Politicians from all three main parties put aside their differences today to give heartfelt condolences to David Cameron and his family over the death of his six-year-old son, Ivan.
The Conservative leader's first child, who suffered from a rare form of cerebral palsy involving severe degenerative seizures, died at a hospital in West London this morning after being taken ill overnight.
At a tributes session in Parliament which replaced the scheduled Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), Gordon Brown led condolences over the death of Ivan, who had suffered from Ohtohara Syndrome, a neurological condition from which he was not expected to survive childhood.
The Prime Minister was followed by William Hague, the Conservatives’ Shadow Foreign Secretary, and Vincent Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and acting leader, in making their own tributes. Buckingham Palace later said the Queen had also sent a private tribute to the Camerons.
Mr Brown, whose own baby daughter died in 2002, empathised with the “unbearable” sorrow which the Tory leader and his family must be feeling.
“I know that, in an all-too-brief life, he brought joy to all those around him and I know also that, for all the days of his life, he was surrounded by his family’s love,” the Prime Minister said.
“Every child is precious and irreplaceable and the death of a child is an unbearable sorrow that no parent should ever have to endure.”
He added: “Politics can sometimes divide us, but there is a common human bond that unites us in sympathy and compassion at times of trial and in support for each other at times of grief.”
Mr Hague thanked Mr Brown for his tributes and for the “exceptional” step of suggesting the suspension of PMQs, the weekly half-hour heated debate between party leaders.
He passed on a tribute from the Cameron family to all the NHS workers and staff who had given Ivan almost daily care during his short life.
“As much as anyone in the House, the Prime Minister will understand the dimensions of this loss, something which, as he has said, no parIvan’s six years of life were not easy ones. His parents lived with the knowledge for a long time that he could die young but this has made their loss no less heartbreaking.”
He added that Ivan had “suffered much in his short life but he brought joy and love to those around him. As David himself has said in the past, for him and Samantha he will always be their beautiful boy”.
Mr Cable expressed a hope that the Cameron family would be given time to grieve and come to terms with their loss.
“I would simply express the hope that this is a personal tragedy that transcends all party barriers, and I would simply want to express the hope that the family are given the space and there is privacy to grieve and cope with this tragedy that they have experienced,” he said.
After years of struggling against his rare illness, Ivan’s passing was confirmed by a Conservative statement released this morning following an overnight deterioration in his condition.
“It is with great sadness that David and Samantha Cameron must confirm the death of their six-year-old son Ivan," the Conservative Party said.
“Ivan, who suffered from cerebral palsy and severe epilepsy, was taken ill overnight and died at St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, early this morning.
"David and Samantha would ask that their privacy is respected at this terribly difficult time.”
Ivan, who suffered frequent epileptic fits ever since his birth in April 2002, had needed 24-hour care.
Mr Cameron, who has two other children, Nancy, 5, and three-year-old Arthur, had in the past spoken movingly about the “very grim and difficult period” he and his wife endured after learning of Ivan's condition.
“You are depressed for a while because you are grieving for the differences between your hopes and the reality,” he said.
The Tory leader said his son had changed his attitude towards public services, and the NHS in particular, as he became far more reliant on the health service than most politicians.
Mr Cameron cancelled all of his engagements today, including the unveiling of a new portrait of Baroness Thatcher at Number 10, at which Mr Brown was also due to attend. That event was postponed.
PMQs has been cancelled in the past for a variety of reasons. On the day in 1994 that the former Labour leader John Smith died, the Speaker rose to announce his death and suspended the sitting before resuming it at 3.30pm for tributes. Other sessions in the past have been "lost" when the previous day's business has overrun.
Source:the times
search the web
Custom Search
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Found: Robert Mugabe’s secret bolthole in the Far East
ZIMBABWE’S President Robert Mugabe and his wife Grace have secretly bought a £4m bolt-hole in the Far East while his country struggles with hyper-inflation, mass unemployment and a cholera epidemic.
The Mugabes’ house, in an exclusive residential complex in Hong Kong, was purchased on their behalf by a middleman through a shadowy company whose registered office is in a run-down tenement block. When a reporter and a photographer called at the house last week, they were attacked by the Zimbabwean occupants. The assailants were questioned by the police.
The property came to light during a Sunday Times investigation into the Mugabes’ financial interests in Asia, where a web of associates has helped them to spend lavishly on luxuries and stash away millions in bank accounts. In Zimbabwe, meanwhile, inflation has reached 231m%, unemployment stands at 94% and 3,467 people have died in recent months from cholera.
According to sources in Zimbabwe and Asia, Grace Mugabe has splashed out £55,500 on marble statues in Vietnam and £8,700 on a handbag in Singapore. She and her husband have enjoyed some of the region’s finest hotels.
In Hong Kong, where she has discussed a venture to have Zimbabwean diamonds cut and polished in China, her aides paid one hotel bill with a bag of cash containing £10,500.
The Hong Kong house is the first in the Far East to be identified as the Mugabes’. Last Friday two men and a woman objected violently to the arrival of this newspaper’s journalists.
The throat of Colin Galloway, a 46-year-old reporter, was gripped and bruised by a man in his thirties who lifted him off his feet. Galloway was later examined under police supervision at hospital.
Tim O’Rourke, 45, was grabbed by the neck in his second bruising encounter involving the Mugabes in Hong Kong. Last month Grace Mugabe flew at him with her fists after repeatedly punching another Sunday Times photographer in the face in an incident that attracted worldwide publicity.
Hong Kong police said last night that inquiries into a case of alleged common assault on Friday were continuing.
The disclosures about the Mugabes’ Far Eastern interests are certain to anger Zimbabweans already outraged by extravagant celebrations laid on for the dictator’s 85th birthday this week.
Source:the times
The Mugabes’ house, in an exclusive residential complex in Hong Kong, was purchased on their behalf by a middleman through a shadowy company whose registered office is in a run-down tenement block. When a reporter and a photographer called at the house last week, they were attacked by the Zimbabwean occupants. The assailants were questioned by the police.
The property came to light during a Sunday Times investigation into the Mugabes’ financial interests in Asia, where a web of associates has helped them to spend lavishly on luxuries and stash away millions in bank accounts. In Zimbabwe, meanwhile, inflation has reached 231m%, unemployment stands at 94% and 3,467 people have died in recent months from cholera.
According to sources in Zimbabwe and Asia, Grace Mugabe has splashed out £55,500 on marble statues in Vietnam and £8,700 on a handbag in Singapore. She and her husband have enjoyed some of the region’s finest hotels.
In Hong Kong, where she has discussed a venture to have Zimbabwean diamonds cut and polished in China, her aides paid one hotel bill with a bag of cash containing £10,500.
The Hong Kong house is the first in the Far East to be identified as the Mugabes’. Last Friday two men and a woman objected violently to the arrival of this newspaper’s journalists.
The throat of Colin Galloway, a 46-year-old reporter, was gripped and bruised by a man in his thirties who lifted him off his feet. Galloway was later examined under police supervision at hospital.
Tim O’Rourke, 45, was grabbed by the neck in his second bruising encounter involving the Mugabes in Hong Kong. Last month Grace Mugabe flew at him with her fists after repeatedly punching another Sunday Times photographer in the face in an incident that attracted worldwide publicity.
Hong Kong police said last night that inquiries into a case of alleged common assault on Friday were continuing.
The disclosures about the Mugabes’ Far Eastern interests are certain to anger Zimbabweans already outraged by extravagant celebrations laid on for the dictator’s 85th birthday this week.
Source:the times
Hopes for Eidos bid battle fade
Hopes of a counter bid for Eidos appeared to fade yesterday as shares in the developer of the Lara Croft computer games closed the week just ½p above the level of an existing £84.2 million bid by Square Enix, a Japanese rival.
Market rumours suggested that Time Warner, which already holds 20 per cent of the company’s shares, was considering a bid ahead of the release of a game based on its Batman franchise.
However, a banking source said the shares were originally acquired by Warner Bros, the company’s film business, as part of a distribution deal and were not considered to be a strategic investment by its parent TimeWarner.
Eidos shares, which more than doubled on Thursday after Square Enix, which develops the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest role playing titles, made its 32p a share bid, ticked up only ¾p to 32½p yesterday.
AEA Technology fell 1¼p to 17p after the energy consultant said a weaker than expected economy and the recent change of President in the US had caused longer than expected procurement delays.
Afren, the oil explorer, ticked up ¾p to 20p with strong volumes on hopes of upbeat results from drilling its Ebok well in Nigeria due in the next couple of weeks.
Iofina added 6½p to 55p after raising £5 million in a share placing that will allow it to pursue new opportunities in the iodine derivatives market.
