Britannia Radio

TELEGRAPH        27.1.09
Lords scandal: Peer faces row over arms lobbyist
A Labour peer at the centre of the House of Lords "cash for 
amendments" scandal has faced questions over his links to a 
controversial defence industry lobbyist.

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

The Telegraph can disclose that Lord Moonie, a former defence 
minister, recently gave a parliamentary pass, primarily intended for 
staff, to Robin Ashby, who has previously lobbied for BAE Systems, 
Northern Defence Industries, Boeing and Rolls-Royce.

Mr Ashby, who is also the director of the UK Defence Forum, an 
organisation sponsored by the country's major arms companies, and who 
still owns a consultancy, was given the pass by Lord Moonie in the 
autumn.

On Monday night, Mr Ashby insisted that he was no longer actively 
lobbying, but he was stripped of a parliamentary pass only last year 
following a row over the access given to lobbyists.

Neither Mr Ashby, nor Lord Moonie, one of four Labour peers accused 
of offering to amend legislation for money, declared details of any 
outside interests to the Parliamentary authorities when he registered 
for the second pass, which gave him access to MPs, ministers and 
peers throughout Westminster.

The passes are intended for researchers or assistants to lords.

Official records showed that since September, Lord Moonie tabled 40 
technical questions on defence issues. In the previous three years, 
he asked six such questions. The former defence minister is an 
adviser or director for several firms with defence interests.

The disclosure came as the row surrounding the four Labour peers 
escalated with the release of an alleged taped conversation between 
one of them and an undercover journalist. In the recording, he 
allegedly admitted that he was paid by companies, apparently for help 
in changing legislation.

The tape apparently revealed Lord Taylor of Blackburn boasted about 
how he had amended legislation for another client. He said: "Some 
companies that I work for will pay me £100,000 a year ... That's 
cheap for what I do for them." He then told the undercover 
journalist: "You've got to whet my appetite to get me on board."

Yesterday, as Lord Taylor was forced to apologise in the House of 
Lords for "any embarrassment" he had caused, the ramifications of the 
scandal spread through Westminster:

-Lord Snape, a third peer embroiled in the scandal, also apologised 
in the House of Lords for causing any embarrassment. Like Lord 
Taylor, he denied any wrongdoing;

-Baroness Royall, the Leader of the Lords, pledged to introduce new 
rules to discipline, suspend or even expel peers found to have broken 
Parliamentary rules. At the moment, they can only be asked to 
apologise unless a specific Act of Parliament is passed;

-Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, expressed concern over the "very 
serious" allegations and said he would "get to the bottom" of the 
scandal;

-The Liberal Democrats formally complained to the police and called 
for an anti-corruption investigation.

At the weekend, Lord Moonie was among four Labour peers who were 
alleged to have offered to change legislation in return for fees. The 
lords were targeted by an undercover newspaper sting with journalists 
posing as lobbyists working for a foreign businessman. A Lords 
committee is investigating the allegations. All those targeted have 
denied wrongdoing.
Lord Moonie, a friend of the Prime Minister, stood down from the 
Commons in 2005.

When approached by undercover journalists he allegedly offered to 
contact a minister and identify people who could put down an 
amendment to Government legislation. An annual consultancy fee of 
£30,000 was allegedly discussed.

The Daily Telegraph has established that Lord Moonie obtained a 
Parliamentary pass for Mr Ashby in the autumn. Mr Ashby, the owner of 
Bergman Defence Consultancy, previously received a pass from Baroness 
Harris, a Liberal Democrat peer. However, when the existence of his 
pass was exposed, Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, 
ordered that it was removed.

Mr Ashby is one of the Britain's best known defence lobbyists. His 
firm has previously lobbied on behalf of more than a dozen defence 
and aerospace companies. Last night, Mr Ashby said that he was "semi-
retired" and no longer involved in lobbying. He said that he still 
owned Bergman but that it conducted "ordinary public relations".

