to this newspaper saying that the allegation that he had offered to amend legislation for a fee was utterly false and without foundation.
NEWS of The Sunday Times investigation spread fast once the peers had been confronted. At Westminster, Royall was in her office, complete with ornate ceiling and oil paintings, when she learnt what had happened.
At first she thought one peer was involved, and the affair seemed containable. When it became clear at least four were involved, Royall knew the matter could not be dismissed. Liaising with Downing Street, she summoned staff, prepared statements and ordered an inquiry. In Westminster and beyond peers spluttered with indignation and dismay as they read the revelations.
Among some of the hereditary peers who had been excluded from the House of Lords under reforms by Tony Blair in 1999 there was a hint of schadenfreude. True aristocrats were above such grubby dealings, they thought.
Lord Gainford, a Tory hereditary peer whose grandfather served in government, said: “I never heard of anything like this – taking money to change laws. I just can’t imagine anyone doing it.” Lord Stanley of Alderley, another hereditary peer, said: “In my days I did a lot of work for the farming industry, and all I ever got from them was a dinner.” Earl Lytton, a descendant of the poet Lord Byron, said: “At the moment, the Lords is looked upon as if it were the spoils of war – it’s for them [the Lords] and it’s for their own enrichment.”
Further investigations have now unearthed more details about Taylor and Truscott’s previous dealings apparently relating to consultancy clients. In 1997, Taylor was appointed a director of Canatxx, which was engaged in a joint venture with General Electric (GE) to build a gas-fired power station in his constituency.
Company accounts reveal that Canatxx Energy Ventures paid Taylor £43,264 in 1997 and £45,567 in 1999 through a consultancy run by Janet Robinson, who is now his assistant in the Lords. The consultancy was declared in the House of Lords’ register of members’ interests.
In his meetings with the undercover reporters, Taylor boasted of his contact with Gary Mohammed, a civil servant who gives the secretary of state recommendations on whether large gas power stations should be built. Taylor claimed Mohammed could tell him whether a power station was likely to be approved before a planning application was submitted.
He said: “There’s a little chappie called Gerry [sic] Mohammed, who works in Victoria Street and does all the recommendations to ministers and civil servants. He is only a very low-grade man but he knows more about energy than anyone else.” Mohammed, who is based at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, last week denied giving Taylor advance notice of whether planning applications were likely to be allowed, but said he had been lobbied by him.
In 2001 Taylor also took Mohammed for lunch in the House of Lords. Mohammed said: “We ate in the fancy bit [of the House of Lords]. As I had never been in the Lords’ restaurant I thought to myself, ‘I’ll have a pie and a pint there’. I suppose it’s like any restaurant. You pay too much for too little.”
Taylor is now a paid consultant with NPL Estates, a regeneration company which in August 2008 announced plans to build a £600m gas-powered turbine at Fleetwood with Welsh Power. NPL said he was not involved in lobbying or advisory work for the proposed power station. Canatxx said Taylor had not been paid to lobby but to give them advice and “strategic counsel”. Mohammed insisted he was impartial and speaks to “all sides” before making any recommendations.
On Friday Taylor admitted lobbying Mohammed, but said his interests had been declared in person and on the register. His lawyer added: “Lord Taylor has committed no criminal offence and has broken no rule of the House of Lords.”
Inquiries last week also revealed that in February 2008 Truscott sat down for lunch with Malcolm Wicks, then energy minister. Their conversation ranged widely about Britain’s energy interests. Wicks said last week: “We had lunch and chatted about all sorts of things, mainly as I recall about Russia, which Peter [Truscott] has a strong interest in. We talked about energy policy.
“One of the big issues for us is that we’ve got declining stocks from the North Sea and we’re having to import more [gas]. We talked about where we’re going to get our gas in Europe and Russia crops up, of course it does.”
Truscott is an expert on Russia. He has a Russian wife, Svetlana, and has written three books on the country. He also told our undercover reporters t h a t h e w a s t a l k i n g t o Gazprom, the state-controlled Russian gas giant, about issues of interest to it and their growing presence in the UK gas market.
Sources close to Wicks said he was “incredulous” that Truscott had decided to help Gazprom. “He is amazed that he’s involved with them commercially,” the source said. “Gazprom is no ordinary gas company, it’s crucial to the Russian economy and everyone knows how close it is to Putin and the state.”
When Truscott met the reporters, he was fresh from lunch with someone from Gazprom, and was keen to reveal more. “I’ve just had lunch with someone from Gazprom,” he said. “One of the companies I advise, advises Gazprom. I don’t advise Gazprom directly. I’d get into Private Eye with even an indirect connection.”
Truscott is paid as a consultant by Gavin Anderson, a PR firm that represents Gazprom’s gas exporting arm and UK subsidiary. He went on to tell reporters how he provides advice to the company’s rapidly expanding UK retail arm, which supplies gas to 10,000 business outlets including Chelsea and Manchester United. Truscott said that he recently had dinner with a group of Gazprom delegates, and had given them a guided tour of parliament. “I showed them around the Commons and Lords and after dinner they wanted to [go to] the chamber,” he said. “They quite enjoyed that.”
It is not clear whether this breached any parliamentary rules and yesterday Truscott could not be reached for comment. His paid role as an adviser to Gavin Anderson is registered with the House of Lords. Wicks said Truscott had not lobbied him or influenced his energy policy in any way.
