Written evidence received by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
1. Extract
from Sunday Times article, 21 March 2010
THE familiar bespectacled figure sitting in the meeting
room looked every inch the management consultant. He had just
returned from a business trip to Dubai and was now looking across
the table at a new commercial opportunity.
Residents of North Tyneside might well have recognised
him, because it was Stephen Byers, their MP. He is more widely
remembered as a former transport minister who was close to Tony
Blair.
The woman on the opposite side of the table was an
executive from a communications company, seeking to hire Byers
because of his connections in government.
What Byers did not know was that hidden between them
in a bowl of potpourri was a tiny video camera pointing directly
his way. The woman was an undercover reporter working for the
Sunday Times
and Channel 4's Dispatches
programme.
Would he use his government contacts to help influence
policy on behalf of a business client? Would he lobby ministers?
Would he provide confidential information from within the corridors
of power?
The reporter barely had a chance to ask the questions
because Byers was so keen to spill everything out. "I'm
a bit like a sort of cab for hire,"
he volunteered.
It is 16 years since Mohamed al-Fayed unleashed a
political scandal by revealing that you can "hire
an MP the way you hire a London taxi".
Since then the rules on lobbying by MPs have been tightened up
considerably—but has anything really changed?
Here was Byers, a serving MP with three outside jobs,
describing himself in the same terms. Not only would he lobby
ministers on behalf of the "executive"
but he also gave examples of occasions when he claimed he had
successfully done this before.
He said he had saved hundreds of millions of pounds
for National Express through his contacts with Lord Adonis, the
transport minister, and had delayed and amended food labelling
proposals for Tesco after phoning Lord Mandelson, the business
secretary. "It's
a bit confidential, so keep it very much to yourself,"
he added.
On Friday Sir Alistair Graham, the former parliamentary
standards commissioner, said that if Byers's claims were true
he may have breached parliament's strict rules on paid advocacy
... Over the past two months a joint investigation secretly interviewed
nine MPs—including four former cabinet ministers—who
are leaving the Commons this spring.
The MPs were told that Anderson Perry, a fictitious
US communications company, was forming an advisory board and wanted
to hire them to sit on it. Meeting rooms were booked in a central
London office block and the MPs were invited for informal interviews.
As the interviews progressed, the reporter posing
as an Anderson Perry executive gently inquired about how much
lobbying work the MPs were willing to do on behalf of her company's
clients.
The responses of the MPs varied greatly. Several
were clearly seeking to cash in on their contacts and experience,
some were keen to start before leaving parliament and some claimed
they had already done similar work while serving as an MP. Others
said they were hoping to be elevated to the Lords which would
open new doors for them.
Among the high-profile figures was Patricia Hewitt,
the former health secretary, who charged £3,000 a day for
a range of advice and services that included helping to influence
legislation. Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, said he
wanted to translate his knowledge and contacts into cash and told
the undercover reporter "I'm
yours"—once he had retired
as an MP.
...
Byers, 56, had announced his decision to quit parliament
to "pursue other
interests" in November last year.
His five-year ministerial career began inauspiciously when as
schools minister he famously multiplied seven times eight and
answered "54".
After spells at the Treasury and the Department of
Trade and Industry, he was forced to resign as transport secretary
in 2002 after his special adviser was revealed to have suggested
that the 9/11 terror attacks were a good opportunity to bury "bad
news" stories.
As a backbench MP he has taken on work as a consultant
to a Lebanese construction company and became chairman of its
Yorkshire water treatment subsidiary and another company that
promotes links between Ukraine and the European Union. Byers was
in Dubai working on a desalination project for the construction
company when the reporter first called him in February. They arranged
to meet the following week.
From the start of the meeting Byers appeared keen
to work for the fictitious company and was quick to flag up his
impeccable political connections. "I
still get a lot of confidential information because I'm still
linked in to No 10," he told the
reporter.
An extra string to his bow was his famous friend.
"I see Tony Blair
every month and you'll probably find a lot of your clients really
quite like him," he said. "If
there's an event ... we could have a word with Tony, say come
along for a drink."
When the conversation turned to clients that might
wish to influence legislation, Byers leapt at the opportunity,
suggesting he should start in April when parliament had been dissolved
for the general election and most politicians would be out campaigning
for their party. "It's
a great time if there's an issue where your clients actually want
to get a regulation changed or some law amended. That's the time
to get in to see the civil servants. Because there's no Ministers
around, they've got more time," he
said.
