Sir John Butterfill, Mr Stephen Byers, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Geoff Hoon, Mr Richard Caborn and Mr Adam Ingram - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 9 December 2010