A spokesman for Gavin Anderson, which has suspended Truscott’s consultancy pending the outcome of any investigations, said: “He is employed to give us general advice on parliamentary matters and what was being discussed in the House of Lords. He wasn’t advising Gazprom on anything specific. He has never formally met any of the UK executives. We believe he has met them informally at industry events.”
Gazprom Marketing & Trading, the UK subsidiary of Gazprom, said Truscott had never acted as an adviser. A spokesman said: “We don’t have any political interference in our activities at all.”
This week, a House of Lords subcommittee on peers’ interests, chaired by the crossbencher Baroness Prashar, will scrutinise more than 100 pages of documents relating to the Sunday Times investigation. Other members of the committee include Lord Irvine, the former lord chancellor, and Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5.
The first question for the subcommittee will be: did the four peers approached by undercover reporters break the current rules? But the inquiry opens up a wider question that the subcommittee and the all peers must now finally confront: are the present rules sufficient to uphold the integrity of parliament?
Lord Brabazon of Tara, chairman of the Lords privileges committee, has already been asked by Royall to investigate the code, which has been exposed as lax, ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. The public no longer believes that the noble lords can always be trusted to act on their honour.
The Erminegate cast
Lord Truscott, 49 A Russian expert and a former MEP. Softly spoken and erudite. Works extensively for the private sector, specialising in energy.
Lord Snape, 66 Former West Midlands MP with an acerbic wit. A former railwayman who has since picked up transport work in the private sector. Consultant to FirstGroup, the bus and rail company.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, 79 Former Blackburn councillor and education adviser to Margaret Thatcher who combines extensive contacts book with business bonhomie. Clients include Canatxx, an energy company. Ennobled in 1978.
Lord Moonie, 61 Former Labour defence minister and one of 16 MPs given peerages by Blair in 2005. Has a nonexecutive directorship with PartyGaming, an online poker house, as well as other business interests.
Lord O’Neill, 64 As a Labour MP, he was chairman of trade and industry select committee. A firm advocate for the business sector. Made a peer in 2005.
Baroness Royall, 53, leader of the Lords Former Labour special adviser and European Union bureaucrat. Only been in her current role since October, but has been calm amid the furore.
Baroness Valentine of Putney, 50 A crossbencher, she combines being in the Lords with a high-powered job as chief executive of the business group London First. A formidable voice for business.
Baroness Coussins, 58 Made a crossbencher in 2007. Runs her own food and drink consultancy, advising on corporate responsibility.
Have your say
Why should anyone be surprised? Should have been abolished years ago.
Margaret Harrison, Port hope Ontario, Canada
There should be a clear distinction between corrupt and honourable behaviour by Peers and MPs. I see nothing wrong in them having other jobs or interests provided they are not acting corruptly. There is much to be said for them having outside interests. (I am a UK taxpayer but have no vote in UK)
Douglas Holder, Altea,
Have your say
Have your say
300 characters left
* Name
* Email
* Town
Country
* Required
Remember me
Terms and conditions
PrintEmailPost to del.icio.usPost to FarkPost to Yahoo!Post to Digg
"
By © Muhammad Haque
2005 Hrs GMT
London Sunday 1 February 2009
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! That the 'Crossrail Bill' 'Select Committee' in the UK House of PEERS [that allegedly ‘scrutinised’ the costs, the impact and the ‘purpose’ of the "CrossRail Bill’ during January-July 2008] behaved in a way that was blatantly dishonest…
WITH ALL THE alleged revelations in and via the London Times news organisation of the past 8 days [inclusive] and the Mail on Sunday and elsewhere [following the ‘Sunday Times’ investigation focussing on the Four members of the House of Peers last Sunday - Taylor, Truscott, Snape...] it would have been ‘reasonable’ to assume that the ‘real faults’ have been brought out by the ‘mainstream’ media in the UK and by their platformed ‘commentators’, ‘ experts’ and ‘other peers’.
That is not the case.
NOTHING has been said by a single one of those about what the House of PEERS DO get up to in their ‘ordinary’ behaviour.
That is when they are not acting as touts and tools for outside interests and parties who pay them.
The experience and the evidence of the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign against Crossrail over the past five years show that the UK Houses of Parliament are indeed not working for democracy. That in essence the key decision-making behaviour concerning the people and what the people have to say on all matters that matter is dishonest, unrepresentative opportunistic and corrupt.
The ‘House of Lords’ behaved as a stooged House in so far as the behaviour of the personnel in control of the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committee’ in that 'House’ was concerned..
We have published, since March 2008 when the lying took place, that the personnel involved in the ‘House of Lords’ ‘CrossRail Bill Select Committee’ had LIED to distort, misrepresent and to falsify the objections to the CrossRail Bill….
We have also shown in the past 11 months that the personnel were operating systematic obstructions to objectors in order that the objections to the CrossRail Bill could not be duly included or advocated on the record.
We have also shown that the KHOODEELAAR! objections were PRECEDED by our going on the record and publishing on various external web sites INCLUDING that of London TIMES our constitutional law principle and position to the effect that the ‘CrossRail Bill’ ‘Select Committee’ in the UK ‘House of Lords’ should be allowed to deliberate on the item without interference or influence by the UK Government or by any of its ministers.