Deutsche Land rose 0.12p to 5¾p after potential suitor Prostar Germany, which is headed by its co-founder and former director, Jonathan Elkington, tried to rally shareholders behind its pursuit and allow it access to Deutsche’s books. The AIM-listed group has so far rejected its proposals.
Source:the times
Market rumours suggested that Time Warner, which already holds 20 per cent of the company’s shares, was considering a bid ahead of the release of a game based on its Batman franchise.
However, a banking source said the shares were originally acquired by Warner Bros, the company’s film business, as part of a distribution deal and were not considered to be a strategic investment by its parent TimeWarner.
Eidos shares, which more than doubled on Thursday after Square Enix, which develops the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest role playing titles, made its 32p a share bid, ticked up only ¾p to 32½p yesterday.
AEA Technology fell 1¼p to 17p after the energy consultant said a weaker than expected economy and the recent change of President in the US had caused longer than expected procurement delays.
Afren, the oil explorer, ticked up ¾p to 20p with strong volumes on hopes of upbeat results from drilling its Ebok well in Nigeria due in the next couple of weeks.
Iofina added 6½p to 55p after raising £5 million in a share placing that will allow it to pursue new opportunities in the iodine derivatives market.
Deutsche Land rose 0.12p to 5¾p after potential suitor Prostar Germany, which is headed by its co-founder and former director, Jonathan Elkington, tried to rally shareholders behind its pursuit and allow it access to Deutsche’s books. The AIM-listed group has so far rejected its proposals.
Source:the times
‘Reckless’ RBS blew £200m on top sports stars under Sir Fred Goodwin
ROYAL Bank of Scotland (RBS), bailed out with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, hired top sports stars on “reckless” contracts to entertain clients as part of a £200m sponsorship binge.
Sir Fred Goodwin, the bank’s former chief executive, agreed contracts of up to five years just weeks before he was ousted last October.
Stars signed as “global ambassadors” include Zara Phillips, the rider and granddaughter of the Queen, Jack Nicklaus, the golfer, and Sir Jackie Stewart, the former motor racing champion. Stewart, who is said to have earned £4m to promote RBS said last week: “I am very much still with RBS. My contract has nearly two years to run and they always honour contracts.”
Sachin Tendulkar, the Indian cricket hero, signed a five-year deal just weeks before Goodwin was ousted.
RBS, which announced a £28 billion loss last month, the biggest in British commercial history, said it was obliged to honour deals agreed under Goodwin. The revelation, which follows a row over RBS’s plan to defy public opinion by paying almost £1 billion in bonuses, has angered MPs. John Mann MP, a member of the Treasury select committee, said: “They have been reckless yet again. This doesn’t seem to be a bank that could do anything in moderation. It now needs to realise the golden days are over.” The RBS group now ranks as one of the world’s biggest sports sponsors, with events including the US and British Opens in golf, the Six Nations rugby tournament, the Nat-West series in cricket and Formula One where it sponsors the Williams race team. Its website describes its calendar of events as the RBS World of Sport.
Last year the bank invited 400 guests to the Singapore Grand Prix, where Stewart hosted a cocktail party at the former supreme court building.
Both Stewart and Nicklaus were boyhood heroes of Goodwin, the son of a Paisley electrician.
The banker, who earned £4.2m a year as head of RBS and walked away with an £8.4m pension pot, refused to comment. In 2005, his bank, which is now 68% owned by the taxpayer, printed 2m Scottish £5 notes featuring Nicklaus’s face to celebrate his appearance at St Andrews in the Open Championship, the last major tournament of his career.
Peter Phillips, Zara’s brother, was recruited to run the bank’s £20m sponsorship of the Williams F1 team, which was brokered by Stewart. Phillips is now based in Asia and oversees the team at each Asian grand prix.
A spokeswoman for Zara Phillips, who signed a three-year deal as a sport ambassador for the bank in 2007, said: “RBS has made no move to renegotiate the contract.” A spokesman for the bank said: “All our sponsorship agreements were negotiated on commercial principles and meet strict corporate governance rules.” The bank said it now wanted to “strike the right balance” between obtaining the benefits from sponsorship and trying to reduce costs.
However, one insider said: “We wish we could undo some of these deals but we are signed into contracts.”
Source:the times
Sir Fred Goodwin, the bank’s former chief executive, agreed contracts of up to five years just weeks before he was ousted last October.
Stars signed as “global ambassadors” include Zara Phillips, the rider and granddaughter of the Queen, Jack Nicklaus, the golfer, and Sir Jackie Stewart, the former motor racing champion. Stewart, who is said to have earned £4m to promote RBS said last week: “I am very much still with RBS. My contract has nearly two years to run and they always honour contracts.”
Sachin Tendulkar, the Indian cricket hero, signed a five-year deal just weeks before Goodwin was ousted.
RBS, which announced a £28 billion loss last month, the biggest in British commercial history, said it was obliged to honour deals agreed under Goodwin. The revelation, which follows a row over RBS’s plan to defy public opinion by paying almost £1 billion in bonuses, has angered MPs. John Mann MP, a member of the Treasury select committee, said: “They have been reckless yet again. This doesn’t seem to be a bank that could do anything in moderation. It now needs to realise the golden days are over.” The RBS group now ranks as one of the world’s biggest sports sponsors, with events including the US and British Opens in golf, the Six Nations rugby tournament, the Nat-West series in cricket and Formula One where it sponsors the Williams race team. Its website describes its calendar of events as the RBS World of Sport.
Last year the bank invited 400 guests to the Singapore Grand Prix, where Stewart hosted a cocktail party at the former supreme court building.
Both Stewart and Nicklaus were boyhood heroes of Goodwin, the son of a Paisley electrician.
The banker, who earned £4.2m a year as head of RBS and walked away with an £8.4m pension pot, refused to comment. In 2005, his bank, which is now 68% owned by the taxpayer, printed 2m Scottish £5 notes featuring Nicklaus’s face to celebrate his appearance at St Andrews in the Open Championship, the last major tournament of his career.
Peter Phillips, Zara’s brother, was recruited to run the bank’s £20m sponsorship of the Williams F1 team, which was brokered by Stewart. Phillips is now based in Asia and oversees the team at each Asian grand prix.
A spokeswoman for Zara Phillips, who signed a three-year deal as a sport ambassador for the bank in 2007, said: “RBS has made no move to renegotiate the contract.” A spokesman for the bank said: “All our sponsorship agreements were negotiated on commercial principles and meet strict corporate governance rules.” The bank said it now wanted to “strike the right balance” between obtaining the benefits from sponsorship and trying to reduce costs.
However, one insider said: “We wish we could undo some of these deals but we are signed into contracts.”
Source:the times
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
No more hunger or violence, says PM Tsvangirai
The former opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai vowed today that "no Zimbabwean will ever go hungry again" as he celebrated with thousands of supporters after being sworn in as prime minister by his long-time political foe, Robert Mugabe.
Brushing off doubts about the decision to enter a power-sharing deal, the former trade union leader also vowed to reopen schools immediately and said that he would move to stabilise the Zimbabwean economy by paying civil servants and soldiers in hard currency rather than worthless Zimbabwean dollars.
“Political violence must end today. We can no longer afford brother against brother, because one happened to have a different political opinion,” Mr Tsvangirai told more than 10,000 supporters packed into a sports stadium in central Harare.
“The transitional government will make food available and affordable,” he added. “No Zimbabwean will ever go hungry again... Our hospitals must be places of healing... On Monday, all schools must reopen. This Monday."
Mr Tsvangirai took the oath of office under a white tent on the lawn of Mr Mugabe's presidential mansion, although the two men's body language – they barely looked at each other and exchanged the briefest of handshakes – gave the lie to talk of a "unity government".
The swearing-in caps nearly a year of turmoil that began last March, when Mr Tsvangirai won a first-round presidential vote. After a campaign of intimidation that left at least 180 dead, he pulled out of the run-off vote, leaving Mr Mugabe to claim a one-sided victory widely denounced as a sham.
A power-sharing deal brokered by South Africa was signed last September, but its implementation was repeatedly delayed while key Cabinet portfolios were divided out. Those concerns were finally addressed when the parties agreed to name co-ministers to home affairs, which oversees the police, and to create a new National Security Council that will give all parties control of the security forces.
Mr Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change will control the finance ministry, however, firmly putting the onus on him to fix world-record inflation – prices double every day – and 94 per cent unemployment.
Both Mr Tsvangirai and Mr Mugabe, speaking at State House after the swearing-in, acknowledged the mistrust that marred their negotiations and which critics say could undermine their unity government.
“We are all aware that the road has been long, tedious and often frustrating. It’s has not been easy to overcome the deep-seated mistrust,” Mr Mugabe said. “I offer my hand of friendship and co-operation, warm co-operation and solidarity in the service of our great country Zimbabwe.