He was happy to ring Ministers, talk to civil servants
and arrange meetings and was confident of his ability to open
doors. "It's all
part of the democratic process really and ... I can't think of
any occasion when someone has said no to a meeting,"
he said.
To help the reporter through the democratic process,
he charges a fee. "It's
usually between £3,000 and £5,000 a day, that's the
sort of wage," he said. Expenses
were extra.
Part of the service was to use his inside knowledge
of government. He described himself as the "architect"
of the Enterprise Act and could therefore offer help to any clients
"operating as restrictive
practice" or "price-fixing".
He said: "That's
an animal I created, for better or worse ... but you always know
ways around it, well actually ... there's an ace you can play
there."
To show that he could produce results, Byers spoke
candidly about an occasion when he claimed to have successfully
lobbied former cabinet colleagues. One of his "trump
cards", he said, was his friendship
with Lord Mandelson.
Byers recounted an occasion when Lucy Neville-Rolfe,
the corporate and legal affairs chief at Tesco, rang him because
she was concerned about a possible food labelling regulation being
proposed by Hilary Benn at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs.
Rather than approach Benn, Byers chose a more circuitous
route. "So you ring
Peter Mandelson and say, 'Peter, did you
know what Hilary Benn's about to do? ... He's going to introduce
a regulation which is going to have this huge nightmare in every
supermarket'."
As a result, Byers claims, "Peter
got it delayed and then got it amended."
He regards his greatest success, however, as his
"work" for
National Express when the company was in negotiation with the
government over its loss-making rail franchises that cost £1.4
billion.
This is how he tells the story: "They
approached me, June of last year, and said, 'We've
got a huge problem. We want to get out of the East Coast main
line but not pay a huge penalty and we want to keep the other
two franchises as long we can'.
"So between you and I, I then spoke to Andrew
Adonis, the transport secretary, and said, 'Andrew,
look, they've got a huge problem. Is there a way out of this?'
And then we, we sort of worked together—basically, the way
he was comfortable doing it and you have to keep this very confidential
yourself.
He [Adonis]
said we shouldn't be involved in the detailed negotiation between
his civil servants and National Express but we can give them a
broad steer. So we basically got to a situation where we agreed
with Andrew he would publicly be very critical of National Express
and talk about, 'I'm going to strip you
of the franchise' and
be very gung-ho.
And we said we will live with that and we won't
challenge you in the court, provided you then let us out by December,
by the end of the year, and we can keep the other two franchises
for a little longer. So, and that's what we managed to do."
Adonis criticised the company on July 1 and it escaped
without a penalty, leaving the railway line in the hands of the
taxpayer. Critics have said the exchequer is likely to lose hundreds
of millions of pounds when it sells the franchise to a new operator.
The story does not end there. After the meeting,
Byers sent a quick note to the reporter saying it was "good
to meet". The next day, however,
he sent an e-mail effectively claiming that he had lied throughout
the meeting.
"In reality I have not been engaged in lobbying
ministers here in the UK. My statements yesterday would have given
the opposite impression and I would like to take this opportunity
to withdraw them," he wrote.
This applied to the conversations with Mandelson
and Adonis. Had Byers become suspicious about the fictitious Anderson
Perry? In a statement on Friday he said he had "made
some exaggerated claims" and on reflection
"regretted that
my misleading comments might be taken seriously".
National Express said it had held discussions with
a number of MPs whose constituencies were along the East Coast
main line and Byers had been one of them. The company said it
had not paid Byers: "Any
actions that Mr Byers may or may not have taken following our
discussions with him were entirely of his own choice."
A source close to Richard Bowker, who was chief executive
of National Express at the time, said Byers's version of events
told to the undercover reporter was a "close
footprint" that was "pretty
accurate". He said he understood
the relationship with Byers was "commercial"
and that he had been acting on the company's behalf. The source
added that Byers had written to Adonis and met him after the decision
was taken in July to terminate the franchise.
If Byers's relationship with National Express was
commercial, then he should have registered it with the House of
Commons. He did not.
Adonis's department issued a statement on Friday
saying: "There is
no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that Byers came to any arrangement
with Andrew Adonis on any matter relating to National Express."
However, it did not deny that Byers had spoken to Adonis.