That was our pro-active contributon in the reasonable 'hope' [!!!] that the Hosue of PEERS would uphold the principles and values of democratic accountability...
Going by the account published by the London Times news organisation [see item quoted below] even members of the House of PEERRS themselves do not know what they are doing…..even as they take part in legislative activities promoting the agenda of those who pay them..
[To be continued]
____________
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5627971.ece
"
Lords for hire
Members of the House of Lords should act primarily out of public interest. Yet some seem too ready to sell their services
Archer and Black to be ousted from Lords | Exclusive: Peers for cash investigation - new undercover footage | New secret audio recording | The scoop: how we broke the story | Insight: price for a peer to fix the law | Comment: Lords not so noble anymore | Red Box: the politics blog
Earlier this month Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, a Labour peer, walked into the public bill office in the House of Lords with a clutch of amendments to a proposed law going through parliament. The clerks checked the amendments and agreed to their publication.
O’Neill, president of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, was trying to change a bill about the construction industry so that it would favour his organisation’s members. He is paid a fee by the group, but does not disclose how much.
Then last weekend O’Neill, a former MP, picked up The Sunday Times and was aghast. The newspaper carried extensive reports about members of the House of Lords who were apparently willing to assist in amending laws in return for payments. The reports were already making waves and O’Neill realised the amendments he had put forward could be badly misconstrued.
Related Links
Leading lady to drag her peers into line
Elections will strengthen accountability
“I had tabled amendments in the way I used to do when I was a backbencher,” he explained last week. “To be frank, I didn’t really think about it too much. Then I read at the weekend the exposé and thought, ‘God, I shouldn’t be doing this’.”
On Monday he hurried back to the bill office and asked for his amendments back. “I went into the Lords, saw the chief whip, spoke to the house authorities and took the necessary steps to get all the amendments removed,” he said. “I gave explicit instruction that everything in my name should go.”
One of the fundamental principles set out in the code of conduct for the House of Lords is that members “must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence”; another is that members “must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the house or committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment”.
Had O’Neill broken the rules? He thinks not, on the grounds that he is not “paid specifically to put down the amendments”. But like many peers he is now uncertain over the interpretation of the rules. “I felt it was a grey area and the simplest way to get out of the grey area was to withdraw the amendments,” he said.
The Sunday Times reports had thrown light on an aspect of the Lords that has gone untested for too long: the impartiality of its members. Could they be bought? Many lords recognised the danger at once.
Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat leader in the upper house, took a call from an elderly peer who said: “It’s the first time in decades of service I am ashamed to be a member of this house”.
Baroness Royall, the Labour leader in the Lords, issued statements and hurried into print, declaring that: “If there are abuses, they must be rooted out.” As media reports of the furore spread, Lords from both main parties gathered in crisis meetings. Various peers hurried to declare interests that they had previously not included in the public register.
This weekend further evidence has emerged of practices that might highlight the ambivalent role of parliamentarians. They include Baroness Valentine, the £185,000-a-year chief executive of the business group London First, tabling amendments to a planning bill, in an attempt to make changes for which her own organisation had campaigned. She said she was acting in the best interests of London and development and had always correctly declared her interest.
Baroness Coussins, who provides corporate responsibility advice to the food and drinks industry, tried to stop and then mitigate the impact of a bill on alcohol health warnings. She said she had always declared her interests. And Lord Berkeley, who earns about £40,000 a year as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, tried to amend bills on Crossrail and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in the interest of the freight industry. He says he was acting independently and correctly declared his interests.
Just as with revelations 15 years ago of MPs being paid to ask questions in the House of Commons, the implications are far-reaching. The result of the cash for questions scandal was the imposition of more rigorous rules and greater transparency for MPs. Politicians of all parties believe the same must now happen for peers.
Lord Campbell-Savours said: “I have seen a lot of very, very upset and angry people. It is inconceivable that the rules will remain the same after this. Too many important people are too angry for there not to be change.” Another Labour peer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “These events make the case for urgent reform of the Lords vital.” McNally said: “I am grateful for The Sunday Times jolting us out of our complacency. We have been unbelievably complacent. Urgent reform is needed - as soon as possible.”
THE Lords have long guarded their privacy. When the committee on standards in public life was set up after the cash for questions affair, it always intended to investigate the Commons first, then the Lords. Peers were none too happy at the prospect.
They preferred to investigate themselves, and gave the task to a committee headed by Lord Griffiths, a law lord. Among those who argued that the House of Lords was honourable enough to police itself and should exert its primacy was Lord Archer, the novelist who was later jailed for perjury. Others were less convinced of the probity of all members of the upper house. Lord Lester, a lawyer who had recently become a peer, gave evidence to the Griffiths committee that one of his legal clients had paid peers to amend legislation.
“I got into huge trouble,” Lester recalled last week. “I was attacked and sent to Coventry for six months. The culture at the time was one in which peers were openly being paid large sums to sponsor legislation. And no one thought there was anything wrong with it.”
Griffiths did come up with some powerful conclusions on how members should behave. In setting up new rules, he told the Lords that they should always act with honour and not accept financial rewards for parliamentary influence. “I should have thought that was self-evident,” he told the house, otherwise a member would be “perceived by the public outside as selling his voice and, worse still, selling his vote”.