“If yesterday we were adversaries... today we stand in unity. It’s a victory for Zimbabwe.”
While welcoming Mr Tsvangirai's appointment, the European Union warned that the new government would have to prove itself before receiving major economic aid. "We are ready to support the economic and social recovery of Zimbabwe once the new government shows tangible signs of respect for human rights, the rule of law, and macro-economic stabilisation,” the EU said in a statement.
Coverage of the swearing-in ceremony on Zimbabwean state television and radio broke down before Mr Tsvangirai, 56, had a chance to address the gathering. Television did show the swearing-in of Mr Tsvangirai's two deputies, Arthur Mutambara, head of a breakaway faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and Thokozani Khupe, who splayed her hand wide in the MDC salute as she took her oath of office.
Both shook hands with Mr Mugabe's wife, Grace, unlike Mr Tsvangirai, although he did greet many of the diplomats and dignitaries present, including Didymus Mutasa, the outgoing Minister for State Security, who has been responsible for the violent repression of MDC activists over the past few years.
Also present was the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, who mediated in the power-sharing talks, as well as President Guezuba of Mozambique and King Mswati III of Swaziland.
The challenges facing Zimbabwe would daunt even the most experienced of administrators. More than half the population needs emergency food aid and unemployment is at 94 per cent.
Public hospitals are closed, with doctors and nurses unpaid, exacerbating a health crisis in a nation where 1.3 million people have HIV and cholera has hit nearly 70,000 people since August, killing about 3,400.
SOURCE:THE TIMES
Brushing off doubts about the decision to enter a power-sharing deal, the former trade union leader also vowed to reopen schools immediately and said that he would move to stabilise the Zimbabwean economy by paying civil servants and soldiers in hard currency rather than worthless Zimbabwean dollars.
“Political violence must end today. We can no longer afford brother against brother, because one happened to have a different political opinion,” Mr Tsvangirai told more than 10,000 supporters packed into a sports stadium in central Harare.
“The transitional government will make food available and affordable,” he added. “No Zimbabwean will ever go hungry again... Our hospitals must be places of healing... On Monday, all schools must reopen. This Monday."
Mr Tsvangirai took the oath of office under a white tent on the lawn of Mr Mugabe's presidential mansion, although the two men's body language – they barely looked at each other and exchanged the briefest of handshakes – gave the lie to talk of a "unity government".
The swearing-in caps nearly a year of turmoil that began last March, when Mr Tsvangirai won a first-round presidential vote. After a campaign of intimidation that left at least 180 dead, he pulled out of the run-off vote, leaving Mr Mugabe to claim a one-sided victory widely denounced as a sham.
A power-sharing deal brokered by South Africa was signed last September, but its implementation was repeatedly delayed while key Cabinet portfolios were divided out. Those concerns were finally addressed when the parties agreed to name co-ministers to home affairs, which oversees the police, and to create a new National Security Council that will give all parties control of the security forces.
Mr Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change will control the finance ministry, however, firmly putting the onus on him to fix world-record inflation – prices double every day – and 94 per cent unemployment.
Both Mr Tsvangirai and Mr Mugabe, speaking at State House after the swearing-in, acknowledged the mistrust that marred their negotiations and which critics say could undermine their unity government.
“We are all aware that the road has been long, tedious and often frustrating. It’s has not been easy to overcome the deep-seated mistrust,” Mr Mugabe said. “I offer my hand of friendship and co-operation, warm co-operation and solidarity in the service of our great country Zimbabwe.
“If yesterday we were adversaries... today we stand in unity. It’s a victory for Zimbabwe.”
While welcoming Mr Tsvangirai's appointment, the European Union warned that the new government would have to prove itself before receiving major economic aid. "We are ready to support the economic and social recovery of Zimbabwe once the new government shows tangible signs of respect for human rights, the rule of law, and macro-economic stabilisation,” the EU said in a statement.
Coverage of the swearing-in ceremony on Zimbabwean state television and radio broke down before Mr Tsvangirai, 56, had a chance to address the gathering. Television did show the swearing-in of Mr Tsvangirai's two deputies, Arthur Mutambara, head of a breakaway faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and Thokozani Khupe, who splayed her hand wide in the MDC salute as she took her oath of office.
Both shook hands with Mr Mugabe's wife, Grace, unlike Mr Tsvangirai, although he did greet many of the diplomats and dignitaries present, including Didymus Mutasa, the outgoing Minister for State Security, who has been responsible for the violent repression of MDC activists over the past few years.
Also present was the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, who mediated in the power-sharing talks, as well as President Guezuba of Mozambique and King Mswati III of Swaziland.
The challenges facing Zimbabwe would daunt even the most experienced of administrators. More than half the population needs emergency food aid and unemployment is at 94 per cent.
Public hospitals are closed, with doctors and nurses unpaid, exacerbating a health crisis in a nation where 1.3 million people have HIV and cholera has hit nearly 70,000 people since August, killing about 3,400.
SOURCE:THE TIMES
Top banker Sir James Crosby quits after whistle-blower claims
The deputy head of the country's financial watchdog resigned today after Gordon Brown withdrew confidence in him over damaging allegations from a bank whistle-blower.
Sir James Crosby, the former HBOS chief executive, stepped down from his role at the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after it was claimed that he personally dismissed his former head of risk who raised fears that the bank was growing too fast.
Sir James resigned minutes after the No 10 spokesman made it clear that Mr Brown he did not have full confidence in the banker.
"These are serious allegations but they are contested allegations," the spokesman said.
In his resignation statement, Sir James said that allegations by the whistle-blower, Paul Moore, had "no merit", a claim disputed by Mr Moore in a fresh statement this afternoon, but that he did not want to distract the FSA from its key roles.
"He [Mr Moore] made a series of allegations. These were independently and extensively investigated on behalf of the [HBOS] board, the results of which they shared with the FSA," Sir James said.
"That investigation concluded that Mr Moore’s allegations had no merit. Last autumn (on a BBC programme) and again yesterday at the Treasury Select Committee he repeated substantially the same allegations. HBOS has reiterated its view that his allegations have no merit."
Sir James, who was appointed to the FSA by the Prime Minister, also wrote two reports for the Government while working as an adviser to the Treasury.
Despite claiming that he was independent of government when he wrote the reports for Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, he added that he wanted to leave his post to allow the FSA to continue to work effectively while under "extreme pressure".
"As a non-executive director I have an absolute responsibility to ensure that I do not make their task any more difficult," Sir James said.
"Therefore, whilst I am totally confident that there is no substance to any of the allegations, I nonetheless feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign from the FSA board which I do with immediate effect.“
The explosive allegations that led to Sir James's resignation were made when four former banking chiefs were grilled before the Treasury Select Committee yesterday.
During the testimony, it was revealed that Mr Moore had said that his job at the time "felt a bit like being a man in a rowing boat trying to slow down an oil tanker".
Mr Moore, a former partner of KPMG who was head of group regulatory risk at HBOS between 2002 and 2005, accused the bank of "a total failure of all key aspects of corporate governance" and pointed the finger of blame firmly at Sir James, whom Mr Darling asked last April to review the problems in the mortgage market.
Mr Moore said that with his dismissal without good reason and replacement by a sales manager with less experience of risk management, Sir James had acted against HBOS rules and the wishes of other directors.
In a fresh statement today, Mr Moore said he stood "firmly and confidently" behind his claims, adding that he had a "significant body of detailed additional evidence" to back them up.
“I am not interested in blame, even though many people will think that this is what my agenda is," he said.
“People who know me will testify to this, but I have to say that I do find it sad that people in such important fiduciary positions find it so difficult to admit their mistakes and to say that they are sorry.
“Fighting to the bitter end is always worse for all concerned.”
The allegations came at a time when risk-taking by banks has come in for huge criticism as Britain slides into recession.
In a bitter House of Commons exchange this lunchtime, the Prime Minister said that Sir James's resignation was the right step to take if he wished to defend himself against the allegations.
"It is right that we investigate serious allegations that are made about the banking system. These are serious but contested allegations," he said.
"In relation to Sir James Crosby, these are allegations that he will wish to defend, so it is right that he has stepped down as vice-chairman of the Financial Services Authority."
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, suggested that Mr Brown admit that he had shown an error of judgment in appointing Sir James as deputy chairman of the FSA and asking him to write reports on the economy for the Government.
In one of the reports, on mortgage finance, Sir James called for government intervention to stimulate the housing markets.
He said there was a strong case for the auction of guarantees “with the explicit objective of containing the impact of the financial turmoil on consumers and the wider economy”.
Mr Cameron said: "Let’s be clear about what has happened. In the last half-hour Sir James, the man who ran HBOS and who the Prime Minister singled out to regulate our banks and advise the Government, has resigned over allegations that he sacked the whistle-blower who knew his bank was taking unacceptable risks.