Tesco also last week denied ever "engaging"
Byers to deal with food labelling regulations.
It said in a statement: "We
did not speak to Mr Byers on food labelling, regulation or indeed
any other issue. These claims are completely fictitious and Mr
Byers has acknowledged this to us."
Mandelson said he had "no
recollection" of talking to Byers
about the issue.
Two weeks after the Byers meeting, another well known
face was waiting in the foyer of Anderson Perry's rented office.
It was Patricia Hewitt, who was a minister for nine years in the
Treasury and the departments of trade and health.
Since stepping down in 2007 she has taken four appointments
with BT, Alliance Boots, Barclays Capital and a private equity
firm called Cinven which she says pays her £60,000 a year
for 18 days' work. She told the reporter she was leaving parliament
to spend more time with her family and pursue her business interests.
Hewitt was much more measured than Byers. She acknowledged
that she could help the fictitious company's clients to influence
legislation. "If
you've got a client who needs a particular regulation removed,
then we can often package that up [for
a Minister],"
she said.
It was not a role she wanted to do full-time. She
listed five ways that a company could contact a minister including
by funding think tanks and seminars, hospitality, sponsoring events
in party conferences, contacting special advisers and finding
a connection with the minister's constituency.
When asked for examples of the type of consultancy
work she had done previously, Hewitt spoke at length of her involvement
with Partnerships in Care (PiC), a private mental service provider
owned by Cinven. She claimed it was through her efforts that PiC
was able to give evidence to the Bradley report, a government
study about providing care outside prison for criminals with mental
health problems.
The report had recommended the creation of a Home
Office and Department of Health advisory group. Hewitt claims
she paved the way for PiC to be the only contractor on the group.
The following is Hewitt's account, recorded in the meeting.
She said that Lord Bradley had been talking only
to the public sector when producing his report into mental health
services for criminals.
"So I was able to get them
[PiC], basically, in
front of Bradley, and I got Bradley to go and, actually I think
he visited one of their establishments, he took evidence from
them," she said.
The Health and Criminal National Advisory Group was
formed as a result of the report and Hewitt claimed: "I
was able to persuade the chairman of that taskforce that there
would be a private sector, independent sector, representative
on that taskforce."
Her client, PiC, became the representative on the
advisory group as it was the "most
active" private sector company in
respect of the Bradley report. She continued:
Hewitt: I've kind of got them into the system where
they can build the relationships, they can make the arguments.
Reporter: Yes, with a view to getting further contracts,
presumably, and being able to expand their work?
Hewitt: Exactly.
On Friday PiC said that its involvement in the Bradley
report had been nothing to do with Hewitt and arose solely out
of its membership of the Confederation of British Industry. The
company said it was invited to join the advisory group because
of its leading market position. Hewitt's solicitor said she had
"no influence"
on PiC's selection.
During the meeting Hewitt also claimed she had "spoken
to Ministers and civil servants"
about changing a carbon reduction regulation that helped her client
Cinven and other private equity companies.
However, Cinven says she was not hired to "influence"
legislation but to advise on a possible amendment. Hewitt's lawyers
said she was merely advising on how the regulations might be changed
in future to make them fairer.
In a statement Hewitt said: "I
have always observed the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.
The Code makes it clear that MPs are free to take on outside appointments,
subject to the conditions which I have always observed."
Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct for MPs bans a member from acting
as a "paid advocate"
in any proceeding of the House of Commons,
such as promoting a bill, tabling an amendment or speaking.
It also makes clear that an MP is forbidden from
taking money to "advocate
or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body
or individual" when approaching,
writing or talking to ministers and servants of the crown.
There are no rules to prevent former MPs from lobbying.
Former ministers have to consult an advisory committee after leaving
office if they wish to take up a new job. This ceases to be the
case after two years.
MPs must register outside earnings and paid work.
"A financial interest
should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others
to influence the speech, representation or communication in question,"
the Code states.
Jobseeker Hoon plans to cash in
GEOFF HOON, the former defence secretary, presented
himself as a man in urgent need of work and money when he came
before our undercover reporter, writes Insight.
"I've got two children at university so I've
got to get a job," said Hoon at the
meeting on March 3, a few weeks after he had announced that he
was stepping down from parliament at the general election. He
and Patricia Hewitt launched a failed coup against Gordon Brown
on January 6. He said he would expect a fee of £3,000 a day
to serve on the advisory board of the reporter's fictitious American
company. He was told that his "political
background" was something that would
impress the company's foreign clients.