He added that he did not currently represent any defence companies. 
"All I will say is that I do not do Parliamentary lobbying. If I did, 
I would have to declare it."

He defended the lobbying industry and said it was "your right as a 
citizen" to put views forward to MPs and peers.

When asked whether he would ever return to lobbying he said: "There's 
no such thing as never but I'm now 61 ... So I'm trying to get off 
the treadmill."

Those who apply for passes must declare any outside work that may 
impact on their work in Parliament. Mr Ashby has made no such 
declarations on the basis that he is no longer involved in lobbying.

Lord Moonie was unavailable yesterday. However, he previously denied 
seeking to change legislation. He said: "I did not agree to amend the 
legislation. I agreed to seek to help to find a way of trying to 
amend the legislation."  [Have I missed something ?  I thought 
"change" and  "amend' were synonyms.  Slippery eh? -cs]   
=============================
THE TIMES   27.1.09
Peers face suspension in House of Lords 'laws for sale' inquiry


Sam Coates, Chief Political Correspondent and Sean O'Neill, Crime 
Editor

The House of Lords embarked on a hasty damage-limitation exercise 
yesterday by preparing new powers to suspend any member found to have 
broken the rules in the "cash for peers" crisis.

Four Labour peers who allegedly offered to change the law in return 
for fees of up to £120,000 could be barred from the chamber and 
forced to forfeit their £350 daily allowance if they are suspended.

Two of them, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Snape, stood up after 
an emergency statement in the Lords and offered pre-emptive apologies 
in case they are found to have done anything wrong.
"If I have done anything that has brought this House into disrepute I 
most humbly apologise," Lord Taylor said, while still insisting that 
he had followed the rules.

Lord Snape said: "May I appeal to noble Lords in all parts of the 
House to allow me the opportunity to refute those allegations before 
your Lordships' House and elsewhere?"

The two other peers, Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, and Lord 
Truscott, a former energy minister, were absent. They emphatically 
deny wrongdoing.

The Times has also discovered that Lord Moonie gave a parliamentary 
pass to his son Graham, who was working for a PR and lobbying firm, 
the Madano Partnership. His son worked on an account for AEA, an 
energy consultancy created out of the Atomic Energy Agency, a company 
that Lord Moonie serves as a director.

The pass was removed in June, as new rules came in that would have 
required his son to declare his outside work. The peer told The Times 
that the AEA link was a coincidence and that his son never used the 
pass, which was provided in a personal capacity.

The fate of the four peers will be decided within weeks by a panel 
including the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the 
former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller. They have asked for 
any recordings of conversations by The Sunday Times to be handed over.

The paper released segments of conversations with Lord Taylor on 
TimesOnline yesterday. Lord Taylor, an ally of Jack Straw, the 
Justice Secretary, is heard saying that some companies pay him up to 
£100,000 for help with commercial problems. He can be heard telling 
reporters: "You've got to whet my appetite to get me on board."

The Lords is expected to have to investigate the claims itself after 
it emerged that Scotland Yard was unlikely to mount a full-scale 
inquiry. Detectives are thought to be wary about potential entrapment 
or the use by journalists of leading lines of questioning, which 
would undermine any attempt to pursue a criminal case.

The affair took centre stage in an emergency discussion in the Lords. 
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Labour's Leader of the Lords, said that 
she had asked Lord Brabazon of Tara, chairman of the Lords Committee 
for Privileges, to review the sanctions against those who break the 
rules of the House. At present, the harshest action is for a peer to 
be named and to have his or her conduct debated in the Lords' 
chamber. Lord Brabazon is unlikely to be able to recommend expulsion 
since it would mean defying the "Writ of Summons" - the invitation to 
new peers from the Queen.