"Do you accept it was a serious error of judgment on your part to appoint him in the first place?"
Mr Brown reiterated a point made by Sir James, in his resignation letter, that allegations brought before the Treasury Select Committee were independently investigated by KPMG in 2005.
The Tory leader, however, hit back: "Sir James Crosby has had the decency to resign. Why can’t the Prime Minister have the decency to admit he has got something wrong?"
SOURCE:THE TIMES
Sir James Crosby, the former HBOS chief executive, stepped down from his role at the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after it was claimed that he personally dismissed his former head of risk who raised fears that the bank was growing too fast.
Sir James resigned minutes after the No 10 spokesman made it clear that Mr Brown he did not have full confidence in the banker.
"These are serious allegations but they are contested allegations," the spokesman said.
In his resignation statement, Sir James said that allegations by the whistle-blower, Paul Moore, had "no merit", a claim disputed by Mr Moore in a fresh statement this afternoon, but that he did not want to distract the FSA from its key roles.
"He [Mr Moore] made a series of allegations. These were independently and extensively investigated on behalf of the [HBOS] board, the results of which they shared with the FSA," Sir James said.
"That investigation concluded that Mr Moore’s allegations had no merit. Last autumn (on a BBC programme) and again yesterday at the Treasury Select Committee he repeated substantially the same allegations. HBOS has reiterated its view that his allegations have no merit."
Sir James, who was appointed to the FSA by the Prime Minister, also wrote two reports for the Government while working as an adviser to the Treasury.
Despite claiming that he was independent of government when he wrote the reports for Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, he added that he wanted to leave his post to allow the FSA to continue to work effectively while under "extreme pressure".
"As a non-executive director I have an absolute responsibility to ensure that I do not make their task any more difficult," Sir James said.
"Therefore, whilst I am totally confident that there is no substance to any of the allegations, I nonetheless feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign from the FSA board which I do with immediate effect.“
The explosive allegations that led to Sir James's resignation were made when four former banking chiefs were grilled before the Treasury Select Committee yesterday.
During the testimony, it was revealed that Mr Moore had said that his job at the time "felt a bit like being a man in a rowing boat trying to slow down an oil tanker".
Mr Moore, a former partner of KPMG who was head of group regulatory risk at HBOS between 2002 and 2005, accused the bank of "a total failure of all key aspects of corporate governance" and pointed the finger of blame firmly at Sir James, whom Mr Darling asked last April to review the problems in the mortgage market.
Mr Moore said that with his dismissal without good reason and replacement by a sales manager with less experience of risk management, Sir James had acted against HBOS rules and the wishes of other directors.
In a fresh statement today, Mr Moore said he stood "firmly and confidently" behind his claims, adding that he had a "significant body of detailed additional evidence" to back them up.
“I am not interested in blame, even though many people will think that this is what my agenda is," he said.
“People who know me will testify to this, but I have to say that I do find it sad that people in such important fiduciary positions find it so difficult to admit their mistakes and to say that they are sorry.
“Fighting to the bitter end is always worse for all concerned.”
The allegations came at a time when risk-taking by banks has come in for huge criticism as Britain slides into recession.
In a bitter House of Commons exchange this lunchtime, the Prime Minister said that Sir James's resignation was the right step to take if he wished to defend himself against the allegations.
"It is right that we investigate serious allegations that are made about the banking system. These are serious but contested allegations," he said.
"In relation to Sir James Crosby, these are allegations that he will wish to defend, so it is right that he has stepped down as vice-chairman of the Financial Services Authority."
David Cameron, the Conservative leader, suggested that Mr Brown admit that he had shown an error of judgment in appointing Sir James as deputy chairman of the FSA and asking him to write reports on the economy for the Government.
In one of the reports, on mortgage finance, Sir James called for government intervention to stimulate the housing markets.
He said there was a strong case for the auction of guarantees “with the explicit objective of containing the impact of the financial turmoil on consumers and the wider economy”.
Mr Cameron said: "Let’s be clear about what has happened. In the last half-hour Sir James, the man who ran HBOS and who the Prime Minister singled out to regulate our banks and advise the Government, has resigned over allegations that he sacked the whistle-blower who knew his bank was taking unacceptable risks.
"Do you accept it was a serious error of judgment on your part to appoint him in the first place?"
Mr Brown reiterated a point made by Sir James, in his resignation letter, that allegations brought before the Treasury Select Committee were independently investigated by KPMG in 2005.
The Tory leader, however, hit back: "Sir James Crosby has had the decency to resign. Why can’t the Prime Minister have the decency to admit he has got something wrong?"
SOURCE:THE TIMES
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Deal pulls President Obama rescue plan back from the brink
President Obama appeared close last night to a bruising and hard fought victory in his effort to get his massive economic stimulus package passed by the US Senate, but again with almost no Republican support.
Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure yesterday, the Bill was stripped of roughly $120 billion in spending, down to about $780 billion.
The cuts appeared enough to persuade two or three moderate Republicans to support the package - giving Mr Obama just enough votes to force through the centrepiece of his domestic legislative agenda.
There was still debate last night and the deal was tentative, but Mr Obama’s unexpectedly difficult time in getting the package passed has been a sobering experience. The issue has not only gone some way to rallying and re-energising Republicans after their heavy election defeats in November, but has left the president’s hopes of bringing a new era of bipartisanship to Washington looking increasingly forlorn.
Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Leader, indicated last night that a vote could take place on Sunday. The delay would, among other things, give time for Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has brain cancer and is in Florida after suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, to travel back to the chamber.
Democrats hold a 58-41 majority in the Senate, but 60 votes are needed for passage of the bill because it would raise the federal deficit. That threshold would also allow Democrats to cut off any potential Republican efforts to block the measure by filibuster.
Earlier yesterday Mr Obama said further delay to pass the Bill would be "inexcusable and irresponsible" given the worst monthly employment report since 1974 - 598,000 jobs were lost in January and the national unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent. Late in the day federal regulators announced the closure of First Bank Financial Services in Georgia, the seventh failure this year of a federally insured bank.
On Monday, Mr Obama will take to the road for the first time since he entered the Oval office to sell the stimulus package to the US public.
He will first visit Elkhart in Indiana, a city with one of the worst unemployment rates in America, and then onto Fort Myers, Florida, on Tuesday, where at town-hall style meetings he will tell ordinary voters what the Bill means for them.
When the stimulus Bill was passed by the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted for it. In the Senate last night, John McCain, Mr Obama’s election opponent, decried the Bill for what he called its wasteful spending and the fact that it will at a stroke almost double the country’s budget deficit, which is already near $1 trillion.
Mr Obama has received mounting criticism from within his own party in recent days for what some say has been his failure to effectively market the stimulus plan and for allowing Republicans to frequently hijack the debate and place him on the defensive.
In the past 48 hours he has sharpened his rhetoric against his Republican opponents, saying that America faces economic “catastrophe” without the Bill, which is aimed at creating or saving three million jobs. On Monday night he will hold a primetime press conference to again press his case.
Even with passage of the Bill, Mr Obama faces an even tougher task ahead. With the banking sector still in a perilous state, he is likely going to have to ask Congress soon for hundreds of billions of additional dollars to shore up the stricken financial sector - a task that could well prove even more difficult in the Senate.
Source:the times
Amid stunning new job losses and yet another bank failure yesterday, the Bill was stripped of roughly $120 billion in spending, down to about $780 billion.
The cuts appeared enough to persuade two or three moderate Republicans to support the package - giving Mr Obama just enough votes to force through the centrepiece of his domestic legislative agenda.
There was still debate last night and the deal was tentative, but Mr Obama’s unexpectedly difficult time in getting the package passed has been a sobering experience. The issue has not only gone some way to rallying and re-energising Republicans after their heavy election defeats in November, but has left the president’s hopes of bringing a new era of bipartisanship to Washington looking increasingly forlorn.
Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Leader, indicated last night that a vote could take place on Sunday. The delay would, among other things, give time for Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has brain cancer and is in Florida after suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, to travel back to the chamber.
Democrats hold a 58-41 majority in the Senate, but 60 votes are needed for passage of the bill because it would raise the federal deficit. That threshold would also allow Democrats to cut off any potential Republican efforts to block the measure by filibuster.
Earlier yesterday Mr Obama said further delay to pass the Bill would be "inexcusable and irresponsible" given the worst monthly employment report since 1974 - 598,000 jobs were lost in January and the national unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent. Late in the day federal regulators announced the closure of First Bank Financial Services in Georgia, the seventh failure this year of a federally insured bank.
On Monday, Mr Obama will take to the road for the first time since he entered the Oval office to sell the stimulus package to the US public.