"Yeah exactly,"
he responded.
"One of the challenges that I'm really looking
forward to is translating my knowledge and contacts about the
international scene into something that frankly makes money."
What Hoon was looking for was a portfolio of work,
mainly defence related. He said he already had job offers on the
table, including a chairmanship of a foreign defence firm for
what he described as an "embarrassing"
amount of money.
He said that during a recent trip to Washington he
had devoted a couple of days to "Hoon
work", which involved talking to
organisations about future employment prospects.
Hoon was reluctant to take a job as a lobbyist. However,
he wasn't averse to undertaking tasks which could be loosely termed
as lobbying.
"I do not want to be seen to leave politics
and go back as some sort of lobbyist," he
said. "I mean, I
am quite happy with strategic advice ... and in the right circumstance
I don't mind leading a delegation in to see a minister but that's
not what I want to spend my life doing."
He was under no doubt that his name and past career
were a valuable commodity for opening doors to the corridors of
power. He said: "Irrespective
of what party-political background you're from, if a former minister
asks to see the defence minister ... I don't think there would
be any difficulty."
He said that he had encouraged companies to hire
former politicians in the past because they can "open
doors". He agreed that he would be
able to talk to politicians on behalf of the reporter's fictitious
American company.
Hoon stepped down as defence minister in 2005, but
still does work for Nato. He said he was still able to get information
on forthcoming defence policy to share with clients.
He said:
"I know some people on the team in the MoD [because
they brief him about his separate Nato work]."
He added: "They're
both advising me as to what the government position is but also
working separately on the, ah, defence review."
Hoon appeared interested in working for the fictitious
company.
He said: "Parliament
will be dissolved at the beginning of April ... after that you
know I'm, I'm, I'm yours."
On Friday, Hoon's solicitors said in a legal letter
that during the meeting he had merely explained, as he had been
invited to do, how his experience in public office might be of
value to his imagined future employees.
The lawyer said Hoon denied being prepared to disclose
"privileged, confidential
or inside information" and that at
"no point was any
offer of employment made, let alone accepted".
...
Among the MPs interviewed during the undercover investigation
was Sir John Butterfill, a Conservative who is tipped for elevation
to the Lords. He said he would be happy to make introductions
to ministers on behalf of fee-paying clients.
Butterfill, who said he would charge £30,000
to £35,000 a year, explained he would be free to help clients
once he had left parliament. He said: "I've
done, in the past, quite a lot of consultancy for people who wanted
to get involved with the public sector.
"It's now quite difficult for a serving MP
to do that, but once you're retired, you can do as much of it
as you like."
He suggested he might be even more useful to the
reporter if he goes to the Lords. "It
[the Lords] also
gives me another string to my bow, as far as you're concerned,"
he said.
On Friday, Butterfill denied he would use the Lords
as a business opportunity. He said he went to the meeting to see
what was being offered but did not necessarily want a job. "I
said I was happy to make introductions only if I was satisfied
I was dealing with people of considerable standing."
...
21 March 2010
2. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, 22 March 2010
In the light of media comments following the secret
filming of an interview I gave, I would be grateful if you could
investigate my actions to confirm that I have at all times complied
with all the relevant provisions covering Members of Parliament.
22 March 2010
3. Letter
to Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP from the Commissioner, 22 March 2010
Thank you for your e-mail of 22 March asking me to
investigate your actions following Press reports over the weekend.
Under the rules agreed by the House for complaints,
I am expected to consult the Committee on Standards and Privileges
when a Member has asked me to investigate an allegation against
him when they are not the subject of a specific complaint. The
rules state that the Committee would expect to authorise such
an inquiry only in exceptional circumstances.
I will consider, therefore, your e-mail in the light
of this agreed procedure. I will also consider any complaints
I receive against you in respect of this matter. In the meantime,
if you wished to let me know later today why in your view the
circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to justify an inquiry,
that would be helpful. In any event, I will write to you again
to let you know the outcome once I have consulted the Committee,
which I hope to do tomorrow.
22 March 2010
4. Second
e-mail to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, 22 March
2010
Thank you for your letter outlining the procedure
that applies to a self-referral. I have requested that you carry
out an inquiry because media reports have questioned whether I
have complied with the rules of the House.