For all his exhortations, the resulting code of conduct for Lords suffered from several weaknesses. First, unlike the Commons, there was no independent scrutineer. Second, sanctions were feeble: lords could still be kicked out of the house only by an act of parliament. Third, even though Lords had to register outside interests, they did not have to give full financial details - again, unlike MPs.
If members declare a “parliamentary consultancy” - being paid for advice about parliament - they have to give details. Hardly any lords declare such consultancies. Instead far more declare “nonparliamentary” consultancies, which supposedly do not relate to their work in the Lords - and for which they do not have to give details.
The system grew to be so lax that in 2007 a Labour peer, Lord Hoyle, admitted taking money from an arms company lobbyist and introducing him to the government minister in charge of weapons procurement. It caused concern, but no reform.
Other peers failed to declare their interests during proceedings in the house. In October last year Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked a question in the Lords about gas storage - without declaring that he wasa paid consultant to Canatxx, a gas storage company. Taylor apologised a week later.
The Sunday Times decided to investigate further and sent undercover reporters, posing as employees of a lobbying company, to contact Taylor offering to hire him as a parliamentary consultant. The aim was to find out whether, among other things, Taylor would be willing to change legislation.
Nine other peers who already had consultancies or were company advisers were also approached in the same way. Seven peers agreed to meet the reporters; and three Conservative lords failed to return repeated calls.
When the reporters met those peers who did accept the overtures, they explained they were working for Lou Li Jiang, a fictitious Hong Kong millionaire who was supposedly setting up a chain of retail outlets across the UK. The lords were told that Mr Lou wanted to amend the Business Rates Supplements Bill, which was going through parliament.
One of the peers, Lord Oxburgh, was genuinely bemused by the idea that he might be paid to help amend a bill he had no interest in. Over a cup of tea in the Lords, he told the reporters politely but firmly this was work he wouldn’t do.
Lord Rogan, a former president of the Ulster Unionists, was even more forthright. “If your direct proposal is as stark as for me to put an amendment down or help to put down an amendment that’s a nonrunner: a, it’s not right and b, my personal integrity wouldn’t let me do it,” he said.
However, a number of Labour peers were willing to give assistance. They were Lord Taylor; Lord Truscott, a former energy minister; Lord Snape, a former government whip; and Lord Moonie, a former defence minister. Last week all four made it clear during their discussions with The Sunday Times that they did not think they had broken the rules.
So what did they agree to do? Taylor, a blunt 79-year-old, told the reporter that amending legislation for paid clients was the sort of work he had done before. He claimed that he had changed legislation for Experian, the credit check company. When the reporter asked him what his fee structure would be, he replied: “Some companies that I work for will pay me £100,000 a year . . . That’s cheap for what I do for them.”
Over lunch with two undercover reporters in mid-January, Taylor said he would work to amend the rates bill and talk to ministers to make the case on behalf of the Far East client. He agreed a fee of £10,000 a month. Truscott was initially careful when he met the reporters for afternoon tea in the peers’ dinning room. Though he said he was willing to help the reporters for his normal fee of £2,000 a day, he said that he would draw the line at lobbying. By the end of the meeting, however, he was offering to contact other peers, officials and ministers.
Realising the the campaign to amend the rate bill might take more work than he had originally thought, he e-mailed the reporters offering to do three days’ consultancy a month, at a rate equating to a fee of £72,000 over the year.
Moonie made it clear that he could only operate within the rules as he saw them. But he said he would be able to identify members of parliament to whom the reporters could make their pitch and help find members who would put down the amendment for them.
Snape at first said he wouldn’t be able to work on amending the bill if he was being paid directly by the Far Eastern client. However, he said he thought he could do it if the lobbying company was paying his fees, which amounted to £24,000 a year. “The obvious question that the registrar would ask me would be, ‘Who’s paying you?’ So it has to be either yourself, again it doesn’t particularly matter to me, provided I could do it on a blanket basis.”
He believed that if he was paid by the lobbying company and not directly by the client, that made a difference. He also drew a distinction between presenting a general case that might benefit all new businesses and an amendment aimed at a specific client. TO many people it might seem self-evident that being willing to accept money from people seeking to amend the law was dubious at best. If an amendment had general merit, why should they be paid at all? The four Labour peers, however, denied any wrongdoing when the The Sunday Times confronted them with what they had said. Taylor, who had left messages on one of the reporters’ phones saying that he was already meeting ministers, denied that he had taken any action.
Taylor: They [the reporters] just asked me about what is happening and so on and I gave them my advice but I am not contracted with them in any way.
Reporter: Oh, I understood you had agreed to a consultancy fee of £10,000 per month.
Taylor: Oh no.
Reporter: And that you had already started doing work for them.
Taylor: Oh no.
He then claimed he had known from the beginning that he was dealing with undercover reporters. “I was playing them along,” he said. One of his real consultancy clients, Experian, does not appear to have been impressed. It severed links with him last week.
Truscott said: “What I could do was obviously follow the legislation as it goes through the house and keep them informed, but I specifically said that I would not put forward the amendments myself and they would have to identify people to whom they should make their case.” Landis+Gyr, the Swiss-based “smart meter” company that employs Truscott as a consultant, ended his contract last week.
