Lobbying Scandal Rocks British Parliament

Lord Cunningham, Lord Laird and Lord Mackenzie. Photograph: Photoshot/UPPA

Stephen: Lobbyists exist around the world. They’re usually people who are paid to ‘lobby’ politicians to get their clients’ wishes through legislation or parliamentary processes. Those clients are often big businesses; the lobbyists are usually private individuals who get paid to do such work.

But over the past two days, the act of lobbying has made headlines across the UK - where the MPs’ code of conduct prohibits paid advocacy and requires the declaration of financial interests – after several ‘peers’ (members of parliament) were caught red-handed; accepting cash to lobby their own party members in a filmed, undercover report by The Sunday Times newspaper. One peer quit immediately; while another two have been suspended. But this current exposure of such corrupt behaviour is seen as just the tip of the iceberg – and I doubt it will be limited only to the UK.

Lobbying: Ministers Race to Change Rules as Scandals Hit Home

By Rajeev Syal, The Guardian- June 2, 2103

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/lobbying-ministers-scandals

Two Labour peers were suspended from their parliamentary party on Sunday while a third peer – an Ulster Unionist – was forced to resign pending inquiries into allegations that they broke parliamentary rules by offering to carry out work for cash. The trio were punished as David Cameron brought forward stalled plans for a register of lobbyists in the wake of a gathering scandal across Westminster.

Lord Cunningham, Lord Mackenzie and the Ulster Unionist Lord Laird face allegations that they offered to work with undercover journalists posing as lobbyists. All three deny any wrongdoing and have referred themselves to the House of Lords commissioner for standards.

In an acknowledgement of the potential damage to public faith in the political system, coalition cabinet members repeated a pledge to find time in the legislative programme for a new law to extend lobbying transparency, government sources said.

The coalition is planning to introduce laws to regulate lobbyists, and to give constituents the power to force a byelection if an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing.

Cameron predicted in 2010 that lobbying would be “the next scandal waiting to happen” but has failed to introduce the promised law so far.

The developments come after three days of disclosures which began when MP Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip after being stung by undercover reporters.

All three main political parties are bracing themselves for further allegations to come on Thursday when the BBC’s Panorama programme will broadcast further claims against politicians.

As the sleaze crisis spreads, Nick Clegg must also decide the fate of Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, who has been accused of sexual assault in a high court civil action.

Hancock strongly denies all allegations against him and police dropped an investigation into him for lack of evidence. However, Clegg decided to take disciplinary action because of the serious nature of the accusations. If Hancock were to resign as an MP, it would trigger another difficult byelection for the Lib Dems just months after they had to fight Eastleigh.

At present, Lords rules ban peers from seeking to profit from membership of the House of Lords by offering parliamentary advice or services. But the government has until now shied away from a three-year-old pledge to introduce a law that would allow greater scrutiny of parliamentarians’ contacts with lobbyists.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said he would be astonished if the coalition had not enacted a lobbyists’ register and a power to recall errant MPs by 2015. He suggested that legislation to create a lobbyists’ register – which was not in the Queen’s speech – could be brought forward to this session once details had been worked out.

Cunningham, who was a Labour cabinet minister before becoming a peer in 2005, is alleged to have offered to write directly to the prime minister to push an agenda by lobbyists who were actually undercover Sunday Times reporters.

He asked for £144,000 a year for his lobbying services, according to the newspaper, and was recorded telling reporters posing as representatives of a South Korean solar energy company that he would become their advocate in Westminster.

“Knocking on doors, introductions and getting to see the people, including if necessary the ministers – this is part of the package,” he allegedly said.

In response to the allegations, Cunningham said he had been testing his suspicions that he was being targeted by a scam when he met the undercover reporters.

“I quickly became suspicious of them and the money they were offering and sought to test my suspicions during the meeting.

“What the article does not make at all clear is that I told the undercover journalists that I always stick to the rules and declare any interests,” he said in a statement.

“The article also fails to properly acknowledge the important fact that I informed them the next day that I wanted nothing more to do with them. That same day I notified Baroness Royall, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, and Lord Bassam, the chief whip, of my suspicions and what had occurred. I also reported to the clerk of the parliaments and the registrar of members’ interests,” he said.

Mackenzie, Tony Blair’s former law and order adviser, was accused of setting up a ruse that allowed him to host events for paying clients.

The Sunday Times said that during the sham interview the peer was asked whether he could get around parliamentary rules that stop peers from booking events related to their financial interests. Mackenzie replied by saying that it was within the rules to ask someone else to host a party if it was for charitable causes.

Defending his actions, Mackenzie told Sky’s Murnaghan programme that the rules may have to be tightened up and that he would be vindicated by an investigation. “Morally it may well look as though it’s not right but to hold the function that’s the only way you could do it,” he said. “I thought it was all right because it was a non-profit-making function, it was to do with saving energy, so it was important.”

On Sunday, Labour withdrew the party whip from both peers, pending an inquiry. Neither actually took any money from the Sunday Times undercover team.

Laird was involved in two separate stings this weekend – one by the BBC’s Panorama and another by the Sunday Times. In a statement, Laird said: “I wish to make it clear that I did not agree to act as a paid advocate in any proceedings of the house, nor did I accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services.”