I know that I have always complied but now need this
to be independently confirmed. The only person who can do this
with authority is yourself.
Given the level of media interest and the serious
allegations made against me, I believe that these are exceptional
circumstances that merit an inquiry.
As the facts are clear, I believe it can be a short
and speedy exercise.
22 March 2010
5. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, 22 March 2010
I am one of the MPs who was interviewed, and surreptitiously
filmed, by a woman representing herself as Clare Webster, who
was in fact a journalist from the Sunday Times and Channel
4 Dispatches programme. "Ms Webster" claimed
to be acting on behalf of a United States-based consultancy, Anderson
Perry, that was interested in recruiting an MP retiring at this
election to their Advisory Committee.
I attach a confidential letter[521]
to my lawyers from Channel 4's lawyers making it clear that the
programme will not in fact allege any breach on my part of the
Codes of Conduct for Ministers and MPs.
In the course of my discussion with "Ms
Webster", I referred to work I have
done over the last two years for Cinven, a private equity company,
and AllianceBoots. Both appointments were approved by the Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments; neither appointment involved
any conflict of interest with my previous work as Health Secretary;
and both appointments are declared in the Register.
In my work advising Cinven and AllianceBoots, I have
always been mindful of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for
Members—for instance, by making clear my association with
the firm in any conversation I have had with officials. Nonetheless,
the Sunday Times
story carried the implication that I (and others) acted improperly
and similar allegations have been made by others.
I therefore want to refer myself to you and hope
that the Committee will agree to allow you to investigate the
matter.
I am not sure what evidence you will wish to see,
but I will of course be happy to provide you with a more detailed
submission.
22 March 2010
6. Letter
to Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP from the Commissioner, 22 March 2010
Thank you for your e-mail of 22 March asking me to
investigate your actions following Press reports over the weekend.
Under the rules agreed by the House for complaints,
I am expected to consult the Committee on Standards and Privileges
when a Member has asked me to investigate an allegation against
them when they are not the subject of a specific complaint. The
rules state that the Committee would expect to authorise such
an inquiry only in exceptional circumstances.
I will consider, therefore, your e-mail in the light
of this agreed procedure. I will also consider any complaints
I receive against you in respect of this matter. I will write
to you again to let you know the outcome once I have consulted
the Committee, which I hope to do tomorrow.
22 March 2010
7. Letter
to the Commissioner from Ms Justine Greening MP, 22 March 2010
I would [like] to make a formal complaint regarding
the behaviour of three Members of the House of Commons.
The public are entitled to know that the MPs that
they elect to serve in Parliament on their behalf are serving
their interests and no one else's. That is why a Code of Conduct
has been established to ensure that Members of Parliament at all
times act with integrity and transparency. Over the weekend there
have been serious allegations relating to three former Ministers
that suggest they have put their personal interests above those
of the public. I am writing to ask you to investigate these allegations.
The Sunday
Times reported that the Rt Hon Members
Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have been offering
their parliamentary expertise to external commercial interests
in exchange for financial rewards:
- The Rt Hon Member for Tyneside
North, Stephen Byers, described himself as a "sort of
cab for hire" for commercial enterprises, and claims
to have influenced policy on behalf of several major firms, including
National Express and Tesco. Speaking to an undercover reporter,
he said: "The three to five [thousands pounds figure]
just depends a bit on the work, the clients...and sometimes
I can charge more."
- The Rt Hon Member for Ashfield, Geoff Hoon, offered
to allow companies to influence government policy by making use
of his knowledge and position for "something
that frankly makes money".
- The Rt Hon Member for Leicester West, Patricia
Hewitt, claimed that she had been appointed to a government advisory
group on behalf of a client in which she had a financial interest.
Last Friday, she also made a statement in which she said: "If
you've got a client who needs a particular regulation removed,
then we can often package that up [for
a Minister]."
I believe that there are strong grounds to state
that they have compromised their public duties as members of the
House and breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.
I refer you, firstly, to the following "General Principles"
of the Code of Conduct:
"Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions
solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so
in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,
their family, or their friends.
"Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves
under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals
or organisations that might influence them in the performance
of their official duties."
In addition, I refer you to Articles 11-13 of the
General Rules of Conduct:
"12. In any activities with, or on behalf
of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship,
including activities which may not be a matter of public record
such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always
bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members
and officials.