Moonie admitted that he had offered to contact the relevant minister, but explained: “I made it clear to them while I could write to John [Healey, the local government minister in charge of the rates bill] on their behalf, obviously not using House of Lords paper . . . I didn’t say that I would use House of Lords paper.”
Moonie said he had “agreed to seek to help to find a way of trying to amend the legislation” and added that “to assist somebody in finding a way of getting an amendment put down, yes of course it is within the rules”.
Snape argued that he had acted properly because, although he might be paid, he would have been acting for the good of new businesses generally. He said: “I said I was quite prepared to discuss with them how legislation could be changed which would benefit businesses throughout the UK. And if they wanted to take me on as a consultant for their company my usual fees were . . . which I went through.”
His lawyers sent a letter to this newspaper saying that the allegation that he had offered to amend legislation for a fee was utterly false and without foundation.
NEWS of The Sunday Times investigation spread fast once the peers had been confronted. At Westminster, Royall was in her office, complete with ornate ceiling and oil paintings, when she learnt what had happened.
At first she thought one peer was involved, and the affair seemed containable. When it became clear at least four were involved, Royall knew the matter could not be dismissed. Liaising with Downing Street, she summoned staff, prepared statements and ordered an inquiry. In Westminster and beyond peers spluttered with indignation and dismay as they read the revelations.
Among some of the hereditary peers who had been excluded from the House of Lords under reforms by Tony Blair in 1999 there was a hint of schadenfreude. True aristocrats were above such grubby dealings, they thought.
Lord Gainford, a Tory hereditary peer whose grandfather served in government, said: “I never heard of anything like this – taking money to change laws. I just can’t imagine anyone doing it.” Lord Stanley of Alderley, another hereditary peer, said: “In my days I did a lot of work for the farming industry, and all I ever got from them was a dinner.” Earl Lytton, a descendant of the poet Lord Byron, said: “At the moment, the Lords is looked upon as if it were the spoils of war – it’s for them [the Lords] and it’s for their own enrichment.”
Further investigations have now unearthed more details about Taylor and Truscott’s previous dealings apparently relating to consultancy clients. In 1997, Taylor was appointed a director of Canatxx, which was engaged in a joint venture with General Electric (GE) to build a gas-fired power station in his constituency.
Company accounts reveal that Canatxx Energy Ventures paid Taylor £43,264 in 1997 and £45,567 in 1999 through a consultancy run by Janet Robinson, who is now his assistant in the Lords. The consultancy was declared in the House of Lords’ register of members’ interests.
In his meetings with the undercover reporters, Taylor boasted of his contact with Gary Mohammed, a civil servant who gives the secretary of state recommendations on whether large gas power stations should be built. Taylor claimed Mohammed could tell him whether a power station was likely to be approved before a planning application was submitted.
He said: “There’s a little chappie called Gerry [sic] Mohammed, who works in Victoria Street and does all the recommendations to ministers and civil servants. He is only a very low-grade man but he knows more about energy than anyone else.” Mohammed, who is based at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, last week denied giving Taylor advance notice of whether planning applications were likely to be allowed, but said he had been lobbied by him.
In 2001 Taylor also took Mohammed for lunch in the House of Lords. Mohammed said: “We ate in the fancy bit [of the House of Lords]. As I had never been in the Lords’ restaurant I thought to myself, ‘I’ll have a pie and a pint there’. I suppose it’s like any restaurant. You pay too much for too little.”
Taylor is now a paid consultant with NPL Estates, a regeneration company which in August 2008 announced plans to build a £600m gas-powered turbine at Fleetwood with Welsh Power. NPL said he was not involved in lobbying or advisory work for the proposed power station. Canatxx said Taylor had not been paid to lobby but to give them advice and “strategic counsel”. Mohammed insisted he was impartial and speaks to “all sides” before making any recommendations.
On Friday Taylor admitted lobbying Mohammed, but said his interests had been declared in person and on the register. His lawyer added: “Lord Taylor has committed no criminal offence and has broken no rule of the House of Lords.”
Inquiries last week also revealed that in February 2008 Truscott sat down for lunch with Malcolm Wicks, then energy minister. Their conversation ranged widely about Britain’s energy interests. Wicks said last week: “We had lunch and chatted about all sorts of things, mainly as I recall about Russia, which Peter [Truscott] has a strong interest in. We talked about energy policy.
“One of the big issues for us is that we’ve got declining stocks from the North Sea and we’re having to import more [gas]. We talked about where we’re going to get our gas in Europe and Russia crops up, of course it does.”
Truscott is an expert on Russia. He has a Russian wife, Svetlana, and has written three books on the country. He also told our undercover reporters t h a t h e w a s t a l k i n g t o Gazprom, the state-controlled Russian gas giant, about issues of interest to it and their growing presence in the UK gas market.
Sources close to Wicks said he was “incredulous” that Truscott had decided to help Gazprom. “He is amazed that he’s involved with them commercially,” the source said. “Gazprom is no ordinary gas company, it’s crucial to the Russian economy and everyone knows how close it is to Putin and the state.”
When Truscott met the reporters, he was fresh from lunch with someone from Gazprom, and was keen to reveal more. “I’ve just had lunch with someone from Gazprom,” he said. “One of the companies I advise, advises Gazprom. I don’t advise Gazprom directly. I’d get into Private Eye with even an indirect connection.”