There were signs yesterday of a backlash over the Sunday Times story. 
Lord Harris of Haringey said that he, too, had been approached by the 
newspaper, but not named, and wanted to give evidence to the inquiry. 
"I was the subject of the journalists' deception and attempted 
entrapment," he said
=============================
INDEPENDENT   27.1.09
Revealed: 139 peers act as paid consultants

Brown steps into row over peers accused of accepting cash to change 
legislation
By Nigel Morris and Michael Savage

Peers are being paid to advise more than 200 companies, public bodies 
and pressure groups, research by The Independent has discovered.

The disclosure of the massive number of consultancy arrangements will 
intensify pressure for tighter controls on the House of Lords in the 
wake of the "cash-for-amendments" storm.

An investigation was launched yesterday into accusations four Labour 
peers offered to alter legislation in return for fees of up to 
£120,000 a year.

Gordon Brown said the charges - which the men deny - were "very 
serious". Labour's leader in the Lords said the allegations were 
deeply damaging to "Parliament and politics itself".

The peers - Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Lord Truscott of St James, Lord 
Moonie and Lord Snape - told undercover reporters from The Sunday 
Times that they would consider helping to secure amendments to a 
government Bill on behalf of a business client.

Peers must record all business links in the Register of Members' 
Interests, including "non-parliamentary consultancies". Lord Taylor 
lists Experian, the credit check company, as one of his 
consultancies. According to The Sunday Times, he claimed to have 
changed legislation to benefit the firm.

Last night, it also emerged that Lord Moonie had faced questioning 
over his links to Robin Ashby, a high-profile lobbyist for the 
defence industry. Lord Moonie gave Mr Ashby a parliamentary pass 
giving him access to MPs and ministers, which neither of the men 
declared.
The Independent has discovered that 139 peers have accumulated 252 
consultancy deals, most of which pay a salary. Peers are not required 
to register their value.

The former Tory cabinet minister Lord Howell of Guildford has six 
consultancies, including to the Central Japan Railway Company, to 
Mitsubishi Electric Europe and to the Kuwait Investment Authority. 
Lord Browne of Madingley, a crossbencher, also has six consultancies, 
including advising the Deutsche Bank Advisory Board for Climate 
Change and Sustainable Forest Management.

Lord Powell of Bayswater, the former private secretary to Margaret 
Thatcher, lists three consultancies, to the defence giant BAE 
Systems, the private equity company Bowmark and to Eastern Star 
Publications. There is no suggestion these peers are guilty of any 
wrongdoing or undue influence.

The lobbying group Transparency International last night demanded a 
shake-up of the Lords Register of Interests. Its chairman, John 
Drysdale, said: "There needs to be a robust system of checks and 
audits."

Last night, The Sunday Times released a recording of a conversation 
between reporters and Lord Taylor. He can be heard telling them: 
"You've got to whet my appetite to get me on board."

Lord Taylor says some companies he works for pay him £100,000 a year, 
describing the sum as "cheap for what I do for them".
In an emergency debate in the Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon said 
an investigation had begun and promised it would be "swift and 
vigorous". She also announced an inquiry into whether peers who break 
the rules should face tougher penalties. At the moment they can only 
be "named and shamed" in the chamber.

Lady Royall said: "The allegations are indeed shocking but they are 
at this moment allegations. This is damaging, not just to the House 
but to Parliament and to politics as well." The Tory leader in the 
Lords, Lord Strathclyde, said the accusations were "deeply shocking 
and depressing". He said: "This House has been mired in a grim 
torrent of criticism about a culture of sleaze."

Lord Taylor and Lord Snape said they did not accept the accusations 
but wanted to apologise if they had brought the Lords into disrepute. 
Lord Taylor said: "I feel, within my own conscience, I have followed 
the rules... given in this House over the 31 years I have been a 
Member."

Lord Snape appealed for the "opportunity to refute those allegations 
before [the Lords] and elsewhere".
=============================
POLITICS HOME    27.1 09
COMMENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsnight, BBC 2 at 22:45 | 26/01/2009
Pickles: If allegations are true peers should be expelled

Eric Pickles, Conservative Party Chairman

Mr Pickles said he believed the present system "is doomed" and that 
the rules in the House of Lords were clear that Lords could not be 
influenced by cash.