"13. Members must bear in mind that information
which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary
duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and
that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial
gain."
I believe that the behaviour of the three members
represents a clear breach of several of the Code's general principles
and specific articles.
I understand that the Rt Hon Member for Tyneside
North has already referred himself to you, yet I encourage you
to extend this investigation to the other two members mentioned
in this letter and to treat this investigation with the utmost
seriousness.
I would appreciate it if you could reply to this
request as soon as possible and confirm what steps you will take
to ensure that any breaches are investigated.
22 March 2010
8. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Sir John Butterfill MP, 22 March 2010
Further to the Dispatches programme on Channel
4 this evening, I wish to clear my name completely, and in this
connection I am referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards so that you may consider whether I may have been
in breach of the parliamentary Code of Conduct.
I look forward to hearing from you.
22 March 2010
9. Extract
from Sunday Times article, 28 March 2010
Two more ministerial 'cabs for hire'; ...Labour
MPs 'up for sale'
TWO more former Labour ministers have been secretly
recorded offering to exploit their government contacts and experience
to help commercial clients for fees of up to £2,500 a day.
Adam Ingram, the former armed forces minister, said
he could draw on a pool of out-of-work ministers who could be
used to harness their government contacts. Richard Caborn, the
former sport minister, said he may be in line for a peerage that
would boost his chances of extracting valuable information from
the corridors of Westminster...
Ingram, who is standing down as MP for East Kilbride
at the election, offered to develop a network of former ministers
who could be useful for contacts in different departments.
He was happy to help the reporter meet serving ministers
after the election, saying there were strict rules preventing
him from lobbying while in parliament but he could do so as a
"non-MP".
However, he suggested that the fictional company
might wish to target civil servants as "they
draw up invitations to tender, they then make all the recommendations
which may not cross the minister's desk".
When asked if he still had good contacts with civil servants from
his time as a minister, he responded, "oh
yeah".
The reporter asked: "So
you would be able to help us develop our relationship with the
ministers and civil servants?" Ingram
replied: "I'd do
that." Ingram said he is paid £1,500
a day or £1,000 a meeting by companies. He already makes
up to £173,000 a year from outside earnings on top of his
£65,000 salary as an MP. On Friday, his solicitors said he
had not offered to sell his experience and contacts. He said he
regarded it as wrong for ex-ministers to do so.
Caborn, who is standing down as the MP for Sheffield
Central, expressed interest in working for the fake company but
said he would not decide until after the election. He quoted a
daily rate of £2,500 "plus
expenses" if he took the job. He
said he would be willing to build relations with ministers whom
he knew.
"There's a number of ways in which you can
influence or at least access ministers, whether it's a sector
or an individual company, or what. And also on policy as well,"
he said. Caborn may be in line for a peerage, which he said would
give him "access
to ministers" and information. "This
is all about contacts. It's not so much always about influencing,
it's about getting information. That's key, because information
is very powerful."
On Friday, Caborn's solicitor denied that he had
acted in anyway "unethically".
Caborn said his £2,500 day rate actually reflected three
days' work.
MY FEE? £2,500 A DAY ... PLUS EXPENSES; INSIGHT
Our revelations about two more former Ministers who are prepared
to trade their political contacts for cash from lobbyists will
increase the public's anger at their rulers
The Prime Minister's ambassador for England's bid
to host the 2018 football World Cup had been neatly caught. From
a hidden camera in a leather handbag, Richard Caborn was framed
in the viewfinder with the Palace of Westminster over his shoulder.
The former minister was in a bar across the river from parliament
earlier this month to talk about his future career. He explained
that he was hoping Gordon Brown would elevate him to the House
of Lords when he steps down as MP for Sheffield Central at the
election.
This, he made clear, could be very useful to the
woman sitting opposite: an undercover reporter posing as a company
executive who was looking to hire MPs for lobbying work.
Asked how he could help the firm if he were in the
Lords, Caborn replied: "Well,
access. Access to people... You are in the environment, you're
moving around." This included access
to Ministers.
He later elaborated on the advantages of the Lords:
"All this is all
about contacts, it really is. It's not so much always about influencing,
it's about getting information, and that's absolutely key because
if you can get information that is very powerful."
Caborn, the former sport and trade minister, is already acting
for business. One of his main clients is AMEC, the nuclear construction
company, which pays him £75,000 a year for 30 days work.