Truscott is paid as a consultant by Gavin Anderson, a PR firm that represents Gazprom’s gas exporting arm and UK subsidiary. He went on to tell reporters how he provides advice to the company’s rapidly expanding UK retail arm, which supplies gas to 10,000 business outlets including Chelsea and Manchester United. Truscott said that he recently had dinner with a group of Gazprom delegates, and had given them a guided tour of parliament. “I showed them around the Commons and Lords and after dinner they wanted to [go to] the chamber,” he said. “They quite enjoyed that.”
It is not clear whether this breached any parliamentary rules and yesterday Truscott could not be reached for comment. His paid role as an adviser to Gavin Anderson is registered with the House of Lords. Wicks said Truscott had not lobbied him or influenced his energy policy in any way.
A spokesman for Gavin Anderson, which has suspended Truscott’s consultancy pending the outcome of any investigations, said: “He is employed to give us general advice on parliamentary matters and what was being discussed in the House of Lords. He wasn’t advising Gazprom on anything specific. He has never formally met any of the UK executives. We believe he has met them informally at industry events.”
Gazprom Marketing & Trading, the UK subsidiary of Gazprom, said Truscott had never acted as an adviser. A spokesman said: “We don’t have any political interference in our activities at all.”
This week, a House of Lords subcommittee on peers’ interests, chaired by the crossbencher Baroness Prashar, will scrutinise more than 100 pages of documents relating to the Sunday Times investigation. Other members of the committee include Lord Irvine, the former lord chancellor, and Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5.
The first question for the subcommittee will be: did the four peers approached by undercover reporters break the current rules? But the inquiry opens up a wider question that the subcommittee and the all peers must now finally confront: are the present rules sufficient to uphold the integrity of parliament?
Lord Brabazon of Tara, chairman of the Lords privileges committee, has already been asked by Royall to investigate the code, which has been exposed as lax, ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. The public no longer believes that the noble lords can always be trusted to act on their honour.
The Erminegate cast
Lord Truscott, 49 A Russian expert and a former MEP. Softly spoken and erudite. Works extensively for the private sector, specialising in energy.
Lord Snape, 66 Former West Midlands MP with an acerbic wit. A former railwayman who has since picked up transport work in the private sector. Consultant to FirstGroup, the bus and rail company.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, 79 Former Blackburn councillor and education adviser to Margaret Thatcher who combines extensive contacts book with business bonhomie. Clients include Canatxx, an energy company. Ennobled in 1978.
Lord Moonie, 61 Former Labour defence minister and one of 16 MPs given peerages by Blair in 2005. Has a nonexecutive directorship with PartyGaming, an online poker house, as well as other business interests.
Lord O’Neill, 64 As a Labour MP, he was chairman of trade and industry select committee. A firm advocate for the business sector. Made a peer in 2005.
Baroness Royall, 53, leader of the Lords Former Labour special adviser and European Union bureaucrat. Only been in her current role since October, but has been calm amid the furore.
Baroness Valentine of Putney, 50 A crossbencher, she combines being in the Lords with a high-powered job as chief executive of the business group London First. A formidable voice for business.
Baroness Coussins, 58 Made a crossbencher in 2007. Runs her own food and drink consultancy, advising on corporate responsibility.
Have your say
Why should anyone be surprised? Should have been abolished years ago.
Margaret Harrison, Port hope Ontario, Canada
There should be a clear distinction between corrupt and honourable behaviour by Peers and MPs. I see nothing wrong in them having other jobs or interests provided they are not acting corruptly. There is much to be said for them having outside interests. (I am a UK taxpayer but have no vote in UK)
Douglas Holder, Altea,
Have your say
Have your say
300 characters left
* Name
* Town
Country
* Required
Remember me
Terms and conditions
PrintEmailPost to del.icio.usPost to FarkPost to Yahoo!Post to Digg
"
KHOODEELAAR! texts to 'Baroness Royall', 'leader’ UK House of Peers: Part One
1600 Hrs GMT London Sunday 1 February 2009
KHOODEELAAR! texts to 'Baroness Royall', 'leader’ UK House of Peers: Part One
1. Answer all KHOODEELAAR! Questions as we put them to Brabazan of Tara detailing the relevant facts concerning the corruption of the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committee’ that was taking place in 2008 before that Bill was given the rubber stamp in July 2008.
2. Explain what law or constitutional provision, right, entitlement there was for the same Crossrail Bill Select committee in the ‘House of Lords’ to utter lies about objectors to the Crossrail Bill.
3. Publish the list of contacts, communications by the personnel involved in that Select committee with all lobbyists and external interests agencies and personnel.
KHOODEELAAR! texts to 'Baroness Royall', 'leader’ UK House of Peers: Part One
1. Answer all KHOODEELAAR! Questions as we put them to Brabazan of Tara detailing the relevant facts concerning the corruption of the ‘Crossrail Bill Select Committee’ that was taking place in 2008 before that Bill was given the rubber stamp in July 2008.
2. Explain what law or constitutional provision, right, entitlement there was for the same Crossrail Bill Select committee in the ‘House of Lords’ to utter lies about objectors to the Crossrail Bill.