"I think we need to move on to a system when people could be 
suspended or expelled. It plays upto everything people think 
politicians are about - it diminishes us all.

"This particular problem needs to be addressed, you shouldn't be able 
to sell your vote in the House of Lords.

"I think there is an appetite for reform - this is no grey area here, 
if the allegations are true they have clearly breached the existent law.
==================================
Today, Radio 4 at 07:55
Lord Goodhart: "Absolutely urgent" that changes to rules in Lords are 
made

Lord Goodhart, Liberal Democrat peer

Lord Goodhart said that the allegations against four peers suggests 
they did breach existing laws, and added that it is "absolutely 
urgent" that changes be made.

"We do need to look again at our laws and decide whether they're 
clear enough.

"What is permissible is giving advice on political issues. The 
trouble is what is going on here is that they're going beyond advice, 
and giving assistance.

"The allegations suggest, if they are true,  that the peers did 
breach the existing laws."

He said that "naming and shaming" was not enough, and added "it is 
absolutely urgent that something be done.

"What we need now is at least what the Commons has got - the power to 
suspend. In extreme cases even to expel them.

"You can't impose penalties retrospectively - I think it would be 
extremely difficult to apply new laws against those accused now."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Today, Radio 4 at 08:33
Marshall-Andrews: Lords allegations tick all necessary boxes for 
corruption if true

Bob Marshall-Andrews, Labour MP

Mr Marshall-Andrews said that if the allegations about the four peers 
were true, they "tick all the necessary boxes for corruption".

"If it is true it is exceptionally serious, whatever the criminal 
aspects of it.

"If it is true it is making a secret profit out of public office, 
which ticks the necessary boxes for corruption. The issue would be 
one of public office.

"I would have thought there was sufficient, if it sufficient, [sic -
cs] to put this out to the new Director of Public Prosecutions."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Today, Radio 4 at 08:57
Lord Onslow: You don't need rules to tell you what is alleged is wrong

Earl of Onslow, Hereditary peer

Lord Onslow said he was saddened by the allegations against the four 
peers, and added that rules to sanction members of the House of Lords 
were no longer sufficient.

Asked whether he was disturbed by the allegations he said, 'very. 
Because you must know that that was wrong. You don't need to have 
rules to tell you that is wrong. I am sad about it in such a personal 
way. It is such a privilege to be there. "

Asked whether the rules to sanction peers were sufficient he said, 
"no, not now. I had thought they were."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Politics Home reports this from the blog of Derek Draper pn 
Labourlist.org
Your Lordships: it's better for everyone, including yourselves, to 
come clean
By Derek Draper

The Lords scandal brings back unhappy memories for me, and others 
have not been slack in drawing parallels. Peter Oborne calls me a 
"sleazebag" and says I should not be allowed to campaign for Labour.

The truth is my own involvement in 1998's lobbying scandal still 
makes me feel ashamed today. It was wrong to try and cash in on my 
Labour contacts and I will regret it all my life. I had hoped that 
ten years passing might allow me to be forgiven, but obviously not by 
Peter Oborne!

I particularly regret not being even clearer back then that what I 
did was wrong. That is why I would advise the Labour peers involved 
in this scandal to pause and search their own political souls. If 
they thought they were obeying the letter and spirit of the rules, 
then fine. But if they, deep down, now realise they made a mistake in 
tangling up their public duty and private activities they should 
admit it, and apologise.

There needs to be a full investigation, as Gordon Brown has made 
clear. Whatever the result we need to remember that these four men 
have served the Labour party well [Is that a plea in mitigation or a 
justification ? -cs] and that should be taken into account when we 
judge them. In time, despite the harshness of journalists like Peter 
Oborne, they would likely be forgiven. In the meantime the rules need 
to be tightened up so that nothing like it can ever happen again.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-