He said if a client was a "big
hitter" it could gain access to the
highest levels of government.
This was true of AMEC's chief executive, Samir Brikho.
"If Samir Brikho
wants to see the Prime Minister, Samir Brikho sees the Prime Minister,"
said Caborn.
Asked whether this was something he helped to arrange,
he said it was.
Caborn said he would wait until after the election
to decide whether to work for the fake company, but was "interested".
The fee would be similar to his other work for which he charges
£2,500 a day—"plus
expenses obviously".
...
Since stepping down as armed forces minister in 2007,
Ingram has built up a large portfolio of outside interests. His
combined fees from private firms could add up to £173,000
a year—which he receives on top of his £65,000 salary
as an MP.
Like the other seven MPs interviewed during our two
month investigation, he was phoned out of the blue by a reporter
pretending to be an executive from Anderson Perry Associates,
a fake US communications company.
She was forming an advisory board and was looking
for a senior politician to sit on it. Ingram agreed to attend
an informal interview at the firm's offices in central London.
He appeared keen for work: "I've
got a breadth of experience, I think I've good knowledge, I've
run big departments and, and I may be of use to you,"
he said.
Ingram made it clear that he would not lobby until
after the election. "As
a Member of Parliament I can't lobby. There's a very strict rule
on that, so you can't go and lobby for a company, er, which a
non-MP can," he said. However, the
poll was "only weeks
away anyway".
Indeed, the vote would open up more lobbying opportunities,
he suggested, because a lot of his colleagues in government were
also stepping down. They had experience that might complement
his specialism in defence.
"There's going to be a lot of ex-ministers,
many of whom are leaving parliament voluntarily, some are going
to lose their seats and they then become a point of contact in
the political network. 'Who do you know
in that department? Who can you suggest to talk to?' And
that becomes a point of contact. So all of that can be established,"
he said.
He added that he was happy to approach both Ministers
and civil servants for the client.
Ingram: "It's
worthwhile sometimes cultivating a Minister, it depends how they
react and how amenable they are. But decision-makers really, well,
in the big sense, are the civil service structure, because they
do all the definitions of how you're going to deliver on a particular
project. They draw up invitations to tender, they then make all
the recommendations which may not cross the Minister's desk..."
Reporter: "And presumably
you have good contacts with them from when you were a minister?"
Ingram: "Oh yeah."
Once he had left parliament such lobbying
would not be a problem "because
you're a private citizen... All you're doing is using your, your
street cred and your points of contact."
Reporter: "So
you would be able to help us develop our relationship with the
ministers and civil servants?" Ingram:
"I'd do that."
When discussing his fee, he said it would be in a
range up to £1,500 a day "plus
Vat".
While he has not been lobbying as an MP, Ingram has
been doing a lot of work in connection with defence. He said he
was helping to put together a consortium to bid for work that
the Ministry of Defence outsources to private companies. It was
a project, he said, which "has
not surfaced yet".
Another project he disclosed to our reporter is perhaps
more controversial, especially for a former defence minister.
He has been involved in two British firms which are helping to
create a "defence
academy" in Libya for its leader,
Colonel Gadaffi.
The former pariah state, which once sponsored terror
attacks around the world, had its arms embargo lifted a year after
the Iraq war when Gadaffi destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.
Ingram is a director of Argus Libya UK which was
part of a consortium constructing the academy. "Gadaffi
wanted a defence academy built, and people I'm with have got very
good points of contact with the Libyan regime,"
Ingram revealed. He said the consortium members had just been
paid and were "cash-rich".
He is also arranging for another of his firms to
supply the academy's teachers. The International School for Security
and Explosives Education is based on an RAF base in Wiltshire
and provides security and counter-terrorism training.
On Friday, Ingram sent a letter through his lawyers
saying that the work in Libya was consistent with government policy
to promote relations with the country. The letter said Ingram
was merely seeking opportunities for future employment. It said
he did not believe it to be proper for a former minister to sell
his contacts and influence to give certain businesses privileged
access to government.
A WEEK after Ingram's encounter with our reporter,
Caborn strolled across Westminster bridge to meet her in a hotel
bar at County Hall.
The reporter told him she was looking to get close
to government.
It seemed familiar territory to Caborn, who said
one of his clients, the Fitness Industry Association, has "direct
access" to health Ministers.