3. Publish the list of contacts, communications by the personnel involved in that Select committee with all lobbyists and external interests agencies and personnel.
KHOODEELAAR! updating the evidential foundation on which we say to Brown: SCRAP wasteful, Big Business scam Crossrail!
1550 Hrs GMT London Sunday 1 February 2009
KHOODEELAAR! updating the evidential foundation on which we say to Brown: SCRAP wasteful, Big Business scam Crossrail!
[To be continued]
KHOODEELAAR! updating the evidential foundation on which we say to Brown: SCRAP wasteful, Big Business scam Crossrail!
[To be continued]
KHOODEELAAR! tells D Cameron to show that HE knows the difference between CRASS and competence
KHOODEELAAR! tells D Cameron to show that HE knows the difference between CRASS and competence
By © Muhammad Haque
1358 Hrs GMT London Sunday
1 February 2009
When KHOODEELAAR! noted in the last 3 days UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s use of the word 'crass' about Gordon Brown's 'policies' and decision-making when Cameron spoke at last Wednesday's UK House of Commons ritual 'PMQs', we did so with detailed contextual, evidential qualifier and background explanations.
We now note that Cameron is still backing CRASSrail, insisting that the new 'business tax' be only justified if it is meant to raise funds for CRASSrail.
It shows that the forces of Big Business that acted to get the 'Crossrail Bill' through the two Houses of the UK parliament [where the 'Crossrail Bill' was rubber-stamped in July 2008, that is ' made into 'Crossrail Act' with no examination of the key issues contained in the scam] are still very much active and are asserting their influence official Party of Opposition.
If Cameron fails to show any evidence that he is 'better' than Brown on this then Cameron may still be doomed to enhance the length of time he will be in opposition.
Why?
Because Crossrail is the debts-causer scam which only Big Business craves... It is not about the meeting of urgent and sensible transport needs in and around London.
For Cameron to be recently talking about Brown causing debt and then forgetting to oppose the most telling instance of Brown's wastefulness, will amount to Cameron’s coming across on the evidences own ‘thinking’ as being far behind when it comes to intellectual and policy-making competence
That the Cameron side in the UK House of Commons also staged a ‘debate’ on Transport during the same week in which they received a bit of publicity for their current transport shadow Theresa Villiers, the actual ‘debase’ [WE DO MEAN to say ‘DEBASE’ as different from ‘debate’] did not produce any remarkable evidence he Cameron side has got the transport needs of the country sorted out at least big terms of its grasp.
As if that were not bad enough news for the people, the fact that Boris John son has begun to act as a tout for Big Construction outfits and lobbys [KHOODEELAAR! spelling of lobby/lobbys is done in this way for the evidential reason that with this spelling the visual link with lobbyists is easier to make] does not augur at all well for the transport services ion London and in the ‘related areas’.
[To be continued]
By © Muhammad Haque
1358 Hrs GMT London Sunday
1 February 2009
When KHOODEELAAR! noted in the last 3 days UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s use of the word 'crass' about Gordon Brown's 'policies' and decision-making when Cameron spoke at last Wednesday's UK House of Commons ritual 'PMQs', we did so with detailed contextual, evidential qualifier and background explanations.
We now note that Cameron is still backing CRASSrail, insisting that the new 'business tax' be only justified if it is meant to raise funds for CRASSrail.
It shows that the forces of Big Business that acted to get the 'Crossrail Bill' through the two Houses of the UK parliament [where the 'Crossrail Bill' was rubber-stamped in July 2008, that is ' made into 'Crossrail Act' with no examination of the key issues contained in the scam] are still very much active and are asserting their influence official Party of Opposition.
If Cameron fails to show any evidence that he is 'better' than Brown on this then Cameron may still be doomed to enhance the length of time he will be in opposition.
Why?
Because Crossrail is the debts-causer scam which only Big Business craves... It is not about the meeting of urgent and sensible transport needs in and around London.
For Cameron to be recently talking about Brown causing debt and then forgetting to oppose the most telling instance of Brown's wastefulness, will amount to Cameron’s coming across on the evidences own ‘thinking’ as being far behind when it comes to intellectual and policy-making competence
That the Cameron side in the UK House of Commons also staged a ‘debate’ on Transport during the same week in which they received a bit of publicity for their current transport shadow Theresa Villiers, the actual ‘debase’ [WE DO MEAN to say ‘DEBASE’ as different from ‘debate’] did not produce any remarkable evidence he Cameron side has got the transport needs of the country sorted out at least big terms of its grasp.
As if that were not bad enough news for the people, the fact that Boris John son has begun to act as a tout for Big Construction outfits and lobbys [KHOODEELAAR! spelling of lobby/lobbys is done in this way for the evidential reason that with this spelling the visual link with lobbyists is easier to make] does not augur at all well for the transport services ion London and in the ‘related areas’.