He will first visit Elkhart in Indiana, a city with one of the worst unemployment rates in America, and then onto Fort Myers, Florida, on Tuesday, where at town-hall style meetings he will tell ordinary voters what the Bill means for them.
When the stimulus Bill was passed by the House of Representatives last week, not a single Republican voted for it. In the Senate last night, John McCain, Mr Obama’s election opponent, decried the Bill for what he called its wasteful spending and the fact that it will at a stroke almost double the country’s budget deficit, which is already near $1 trillion.
Mr Obama has received mounting criticism from within his own party in recent days for what some say has been his failure to effectively market the stimulus plan and for allowing Republicans to frequently hijack the debate and place him on the defensive.
In the past 48 hours he has sharpened his rhetoric against his Republican opponents, saying that America faces economic “catastrophe” without the Bill, which is aimed at creating or saving three million jobs. On Monday night he will hold a primetime press conference to again press his case.
Even with passage of the Bill, Mr Obama faces an even tougher task ahead. With the banking sector still in a perilous state, he is likely going to have to ask Congress soon for hundreds of billions of additional dollars to shore up the stricken financial sector - a task that could well prove even more difficult in the Senate.
Source:the times
Council house tenants offered £30,000 bribes to move out
Council tenants are being offered £30,000 bribes or cottages by the sea to vacate their homes for credit crunch victims as Britain faces a critical social housing shortage.
Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent encouraging people in social housing to move to the private sector — either as home-buyers or tenants. Those in larger council homes are also being offered cash payments of up to £3,000 per bedroom if they agree to downsize to a smaller social house or apartment.
Tens of thousands of people have taken up the offers but councils plan to push schemes more aggressively in another unexpected consequence of the recession.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders predicts that 75,000 more people will have their homes repossessed this year and there are already 4.5 million people waiting for social housing. That figure is expected to increase to 5 million by the end of this year.
Council chiefs are holding urgent talks with ministers about expanding cash incentive schemes. Some authorities are leafleting council homes to see if they can encourage tenants to downsize or move out. Peter Marsh, head of the Tenant Services Authority, which oversees social housing, also wants councils to make better use of under-occupied social homes. In some areas, pensioners have been living in five-bedroom council houses for decades after their children have moved out and could be happy living in smaller homes, he believes.
About 460,000 social homes are technically underoccupied as they have two or more spare bedrooms. In other cases, families have become wealthier during their council house tenure but are not legally required to give up their house.
Mr Marsh said: “We would support financial incentives to help tenants relocate . . . But it would need to be a voluntary decision and landlords would also need to provide full support to the tenant.”
Gordon Brown wants to kick-start a council housebuilding programme but authorities argue that bonuses to vacate homes are faster and cheaper.
Westminster council gives residents grants of up to £25,000 to relinquish their homes, with the proviso that they will not be rehoused should they become homeless again. Hillingdon offers up to £30,000. Kensington and Chelsea council will spend more than £700,000 this year on rental deposits and removal costs for tenants who are willing to move from social housing to private rentals. Other councils offering cash incentives include Leeds, North Hertfordshire, South Cambridgeshire, Tendring in Clacton-on-Sea, and Redbridge.
Critics warned that the system could be open to political exploitation, echoing the case of Dame Shirley Porter, the Westminster councillor who was accused of “gerrymandering” after helping to sell off council homes to potential Tory voters in the 1980s. There was also concern that vulnerable people might be encouraged to move without understanding the consequences of downsizing.
Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister, said: “We need reassurance that tenants, especially the elderly or the vulnerable, are not pressured or coerced. I am concerned there is a potential for a new mis-selling scandal.”
Matthew Elliott, head of the Tax-Payers’ Alliance, said: “Council housing should be a safety net for those fallen on hard times . . . When you have some councils dishing out £25,000 with no questions asked and very few conditions, that smacks of desperation rather than good management.”
Paul Bettison, of the Local Government Authority, said council house shortages were critical and more needed to be done to free up homes, but town halls would need more government cash for schemes. Helping only 40 people with £25,000 payments to help buy a house would cost £1 million. “By the end of 2009 one in ten families will be on council house waiting lists. Hard-pressed authorities ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said.
Source:the times
Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent encouraging people in social housing to move to the private sector — either as home-buyers or tenants. Those in larger council homes are also being offered cash payments of up to £3,000 per bedroom if they agree to downsize to a smaller social house or apartment.
Tens of thousands of people have taken up the offers but councils plan to push schemes more aggressively in another unexpected consequence of the recession.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders predicts that 75,000 more people will have their homes repossessed this year and there are already 4.5 million people waiting for social housing. That figure is expected to increase to 5 million by the end of this year.
Council chiefs are holding urgent talks with ministers about expanding cash incentive schemes. Some authorities are leafleting council homes to see if they can encourage tenants to downsize or move out. Peter Marsh, head of the Tenant Services Authority, which oversees social housing, also wants councils to make better use of under-occupied social homes. In some areas, pensioners have been living in five-bedroom council houses for decades after their children have moved out and could be happy living in smaller homes, he believes.
About 460,000 social homes are technically underoccupied as they have two or more spare bedrooms. In other cases, families have become wealthier during their council house tenure but are not legally required to give up their house.
Mr Marsh said: “We would support financial incentives to help tenants relocate . . . But it would need to be a voluntary decision and landlords would also need to provide full support to the tenant.”
Gordon Brown wants to kick-start a council housebuilding programme but authorities argue that bonuses to vacate homes are faster and cheaper.
Westminster council gives residents grants of up to £25,000 to relinquish their homes, with the proviso that they will not be rehoused should they become homeless again. Hillingdon offers up to £30,000. Kensington and Chelsea council will spend more than £700,000 this year on rental deposits and removal costs for tenants who are willing to move from social housing to private rentals. Other councils offering cash incentives include Leeds, North Hertfordshire, South Cambridgeshire, Tendring in Clacton-on-Sea, and Redbridge.
Critics warned that the system could be open to political exploitation, echoing the case of Dame Shirley Porter, the Westminster councillor who was accused of “gerrymandering” after helping to sell off council homes to potential Tory voters in the 1980s. There was also concern that vulnerable people might be encouraged to move without understanding the consequences of downsizing.
Grant Shapps, the Shadow Housing Minister, said: “We need reassurance that tenants, especially the elderly or the vulnerable, are not pressured or coerced. I am concerned there is a potential for a new mis-selling scandal.”
Matthew Elliott, head of the Tax-Payers’ Alliance, said: “Council housing should be a safety net for those fallen on hard times . . . When you have some councils dishing out £25,000 with no questions asked and very few conditions, that smacks of desperation rather than good management.”
Paul Bettison, of the Local Government Authority, said council house shortages were critical and more needed to be done to free up homes, but town halls would need more government cash for schemes. Helping only 40 people with £25,000 payments to help buy a house would cost £1 million. “By the end of 2009 one in ten families will be on council house waiting lists. Hard-pressed authorities ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said.
Source:the times
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Obasanjo rallies: Group sues FG over N500m debt
Former President of Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo vacated office on May 29, 2007 after his eight years tenure. But deeds or misdeeds of his Presidency continue to echo.
One of them is an alleged debt of N500million for which a group has dragged President Umaru Yar‘Adua to court.
Following Federal Government‘s adamant posture to its several demands for the debt liquidation, the group on February 22, 2008 wrote a notice of legal action to President Yar‘Adua.
Copies of the legal notice were also sent to the Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker, House of Representatives and Obasanjo.
The case was filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja , presided over by Justice Abdullahi Mustafa.
The group operating under the aegis of Obasanjo/Atiku Alliance Crusade claimed that it helped to mobilise a crowd for solidarity rallies for Obasanjo‘s Presidency when it was in trouble.
Leader of the group, Rev. George Igwe, describes himself as a cleric of Cherubim and Seraphim Church of Nigeria.
Besides the N500m demand, Igwe is also asking for N100m payments as damages from the Presidency for allegedly breaching a contractual agreement for ”National Road March Protest against C-in-C‘s Impeachment” by members of the House of Representatives in August, 2002.
The period in question was when Obasanjo Presidency‘s frosty relationship with the House under the Speaker, Alhaji Ghali Umar Na‘Abba reached its height.
Apart from Igwe, Messrs Dickson Omoregie, Ezekiel M. D. Yusuf and one Alhaji Suleman Imam are other plaintiffs in the case.
According to Igwe, the group had suffered many threats including a February 28, 2008 case acknowledged by the police as ”robbery by unknown persons”.
Furthermore, he explained that he was detained at Asokoro Police station for 21 days for insisting that the money be paid.
Police, he alleged, once raided his house and evacuated important documents, adding that the psychological trauma he underwent now required medical treatment overseas.