Mercer said he was taking legal advice but resigned the whip to save his party embarrassment, and will step down from the Commons at the next general election. He also referred himself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

The MPs’ code of conduct prohibits paid advocacy and requires the declaration of financial interests. The Tory MP for Monmouth, David Davies, said he was among those targeted by the Panorama sting but refused the offer of lobbying work.

Bradley Manning Trial Begins Today – 3 Years After Arrest

Stephen: All I can say is let’s send him our prayers for the true carriage of justice.

Associated Press, Inquirer.Net – June 3, 2013

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/419651/bradley-manning-trial-begins-3-years-after-arrest

FORT MEADE — Army Pfc. Bradley Manning goes on trial Monday more than three years after he was arrested in Iraq and charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Manning has admitted to sending troves of material to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks and pleaded guilty to charges that would send him to prison for up to 20 years. The U.S. military and the Obama administration weren’t satisfied, though, and pursued a charge of aiding the enemy, which carries a potential life sentence.

The trial on that most serious charge and 20 other offenses begins Monday for the 25-year-old former intelligence analyst from Oklahoma. It’s the most high-profile case for an administration that has come under criticism for its crackdown on leakers. The six prosecutions since Obama took office is more than in all other presidencies combined.

Manning chose to have his court-martial heard by a judge instead of a jury. It is expected to run all summer.

In February, Manning told military judge Army Col. Denise Lind that he leaked the material to expose the American military’s “bloodlust” and disregard for human life in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he did not believe the information would harm the U.S. and he wanted to start a debate on the role of the military and foreign policy.

The judge accepted his guilty plea to reduced charges for about half of the alleged offenses, but prosecutors did not and moved forward with a court-martial on charges including violations of the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Manning’s supporters hail him as a whistleblowing hero and a political prisoner. Others view him as a traitor.

U.S. officials have said the more than 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and State Department cables sent to WikiLeaks endangered lives and national security.

The material WikiLeaks began publishing in 2010 documented complaints of Iraqi detainee abuses; a U.S. tally of civilian deaths in Iraq; and America’s weak support for the government of Tunisia — a disclosure Manning supporters said encouraged the popular uprising that ousted the Tunisian president in 2011 and helped trigger the Middle Eastern pro-democracy uprisings known as the Arab Spring.

Last month, the government agreed to accept Manning’s guilty plea for one lesser version of one count, involving a single diplomatic cable summarizing U.S. embassy discussions with Icelandic officials about the country’s financial troubles.

Manning also acknowledged sending WikiLeaks unclassified video of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack that killed civilians, including a Reuters photographer. An internal military investigation concluded the troops reasonably mistook the camera equipment for weapons; WikiLeaks dubbed the video “Collateral Murder.”

The release of the cables and video embarrassed the U.S. and its allies. The Obama administration has said it threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America’s relations with other governments, but the specific amount of damage hasn’t been publicly revealed and probably won’t be during the trial.

Lind ruled the extent of any damage is irrelevant. Defense attorney David Coombs contends it was minimal.

Much of the evidence is classified, which means large portions of the trial are likely to be closed to reporters and the public. The judge tested alternatives to closing the courtroom, such as using code words and unclassified summaries, but Lind said it didn’t work.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/419651/bradley-manning-trial-begins-3-years-after-arrest#ixzz2V8Dzi64r

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook”

‘BP Wrecked our Gulf’ Says Robert Kennedy Jr

Mr Kennedy alleged that there was evidence of ongoing contamination of wildlife such as sperm whales in the Gulf. Photo: EPA

By Emily Gosden, The Telegraph, UK – June 2, 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10094648/BP-wrecked-our-Gulf-says-Robert-Kennedy-Jr.html

Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of assassinated US president John F Kennedy, is an environmental activist and lawyer representing plaintiffs suing BP over the 2010 oil spill. He dismissed claims BP was being unfairly targeted as a British company.

“They are being picked on as an oil company that wrecked our Gulf and lied about it,” he told The Daily Telegraph. “I don’t care if it’s a British company or [US rival] Exxon. I would rather sue Exxon than BP, because I think Exxon is a worse company. But Exxon didn’t do the Gulf spill.”

BP shareholders and some commentators have suggested the company is being treated differently ever since President Barack Obama referred to it, in the wake of the disaster, by its long-defunct name British Petroleum.

Mr Kennedy alleged that there was evidence of ongoing contamination of wildlife such as sperm whales in the Gulf (of Mexico). “How are they going to pay for that? I think BP are getting off lightly.” BP shares have recovered from the lows of 2010 but still remain well below pre-spill levels, while profits have been hit by $38bn of asset sales.

Last year, BP agreed to pay a record $4.5bn to settle criminal charges, pleading guilty to the manslaughter of the 11 men who died in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig and to obstructing Congress by lying about the amount of oil spilt into the Gulf.

It is still on trial over civil penalties for the disaster and is embroiled in legal wrangling over the compensation settlement it reached last year, which was supposed to resolve the majority of claims from businesses who lost money due to the spill.

Mr Kennedy said that BP should face “a high enough level of punitive damages that it gives an incentive to their industry to spend as much money on protecting the safety of the public and the environment as they do on their tax lawyers, who are trying to reduce their tax liabilities”.

A BP spokesman said: “From the outset, BP acknowledged our role in the accident and made a commitment to clean up the spill and pay legitimate claims. To that end, we waived the statutory cap on liability, and to date, we’ve spent more than $25bn in response, clean-up, and payments on claims by individuals, businesses, and governments.”