He continued: "There's
a number of ways in which you can influence or at least access
ministers, whether it's a sector or an individual company, or
what. And also on policy as well."
When asked whether he would be willing to help build
relations with Ministers and civil servants after he stood down
as an MP, he said: "Oh
yeah, yeah, obviously I know Ministers,"
adding later that several were "good
friends".
He said it would not be a problem to set up meetings
with civil servants, and he would help with other approaches no
matter who was in power after the election.
"As long as you know how the system works,
that's the main thing... How you influence the decision-makers,
that's the structure, that's not going to change,"
he said.
He said of his work for AMEC: "I
connect them in, if they want a reception in the House of Commons
and if they want, erm, to get advice from government, then I get
advice from government and I introduce them to people."
On Friday, Caborn sent a letter through his lawyers
saying it had been his intention to talk generally about the political
system and lobbying. It made clear that he had made no commitment
to work for the fictitious lobbying company.
The letter said he believed that he would not have
had time to work for the company if he moved into the Lords. Alternatively,
if he did not receive a peerage, he would have returned to Sheffield
to work in an engineering business.
However, the transcript of the meeting shows that
he did express interest in the work but didn't want to commit
to anything until after the election. "I
don't really want to commit to something I can't do. If I do it,
I do it," he said.
He left saying that he would be happy to meet the
fake company's executives when they came over from America.
AMEC said in a statement that Caborn was employed
to provide consultancy services and he had not arranged receptions
in the Commons or for the chief executive to meet the prime minister.
JUST two days after the meeting with Caborn, the
alarm bells began to ring in No 10 as rumours of an undercover
investigation began to circulate in Westminster. Labour whips
immediately began making inquiries to find out who had been stung.
28 March 2010
10. Letter
to the Commissioner from Mr Greg Hands MP, 28 March 2010
I would [like] to make a formal complaint regarding
the behaviour of two Members of the House of Commons.
The public are entitled to know that the MPs that
they elect to serve in Parliament on their behalf are serving
their interests and no one else's. That is why a Code of Conduct
has been established to ensure that Members of Parliament at all
times act with integrity and transparency. This weekend there
have been serious allegations relating to two more former Ministers
suggesting they have put their personal interests above those
of the public. I am writing to ask you to investigate these allegations.
The Sunday
Times reported that the Rt Hon Members,
Adam Ingram and Richard Caborn have been offering their parliamentary
expertise to external commercial interests in exchange for financial
rewards:
- The Rt Hon Member for East
Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow, Adam Ingram admitted that
he had used his contacts and experience to help a construction
company he worked for carry out a defence project in Libya: "Gadaffi
wanted a defence academy built, and people I'm with have got very
good points of contact with the Libyan regime." Also,
responding to a question posed by the undercover reporter about
whether he could use his experience to develop relationships with
ministers and civil servants, he said: "I'd do that".
- The Rt Hon Member for Sheffield Central, Richard
Caborn told the undercover reporter that he has previously used
his contacts and access to his clients' advantage: 'I connect
them in, if they want a reception in the House of Commons and
if they want...to get advice from government, then I get advice
from government and I introduce them to people.'
I believe that there are strong grounds to state
that they have compromised their public duties as members of the
House and breached the Code of Conduct for Member of Parliament.
I refer you, firstly, to the following 'General Principles' of
the Code of Conduct:
"Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions
solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so
in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,
their family, or their friends.
"Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves
under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals
or organisations that might influence them in the performance
of their official duties."
In addition, I refer you to Articles 11-13 of the
General Rules of Conduct:
"12. In any activities with, or on behalf
of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship,
including activities which may not be a matter of public record
such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always
bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members
and officials."
"13. Members must bear in mind that information
which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary
duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and
that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial
gain."
I believe that the behaviour of the two members represents
a clear breach of several of the Code's general principles and
specific articles.
I note that you have already begun an investigation
into three other former Ministers accused of lobbying Government
in exchange for cash. Given the similarities of those cases to
the allegations against Mr Cabom and Mr Ingram, I would ask that
you launch a further investigation or consider the two former
Ministers are part of your current investigation.
I would appreciate it if you could reply to this
request as soon as possible and confirm what steps you will take
to ensure that any breaches are investigated.
28 March 2010
2 521 Notincludedinthewrittenevidence Back
| 
