During the Parliamentary recess MPs spend time with their constituents. However Peers – when not enjoying rare time with their families – may suffer from withdrawal symptoms, feeling cut off from the public affairs of the day.
Hence (perhaps) my interest in the judges’ verdict on the notorious BAe/Saudi case, which the Serious Fraud Office suddenly stopped investigating in 14th December 2006. News today suggests that the Government got that wrong, even to the extent of believing sob stories about lost jobs.
My own encounters with BAe, over several years, culminated with my disclosure of a secret agreement between the group and two Australian airlines. You can read all about it in the House of Lords Hansard of Thursday 18 October 2007 (cols 785-6), or on my website entry for that date (www.paultyler.libdems.org).
My reason for only very briefly referring to this curious case is twofold. First, because we Peers – like MPs – are better protected when we speak in Parliament about such controversial issues, than if we risk legal action by powerful interests by describing outside what they have been doing. This is called “Parliamentary Privilege” – that is not a privilege for us individually, but protection of the public interest and freedom of speech. So I invite you to read the original exchanges in the Lords. Incidentally, I hope to meet that same Minister again shortly, to challenge his assertion that these matters are simply commercial matters, of no public concern.
My second reason is the need to be brief: having been ticked off by the Guardian columnist for being serious, I mustn’t go on too long again!
How on earth did you in the Lords allow David Blunkett to get the RIPA through, and allow the ridiculous situation where LOCAL COUNCIL officials are allowed to spy on those most dangerous of ‘terror suspects’, er, innocent parents ???
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2189178.mostviewed.well_carry_on_spying.php
I am absolutely furious about this and so are many other people.
These powers are being flagrantly abused in the way that Liberty predicted, but which was widely scorned at the time.
If this is ‘fraud’ then I think we have some other things which are slightly higher up the batting order, like money laundering the proceeds of drug deals – not chasing parents around to see if they live where they say they live. I detest fly-tipping, but tactics like this should have been consigned to the dustbin when the Berlin Wall came down.
This is a disgrace, and I can’t understand why the Lords didn’t put the kibosh on this at the time. Weren’t you listening when Shami Chakrabarti warned that awful, horrendous ‘anti-liberati’ idiot David Blunkett was passing repressive, anti-libertarian, right-wing tosh like this ??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm
Is this really the extent to which we have surrendered our right to go peaceably about our business in this country without let or hindrance or being snooped upon ? Have we really sunk so far as to allow this ‘surveillance state’ to take over without even a whimper or a fight ? If so, then the House of Lords may be of far less use than I had previously hoped, and my faith in it is shaken badly !!
I wonder if ‘Lord Solely’ [sic] would care to make a comment ?
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/themole,,no-wonder-airport-expansion-protestors-dont-stand-a-chance,21401
[From The First Post]
“A proposed crash zone for Heathrow’s third runway flouts safety regulations by being sited on top of a motorway junction, it has emerged. BAA has decided that the risk of a plane crashing into the 65ft-high, six-lane junction is not sufficient to merit moving the roadway, in contradiction of Government guidelines. (Sunday Times)”
Well, a few drinks and nibbles would get me to overlook that little technicality as well…
I’ve no objection to people in the Houses Of Parliament being such shameless mouthpieces for global capitalism, just so long as they don’t spout hypocritical nonsense at the same time about how it is important to bring aviation within EU Carbon Trading/The Kyoto Treaty/AN Other Treaty which they are going to game/cheat/ignore in due course..
Lord Tyler, the Hansard link you supplied is broken.
This one works and its column 786 where you speak.
http://tinyurl.com/5be9be
You are wise to cite Parliamentary Privilege on this occasion as the issues are certainly touching raw nerves and perhaps you are emotionally involved?
I viewed your web site; my perception is that you favour an elected House of Lords. I lean towards the opposite view. However, I must concede that it would stop the scandal of cronyism.
It has been nearly 100 years since the Parliament Act of 1911. Everybody involved with it has passed on into history along with the deep anger and bitterness felt at the time.
The issues surrounding its genesis led to the ‘Peoples Budget’ being allowed something in today’s terms was right and proper. Its a shame that the Monarchy and Parliament did not follow developments in Germany by Von Bismarck:
“Then the Chancellor tried to reduce the appeal of socialism to the public, by trying to appease the working class. He enacted a variety of paternalistic social reforms, which can be considered the first European labor [sic] laws. The Health Insurance Act of 1883 entitled workers to health insurance; the worker paid two-thirds, and the employer one-third, of the premiums. Accident insurance was provided in 1884, and old age pensions and disability insurance in 1889. Other laws restricted the employment of women and children. Still, these efforts were not very successful; the working class largely remained unreconciled with Bismarck’s conservative government.”
Reproduced from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
No doubt this did not go unnoticed by the Fabian Society at the time and it perhaps underpins the very strong welfare system in Germany today.
I hope you will allow the posting on the understanding that Parliamentarians cannot discuss it outside of their respective Houses.
A quick response to Bedd Gelert – on a different ‘fraud’ topic, the BAE Saudi arms contract. The problem is that the House of Lords doesn’t always get the chance to vote down Government decisions.
I do distinctly remember the day in the Chamber when the then Attorney General stood up in the House and calmly announced that the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery and corruption on this arms deal was to cease in the interests of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and joint work on terrorism.
Thus the decision was framed in the context of the ‘national security’.
To say the very least the UK Government’s work to end corruption in ‘third’and/or non-democratic countries has been severely weakened by the BAE decision.