Post by Neko Bazu on Jan 25, 2009 19:33:51 GMT -1
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5586109.ece
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581570.ece
Two inquiries will be launched tomorrow into claims that peers were ready to amend laws for money after suggestions that such action would be “corruption.”
Four Labour peers who are alleged to have been prepared to help secure amendments in return for a fee will be summoned before the Lords Interests Committee, set up recently to police possible breaches of the rules.
[...]Baroness Royall, the Labour Leader of the Lords, will conduct her own investigation into the allegations in The Sunday Times that the four were “for hire” to help change legislation.
Lords rules categorically prevent payment to peers as a reward for exerting parliamentary influence - the “no paid advocacy” rule.
Four Labour peers who are alleged to have been prepared to help secure amendments in return for a fee will be summoned before the Lords Interests Committee, set up recently to police possible breaches of the rules.
[...]Baroness Royall, the Labour Leader of the Lords, will conduct her own investigation into the allegations in The Sunday Times that the four were “for hire” to help change legislation.
Lords rules categorically prevent payment to peers as a reward for exerting parliamentary influence - the “no paid advocacy” rule.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581570.ece
BARON TRUSCOTT of St James’s took a bite of his teacake before explaining to the two lobbyists in front of him just how much it would cost to hire a peer of the realm.
“Rates vary between £1,000 and £5,000 a day,” he said quietly, his voice almost drowned by the chatter in the House of the Lords dining room. It was a question, he agreed, of getting the right person rather than haggling over the money.
Truscott — a former Labour MEP who was a government minister until 18 months ago — made it clear he had exactly the right credentials.In the course of their short tea-time conversation he agreed to help them amend a government bill that was harmful to their client, in return for cash. He said he had done similar work before. He said he had intervened on the Energy Bill — a piece of legislation he had been responsible for as a minister only months earlier. His fee was seemingly modest by peers’ standards, but probably not for most people outside the house. He charged £2,000 a day, which would have added up to £72,000 for the three-day-a-month one-year contract he later proposed.
However, he confided to the lobbyists, he had to be a “bit careful” and could not table the amendment himself. “There are ways to do these things, but there is a degree of subtlety . . . work behind the scenes,” he said.
“Rates vary between £1,000 and £5,000 a day,” he said quietly, his voice almost drowned by the chatter in the House of the Lords dining room. It was a question, he agreed, of getting the right person rather than haggling over the money.
Truscott — a former Labour MEP who was a government minister until 18 months ago — made it clear he had exactly the right credentials.In the course of their short tea-time conversation he agreed to help them amend a government bill that was harmful to their client, in return for cash. He said he had done similar work before. He said he had intervened on the Energy Bill — a piece of legislation he had been responsible for as a minister only months earlier. His fee was seemingly modest by peers’ standards, but probably not for most people outside the house. He charged £2,000 a day, which would have added up to £72,000 for the three-day-a-month one-year contract he later proposed.
However, he confided to the lobbyists, he had to be a “bit careful” and could not table the amendment himself. “There are ways to do these things, but there is a degree of subtlety . . . work behind the scenes,” he said.