[To be continued]
KHOODEELAAR! evidential and constitutional and economic commentary and update on the CRASSness of the G Brown, Crossrail hole agenda 'policies' 1 Feb
0800 Hrs GMT London Sunday 1 February 2009:
By © Muhammad Haque
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! That the CROSSRAIL agenda of Big Business was the problem, more so than a single aspect or exhibition of the agenda.… And that AGENDA is to be found in TOTAL company’s behaviour... And in P Mandelson’s ‘intervention’ over the latest protest by ‘British workers’ against that behaviour.... Peter Mandelson is reported as having stated that striking workers in Britain, who have been staging protest actions across England in the past week, should go and find work in Europe! As Mandelson's statement in the context of the current situation is seen as being one of the most telling illustrations of the Blaired regime’s failure to recognise the truth, this ‘service’ to Gordon Brown’s bid to gain political credibility can only be compared with the set of crass behaviour by the Brown-fronted regime. Crass as in crassly conceived and even more crassly peddled Crossrail. Is Mandelson suggesting, perhaps, that people might even travel ‘fast’ to get to those wonderfully vacant job destinations in ‘Europe’? May be he is ‘thinking’ of advising these jobless ‘British workers’ to WAIT a few years before they can enjoy the privilege of travelling on a ‘fast train’ that is ‘reputed to save’ at least 20 minutes on a journey when up and running in 2017?
Could Mandelson be also ‘thinking’ [if he is capable of straight, uncontaminated, accountable, democratic, and responsible and sound economic and social thought, that is!!] that so many thousands of ‘British workers’ who are daily losing jobs ‘in Britain’, might also be ‘looking forward’ to the construction of ‘Crossrail’???????
Fast train line!
Europe’s largest construction project!
One of Britain’s largest NAY! THE largest construction project!
And when ‘CrossRail is competed, these workers might travel as ‘close’ to ‘Europe’ as Shenfield in Essex and then catch a ‘fast’ ferry to cross the waters and ‘arrive in Crossrail-fetched’ ‘Europe’ full of jobs and ‘such other goodies’ as only Crossrail can fetch in fantasy land ???????
Mandelson is being crass on this occasion of his ‘advice;’ about ‘British workers’ going to ‘Europe’ to find jobs.
Just as his colleagues have been crass in peddling the crass Crossrail.
And even Dave [!] Cameron has finally caught up with our 5 year long analysis of CRASSNESS involved in the CrossRail scam.
In his latest PMQs encounter with Brown, Cameron actually sued the word ‘crass’ to describe Brown’s relevant policies…
Is there any chance that Brown will have got the message and reviewed the toxic aspects and components and ingredients and parts and packages and scams of his policies?
Not a chance. Not if Mandelson’s utterances are anything to go by.
When a regime is headlong for a hole of its own miscreation. There is no rational, ethical, environmental, social, economic, democratic, accountable thing that can be put to it to recognise and act on…
A doomed wagon travels headlong to the hole of its own misconception….
[To be continued]
By © Muhammad Haque
KHOODEELAAR! TOLD YOU SO! That the CROSSRAIL agenda of Big Business was the problem, more so than a single aspect or exhibition of the agenda.… And that AGENDA is to be found in TOTAL company’s behaviour... And in P Mandelson’s ‘intervention’ over the latest protest by ‘British workers’ against that behaviour.... Peter Mandelson is reported as having stated that striking workers in Britain, who have been staging protest actions across England in the past week, should go and find work in Europe! As Mandelson's statement in the context of the current situation is seen as being one of the most telling illustrations of the Blaired regime’s failure to recognise the truth, this ‘service’ to Gordon Brown’s bid to gain political credibility can only be compared with the set of crass behaviour by the Brown-fronted regime. Crass as in crassly conceived and even more crassly peddled Crossrail. Is Mandelson suggesting, perhaps, that people might even travel ‘fast’ to get to those wonderfully vacant job destinations in ‘Europe’? May be he is ‘thinking’ of advising these jobless ‘British workers’ to WAIT a few years before they can enjoy the privilege of travelling on a ‘fast train’ that is ‘reputed to save’ at least 20 minutes on a journey when up and running in 2017?
Could Mandelson be also ‘thinking’ [if he is capable of straight, uncontaminated, accountable, democratic, and responsible and sound economic and social thought, that is!!] that so many thousands of ‘British workers’ who are daily losing jobs ‘in Britain’, might also be ‘looking forward’ to the construction of ‘Crossrail’???????
Fast train line!
Europe’s largest construction project!
One of Britain’s largest NAY! THE largest construction project!
And when ‘CrossRail is competed, these workers might travel as ‘close’ to ‘Europe’ as Shenfield in Essex and then catch a ‘fast’ ferry to cross the waters and ‘arrive in Crossrail-fetched’ ‘Europe’ full of jobs and ‘such other goodies’ as only Crossrail can fetch in fantasy land ???????
Mandelson is being crass on this occasion of his ‘advice;’ about ‘British workers’ going to ‘Europe’ to find jobs.
Just as his colleagues have been crass in peddling the crass Crossrail.
And even Dave [!] Cameron has finally caught up with our 5 year long analysis of CRASSNESS involved in the CrossRail scam.
In his latest PMQs encounter with Brown, Cameron actually sued the word ‘crass’ to describe Brown’s relevant policies…
Is there any chance that Brown will have got the message and reviewed the toxic aspects and components and ingredients and parts and packages and scams of his policies?
Not a chance. Not if Mandelson’s utterances are anything to go by.
When a regime is headlong for a hole of its own miscreation. There is no rational, ethical, environmental, social, economic, democratic, accountable thing that can be put to it to recognise and act on…
A doomed wagon travels headlong to the hole of its own misconception….
[To be continued]