The respondents in the case are the President, the Federal Government, Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo and the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation.
In the court documents made available to SUNDAY PUNCH, the plaintiffs presented documents bearing the signature of Obasanjo and Oshinowo who was his Special Assistant (Political Matters) during the period.
Relief by the plaintiffs include, ”a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the balance of the sum of N499,500,000 (four hundred and ninety nine million, five hundred thousand naira) as contained in clause 1 of EXH. E.”
In the alternative, they prayed the court to direct the defendants or their servants or agents to pay them the N500m and 10 per cent accumulated interest on the amount from 2003 to 2008.
When contacted for his reaction, Oshinowo did not deny knowing Igwe but dismissed his allegation.
He said he had reported the plaintiff to appropriate government agencies immediately he discovered there was a ploy to defraud government.
He said, ”There is no truth in his claim; if you take a careful look at the signature on two of the documents, they are exactly the same and that is evidence that he scanned my signature from somewhere.
”By the time the court is through, we will all know the truth of the matter. I reported him (Igwe) to the appropriate authorities because I found out that he wanted to defraud the government. In due course, the truth will be established.”
In a 36-six point affidavit, Igwe and other leaders of OAAC alleged that aside from visits to the Presidential Villa, including taking photographs with Obasanjo, they were given access to some top citizens because of the crowd mobilisation contract.
They stated that those that OAAC had either interpersonal or correspondence contacts with over the N500m contract included the erstwhile president, his wife, late Mrs. Stella Obasanjo and the former Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun.
Others included the erstwhile Director-General of the Obasanjo/Atiku Presidential Campaign Organisation, Ambassador Fidelis Tapgun who purportedly gave Igwe N500, 000 to defray some costs.
They further attached copies of two letters of special introduction with reference numbers SH/COS/22/1103 and SH/COS/23/1103 dated August 8, 2002 and addressed to former chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Chief Audu Ogbeh, and a former governor of Rivers State , Dr. Peter Odili.
Both letters were purportedly written on State House letter heads and allegedly signed by Oshinowo.
The OAAC members also tendered a letter dated August 8, 2002 with reference number SH/COS/20/1103 purportedly signed by Dr, Gbolade Oshinowo.
The letter urged them to embark on a protest march against the impeachment moves by Hon Ghali Na‘Abba and others, on August 20, 2002.
The letter was copied to the Inspector-General of police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, stating that a request had been made for his support.
Other documents attached to the affidavit included one with State House reference number SH/C-in-C/205/2002 dated August 12, 2002, entitled “Power of Attorney” and signed by Chief Obasanjo.
“I have directed and authorised Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo (SA) to act on behalf of the Federal Executive Council during your meetings. Your organisation should see him as a representative of the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria during the National Working Committee meetings on how to execute the “Protest March” against the impeachment of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
”Any undertaking he agrees with you and your organisation is duly authorised by the Federal Executive Council and shall be fulfilled,” the letter stated.
The leader of OAAC, Igwe wrote a ”Letter of Acceptance” addressed to the President and dated August 14, 2002, while he (Igwe) and Dr. Oshinowo purportedly signed a ”Memorandum of Understanding” dated August 19, 2002 and with reference number SH/COS/033/1203.
It stated that the Presidency had warmly accepted the OAAC.
The ”memorandum of Understanding” emphasized the significance of the planned solidarity march to the National Assembly in protest against impeaching President Obasanjo and six major benefits were purported to have been agreed upon for OAAC as follows:
-Cash payment of 500 million to run OAAC‘s offices nationwide;
-Provision of a secretariat office complex for OAAC within Abuja ;
-Purchase of 38 Peugeot cars and six buses for OAAC;
-Allocation of a comfortable and well-protected residence for OAAC‘s leader, Igwe;
-A special gift of one Hummer jeep to Igwe, and ;
-Allocation of a plot of land to enable the OAAC to build its permanent national secretariat in Abuja .
In a demand letter of June 30, 2008, the OAAC‘s counsel, Mr. Onyechi Egwuonwu gave President Umar Yar‘Adua a Notice of Legal Action and demanded that Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo should be made to swear an affidavit to back his claims that he did not sign the documents relating to the N500 million contract between OAAC and the Presidency.
The lawyer and the plaintiffs said though Oshinowo was now denying knowledge of the N500 million contracts and its execution, a video recording in possession of State Security Services and tendered in court as exhibits showed that he (Oshinowo) spoke on behalf of President Obasanjo at the protest march.
However, in a counter affidavit, one Stephen Ekeji, a Litigation Clerk in the law firm of F. N. Nwosu stated that one Mr. Nnanna Ibom who spoke on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Justice and other defendants wanted the court to believe that Oshinowo neither signed the purported documents nor attended the protest march.
The presiding judge, Justice Mustafa has fixed February 3, 2009 for hearing of the matter, which was filed August 5, 2008.
Source:the punch
One of them is an alleged debt of N500million for which a group has dragged President Umaru Yar‘Adua to court.
Following Federal Government‘s adamant posture to its several demands for the debt liquidation, the group on February 22, 2008 wrote a notice of legal action to President Yar‘Adua.
Copies of the legal notice were also sent to the Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker, House of Representatives and Obasanjo.
The case was filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja , presided over by Justice Abdullahi Mustafa.
The group operating under the aegis of Obasanjo/Atiku Alliance Crusade claimed that it helped to mobilise a crowd for solidarity rallies for Obasanjo‘s Presidency when it was in trouble.
Leader of the group, Rev. George Igwe, describes himself as a cleric of Cherubim and Seraphim Church of Nigeria.
Besides the N500m demand, Igwe is also asking for N100m payments as damages from the Presidency for allegedly breaching a contractual agreement for ”National Road March Protest against C-in-C‘s Impeachment” by members of the House of Representatives in August, 2002.
The period in question was when Obasanjo Presidency‘s frosty relationship with the House under the Speaker, Alhaji Ghali Umar Na‘Abba reached its height.
Apart from Igwe, Messrs Dickson Omoregie, Ezekiel M. D. Yusuf and one Alhaji Suleman Imam are other plaintiffs in the case.
According to Igwe, the group had suffered many threats including a February 28, 2008 case acknowledged by the police as ”robbery by unknown persons”.
Furthermore, he explained that he was detained at Asokoro Police station for 21 days for insisting that the money be paid.
Police, he alleged, once raided his house and evacuated important documents, adding that the psychological trauma he underwent now required medical treatment overseas.
The respondents in the case are the President, the Federal Government, Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo and the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation.
In the court documents made available to SUNDAY PUNCH, the plaintiffs presented documents bearing the signature of Obasanjo and Oshinowo who was his Special Assistant (Political Matters) during the period.
Relief by the plaintiffs include, ”a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the balance of the sum of N499,500,000 (four hundred and ninety nine million, five hundred thousand naira) as contained in clause 1 of EXH. E.”
In the alternative, they prayed the court to direct the defendants or their servants or agents to pay them the N500m and 10 per cent accumulated interest on the amount from 2003 to 2008.
When contacted for his reaction, Oshinowo did not deny knowing Igwe but dismissed his allegation.
He said he had reported the plaintiff to appropriate government agencies immediately he discovered there was a ploy to defraud government.
He said, ”There is no truth in his claim; if you take a careful look at the signature on two of the documents, they are exactly the same and that is evidence that he scanned my signature from somewhere.
”By the time the court is through, we will all know the truth of the matter. I reported him (Igwe) to the appropriate authorities because I found out that he wanted to defraud the government. In due course, the truth will be established.”
In a 36-six point affidavit, Igwe and other leaders of OAAC alleged that aside from visits to the Presidential Villa, including taking photographs with Obasanjo, they were given access to some top citizens because of the crowd mobilisation contract.
They stated that those that OAAC had either interpersonal or correspondence contacts with over the N500m contract included the erstwhile president, his wife, late Mrs. Stella Obasanjo and the former Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun.
Others included the erstwhile Director-General of the Obasanjo/Atiku Presidential Campaign Organisation, Ambassador Fidelis Tapgun who purportedly gave Igwe N500, 000 to defray some costs.
They further attached copies of two letters of special introduction with reference numbers SH/COS/22/1103 and SH/COS/23/1103 dated August 8, 2002 and addressed to former chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Chief Audu Ogbeh, and a former governor of Rivers State , Dr. Peter Odili.
Both letters were purportedly written on State House letter heads and allegedly signed by Oshinowo.
The OAAC members also tendered a letter dated August 8, 2002 with reference number SH/COS/20/1103 purportedly signed by Dr, Gbolade Oshinowo.
The letter urged them to embark on a protest march against the impeachment moves by Hon Ghali Na‘Abba and others, on August 20, 2002.
