Letter to Baroness Prashar from Mr Keith
Pudney, Thursday 29 January 2009
Dear Lady Prashar
I am greatly perturbed by the recent reports
that have highlighted the activities of a number of Members of
the House of Lords. I am not going to use the word allegations
when one individual was so blatant in his activities and even
quoted the amount of money that he had received in the past for
his services. It was highly appropriate that the reporter recorded
the conversation.
Would you explain just how these individuals
are allowed to behave in such a manner, you might reply and say
they are not allowed to behave in this manner. I would reply well
who is policing it and why their connections and Interests aren't
registered on the Register of Interests.
I am well aware of the Standards that are expected
in Public Life. Until 2007 when I didn't stand for re-election,
I had been a Borough Councillor for 12 years, also a Town Councillor
for 15 years. During that time I had also been a School Governor
and a Member of a National Park Authority. I had to register my
Interests with each of those bodies that register had to be kept
up to date annually and daily if there were any changes.
As you are well aware in the positions I held,
the interests were Personal or Prejudicial, and there could be
an interest that was both Personal & Prejudicial. In many
instances those interests meant that I could neither speak nor
vote on the matter in hand, and on occasions I would have to leave
the room.
Given all the obligations that I served under,
I am totally flabbergasted to hear a recording of a Member of
the House of Lords openly stating what he does for Companies and
at what financial cost. He even elaborated as to how he went about
it.
Well Lady Prashar, there is only one word to
describe the activities that he boasted of from his own mouth,
that word my Lady is Corrupt. My next question has to be, how
long will it be before action is taken against the individuals
concerned?
By action I don't mean a censure, a suspension,
or the deliverance of a grovelling mealy mouthed apology.
In the real world when gains accrue from activities
such as crime, or say drug trafficking, the authorities have the
right to seize those proceeds or assets, why should this be any
different.
The Members of the House of Lords are not part
of the democratically elected process, so the electorate cannot
express their abhorrence at their activities at the next election.
It is sad and unacceptable that individuals exploit their positions
for private gain, in this case it is Members of the House of Lords.
Most members of the general public also see
it as inappropriate that Members of the House of Commons also
take highly remunerated directorships in companies, in some instances
a considerable number of companies. In those instances that is
not some altruistic move on the part of the company, it is to
buy the influence that they can bring to bear on the companies
behalf. That may be in a subtle way and in some instances totally
blatant and unacceptable ways. Is it any wonder that the general
public see in these instances individuals using their positions
to unlock the door to untold wealth?
That my Lady benefits nobody and demeans the
process we call democracy, a process that rarely appears to reflect
the will of the people, maybe I am just getting a mite cynical.
I look forward to your views on the points raised
in this letter. I am also copying this letter to the newly appointed
Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
Yours sincerely
Keith Pudney
| 