The letter was copied to the Inspector-General of police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, stating that a request had been made for his support.
Other documents attached to the affidavit included one with State House reference number SH/C-in-C/205/2002 dated August 12, 2002, entitled “Power of Attorney” and signed by Chief Obasanjo.
“I have directed and authorised Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo (SA) to act on behalf of the Federal Executive Council during your meetings. Your organisation should see him as a representative of the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria during the National Working Committee meetings on how to execute the “Protest March” against the impeachment of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
”Any undertaking he agrees with you and your organisation is duly authorised by the Federal Executive Council and shall be fulfilled,” the letter stated.
The leader of OAAC, Igwe wrote a ”Letter of Acceptance” addressed to the President and dated August 14, 2002, while he (Igwe) and Dr. Oshinowo purportedly signed a ”Memorandum of Understanding” dated August 19, 2002 and with reference number SH/COS/033/1203.
It stated that the Presidency had warmly accepted the OAAC.
The ”memorandum of Understanding” emphasized the significance of the planned solidarity march to the National Assembly in protest against impeaching President Obasanjo and six major benefits were purported to have been agreed upon for OAAC as follows:
-Cash payment of 500 million to run OAAC‘s offices nationwide;
-Provision of a secretariat office complex for OAAC within Abuja ;
-Purchase of 38 Peugeot cars and six buses for OAAC;
-Allocation of a comfortable and well-protected residence for OAAC‘s leader, Igwe;
-A special gift of one Hummer jeep to Igwe, and ;
-Allocation of a plot of land to enable the OAAC to build its permanent national secretariat in Abuja .
In a demand letter of June 30, 2008, the OAAC‘s counsel, Mr. Onyechi Egwuonwu gave President Umar Yar‘Adua a Notice of Legal Action and demanded that Dr. Gbolade Oshinowo should be made to swear an affidavit to back his claims that he did not sign the documents relating to the N500 million contract between OAAC and the Presidency.
The lawyer and the plaintiffs said though Oshinowo was now denying knowledge of the N500 million contracts and its execution, a video recording in possession of State Security Services and tendered in court as exhibits showed that he (Oshinowo) spoke on behalf of President Obasanjo at the protest march.
However, in a counter affidavit, one Stephen Ekeji, a Litigation Clerk in the law firm of F. N. Nwosu stated that one Mr. Nnanna Ibom who spoke on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Justice and other defendants wanted the court to believe that Oshinowo neither signed the purported documents nor attended the protest march.
The presiding judge, Justice Mustafa has fixed February 3, 2009 for hearing of the matter, which was filed August 5, 2008.
Source:the punch
Jimmy Carter’ tag has Obama wincing
LESS than two weeks into his administration, President Barack Obama is being portrayed by opponents as a new Jimmy Carter - weak at home and naive abroad - in an attempt to dim his post-election glow and ensure that he serves only one term.
The charge has stung because it was made privately by Hillary Clinton supporters during a hard-fought primary campaign and plays to fears about Obama’s inexperience.
He is engaged in early trials of strength with Republicans in Washington and critics of the United States around the world – not least Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. Obama faces battles to talk Wall Street into giving up its addiction to large bonuses and US banks to start lending again.
“Barack Obama thinks he can charm his adversaries into changing their ways but his personality can’t change the dynamics,” said Tom Edmonds, a Republican consultant.
“Carter [president from 1977 to 1981] had the same belief in naive symbolism. Their styles are very different but the political similarities are there.”
The Republicans are in fighting mood after Obama failed to secure a single vote on their side for his $819 billion financial stimulus package in the House of Representatives, despite intensive wooing.
The bill came laden with spending on Democratic pet projects, including $50m for the arts and $400m for global warming research that critics said had little to do with boosting the economy. It also contains “buy American” protectionist provisions that have alarmed trading partners, including Britain.
Obama is striking back with an audacious bid to acquire a “liberal super-majority”, giving the Democrats untrammelled power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives. He hopes to appoint Judd Gregg, a Republican senator, as commerce secretary, leaving Gregg’s Senate seat at the disposal of the governor of New Hampshire, a Democrat.
If Gregg is appointed and Al Franken wins a disputed Senate recount battle in Minnesota, as seems likely, the Democrats will attain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, allowing them to push through policies without obstruction.
“This is about as strong a power play as you can make in politics,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant. “It would give Barack Obama the political dominance that Karl Rove talked about the Republicans achieving.”
A Diageo/Hotline poll last week found that 75% of voters are “confident” that Obama will bring “real change to the way things are done in Washington” - a rise of nine points since the election.
“He is no Jimmy Carter,” said Devine, who added that Clinton supporters had made the same mistake of underestimating Obama.
However, Republicans believe he could be ejected in four years if they can portray him as the creature of spendthrift Democrats, with an ineffectual plan for dragging the US economy out of recession.
“This is the Republicans’ way back. They have to return to their core values of cutting spending and taxes,” said Edmonds. “If the stimulus package doesn’t work, it is Obama’s failure. It’s got his name on it.”
Obama continued his charm offensive with Republicans this weekend by inviting a group of senators and congressmen from both parties to the White House to watch the Super Bowl - the biggest match in American football.
Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate last year, was due to share his spotlight last night at the Alfalfa dinner, a black-tie affair where business leaders and politicians exchange jokes and insults.
Palin said Obama’s presence had drawn her to the event: “How often will I have an opportunity to have dinner with the president? I will take up that offer to do so.”
Peggy Noonan, the conservative commentator, warned that Obama’s star power was being overplayed. “He is never not on the screen. I know what his people are thinking. Put his image on the age. Imprint the era with his face. But it’s already reaching saturation point,” she wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Obama runs the risk that every rebuff is regarded as a personal setback. His first full week in power has been clouded by the farcical presence of Rod Blagojevich, the impeached former governor of Illinois, and revelations that Tom Daschle, his choice for health secretary, had failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
The president’s foreign policy offensive also got off to an uncertain start. Critics claim there are too many czars and special envoys at the White House and State Department, who will end up fighting rather than problem solving.
George Mitchell’s first foray into the Middle East as special envoy last week was greeted by the Israeli bombing of tunnels on the Egypt-Gaza border.
America’s European allies, including Britain, have shown little interest in helping to close Guantanamo Bay by taking detainees, nor in stumping up the money and troops for a surge in Afghanistan. At home there has been an outbreak of nimbyism over the housing of Guantanamo detainees at US mainland prisons.
Obama’s offer of talks with Iran in his first interview as president on al-Arabiya, an Arab television station, prompted a demand from Ahmadinejad that America apologise for its “crimes”.
Michael Rubin, an expert on Iran at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said Obama’s approach to Iran was similar to that of Carter, who wrote a personal letter to Ayatollah Kho-meini after a term of office marred by the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and a failed attempt to rescue 52 diplomatic staff held hostage.
“It is a little bit naive. The problem hasn’t been a lack of dialogue or the policies of George W Bush. It’s not all about us,” said Rubin.
A foreign policy expert who has advised Obama said the president was being challenged on “multiple fronts” - from Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan to Iraq and Iran: “It is a test of his strength and wisdom. The Republicans found a way to posture against the stimulus bill and it’s even easier to posture against his foreign policy. There is pressure to craft his foreign policy so that it is not seen as weak.”
According to the adviser, the public offer to talk to Iran has given opponents such as Ahmadinejad the opportunity to grandstand. “It would be helpful to begin talks privately, as Henry Kissinger did with China before [President Rich-ard] Nixon’s visit,” he said.
In the months to come, this may be the course that Obama takes as he switches out of campaign mode and begins governing. The first lesson will be that he cannot please all the people all the time.
Drug arrest
The half-brother of Barack Obama has been arrested in Kenya for possession of marijuana and resisting arrest, writes Sarah Baxter. George Obama, 26, will appear in court in Nairobi tomorrow. Police claim he was found with one joint.
Obama told CNN from behind bars that he was innocent. “They took me from my home. I don’t know why they are charging me,” he said.
source: the times
The charge has stung because it was made privately by Hillary Clinton supporters during a hard-fought primary campaign and plays to fears about Obama’s inexperience.
He is engaged in early trials of strength with Republicans in Washington and critics of the United States around the world – not least Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. Obama faces battles to talk Wall Street into giving up its addiction to large bonuses and US banks to start lending again.
“Barack Obama thinks he can charm his adversaries into changing their ways but his personality can’t change the dynamics,” said Tom Edmonds, a Republican consultant.
“Carter [president from 1977 to 1981] had the same belief in naive symbolism. Their styles are very different but the political similarities are there.”
The Republicans are in fighting mood after Obama failed to secure a single vote on their side for his $819 billion financial stimulus package in the House of Representatives, despite intensive wooing.
The bill came laden with spending on Democratic pet projects, including $50m for the arts and $400m for global warming research that critics said had little to do with boosting the economy. It also contains “buy American” protectionist provisions that have alarmed trading partners, including Britain.
Obama is striking back with an audacious bid to acquire a “liberal super-majority”, giving the Democrats untrammelled power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives. He hopes to appoint Judd Gregg, a Republican senator, as commerce secretary, leaving Gregg’s Senate seat at the disposal of the governor of New Hampshire, a Democrat.
If Gregg is appointed and Al Franken wins a disputed Senate recount battle in Minnesota, as seems likely, the Democrats will attain a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, allowing them to push through policies without obstruction.
“This is about as strong a power play as you can make in politics,” said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant. “It would give Barack Obama the political dominance that Karl Rove talked about the Republicans achieving.”
A Diageo/Hotline poll last week found that 75% of voters are “confident” that Obama will bring “real change to the way things are done in Washington” - a rise of nine points since the election.
“He is no Jimmy Carter,” said Devine, who added that Clinton supporters had made the same mistake of underestimating Obama.
However, Republicans believe he could be ejected in four years if they can portray him as the creature of spendthrift Democrats, with an ineffectual plan for dragging the US economy out of recession.
“This is the Republicans’ way back. They have to return to their core values of cutting spending and taxes,” said Edmonds. “If the stimulus package doesn’t work, it is Obama’s failure. It’s got his name on it.”
Obama continued his charm offensive with Republicans this weekend by inviting a group of senators and congressmen from both parties to the White House to watch the Super Bowl - the biggest match in American football.
Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate last year, was due to share his spotlight last night at the Alfalfa dinner, a black-tie affair where business leaders and politicians exchange jokes and insults.
Palin said Obama’s presence had drawn her to the event: “How often will I have an opportunity to have dinner with the president? I will take up that offer to do so.”
Peggy Noonan, the conservative commentator, warned that Obama’s star power was being overplayed. “He is never not on the screen. I know what his people are thinking. Put his image on the age. Imprint the era with his face. But it’s already reaching saturation point,” she wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
Obama runs the risk that every rebuff is regarded as a personal setback. His first full week in power has been clouded by the farcical presence of Rod Blagojevich, the impeached former governor of Illinois, and revelations that Tom Daschle, his choice for health secretary, had failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes.
The president’s foreign policy offensive also got off to an uncertain start. Critics claim there are too many czars and special envoys at the White House and State Department, who will end up fighting rather than problem solving.
George Mitchell’s first foray into the Middle East as special envoy last week was greeted by the Israeli bombing of tunnels on the Egypt-Gaza border.
America’s European allies, including Britain, have shown little interest in helping to close Guantanamo Bay by taking detainees, nor in stumping up the money and troops for a surge in Afghanistan. At home there has been an outbreak of nimbyism over the housing of Guantanamo detainees at US mainland prisons.
Obama’s offer of talks with Iran in his first interview as president on al-Arabiya, an Arab television station, prompted a demand from Ahmadinejad that America apologise for its “crimes”.
Michael Rubin, an expert on Iran at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said Obama’s approach to Iran was similar to that of Carter, who wrote a personal letter to Ayatollah Kho-meini after a term of office marred by the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and a failed attempt to rescue 52 diplomatic staff held hostage.
“It is a little bit naive. The problem hasn’t been a lack of dialogue or the policies of George W Bush. It’s not all about us,” said Rubin.
A foreign policy expert who has advised Obama said the president was being challenged on “multiple fronts” - from Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan to Iraq and Iran: “It is a test of his strength and wisdom. The Republicans found a way to posture against the stimulus bill and it’s even easier to posture against his foreign policy. There is pressure to craft his foreign policy so that it is not seen as weak.”
According to the adviser, the public offer to talk to Iran has given opponents such as Ahmadinejad the opportunity to grandstand. “It would be helpful to begin talks privately, as Henry Kissinger did with China before [President Rich-ard] Nixon’s visit,” he said.
In the months to come, this may be the course that Obama takes as he switches out of campaign mode and begins governing. The first lesson will be that he cannot please all the people all the time.
Drug arrest
The half-brother of Barack Obama has been arrested in Kenya for possession of marijuana and resisting arrest, writes Sarah Baxter. George Obama, 26, will appear in court in Nairobi tomorrow. Police claim he was found with one joint.
Obama told CNN from behind bars that he was innocent. “They took me from my home. I don’t know why they are charging me,” he said.
source: the times
Archer and Black to be ousted from Lords
PEERS who avoid tax or have criminal convictions - such as Lord Archer and Lord Black - are to be expelled from the House of Lords in the wake of the lords for hire scandal.
The reforms are being drawn up by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, in an attempt to restore the Lords’ battered reputation after last weekend’s revelations in The Sunday Times. He plans to enact the legislation necessary to expel them before the general election, which has to be held by May next year.
Peers who are “non-domiciled” or “non-resident” for tax purposes - there are thought to be at least seven - will lose their seats, as will those who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence.
Our disclosures that Labour peers were prepared to amend laws in the Lords on behalf of businesses has lifted the lid on the frenetic business activity in the second chamber. Today we can further disclose that: Lord Truscott, one of those named in the lords for hire scandal, met the energy minister, allegedly without declaring that he was being paid by a lobbying firm that had among its clients Russia’s state-owned gas giant Gazprom.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who was also named, lobbied a civil servant about a planning application for a power plant put forward by a paying client. Lord Snape, another named peer and a consultant to First-Group, the transport company, had previously tabled two amendments favourable to bus companies. He withdrew them to avoid any suggestion of a conflict of interest.
Our inquiries have established that other peers are routinely attempting to change legislation that would favour companies and organisations which pay them.
At present the author Jeffrey Archer, who received a four-year jail sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice, and Conrad Black, the former Daily Telegraph proprietor jailed for fraud, are allowed to remain peers despite their criminal convictions.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, said the system was “bananas”.
There is now also cross-party agreement on ridding the Lords of members who avoid paying tax. Nonresidents are people who live abroad to avoid paying tax and nondomiciles are people who are resident in the UK but were born abroad and are therefore “domiciled” abroad for tax purposes.
Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire Tory donor, has repeatedly refused to confirm his tax status, while Lord Laidlaw, the Conservatives’ biggest donor, lives in Monaco and is widely reported to be a tax exile.
Lord Paul, the steel magnate and billionaire Labour donor, and Baroness Gardner, the Australian Conservative peer, are both openly non-domiciled. Lord Foster, the architect who is a cross-bencher, lives in Switzerland. His staff refuse to answer questions about his tax status.
In a further effort to clean up the upper house, Straw is ready to put the Lords Appointments Commission onto a statutory basis for the first time, giving it powers to eject peers who break undertakings made when they accept peerages.
Sources close to Straw say he is expected to use a Commons bill on constitutional renewal, already in the pipeline, to make the changes, which have Tory and Liberal Democrat backing. These changes would be retrospective. A private member’s bill on nondoms and nonresidents, drawn up by Matthew Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, and going through the Lords, is likely to be used as a template.
“Nondom and nonresident peers can hide their income in tropical tax havens: they must pay up or pack up. Meanwhile, peers convicted of fraud or perjury can stroll out of the prison gates after breakfast and into the division lobby after lunch. Tax-dodgers, bung-takers, fraudsters and perjurers must be cleared out of parliament now,” Oakeshott said.
Last week it was disclosed that Taylor, a former education adviser to Downing Street, Snape, a former whip and Truscott and Lord Moonie, former ministers, were secretly recorded telling undercover reporters posing as lobbyists that they could assist them in changing a law. They discussed fees of between £24,000 and £120,000.
Each said they could not personally put down the amendments and no payments were actually made, as it was a newspaper investigation. All deny breaking any parliamentary rules. But both Taylor and Truscott indicated they had previously helped to secure changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.
On Friday The Sunday Times sent dossiers of transcripts and tape recordings to the Lords authorities and to Scotland Yard, who had both requested our evidence.
During the undercover investigation, Truscott, the energy minister until 2007, said he had recently been talking to Gazprom about issues of interest to the firm. The Russian state-owned gas company is hoping to become a main player in the UK gas market.
He said that his contact with the gas company was through Gavin Anderson, a public affairs company which has been paying him as an adviser since November 2007. “One of the companies I advise, advises Gazprom. I don’t advise Gazprom directly,” he said.
It has now emerged that in February 2008 Truscott had lunch with Malcolm Wicks, his successor as energy minister, and, according to a source, did not mention his link to Gazprom.
Wicks said: “We had lunch and chatted about all sorts of things, mainly as I recall about Russia which Peter [Truscott] has a strong interest in. We talked about energy policy . . . we talked about where we’re going to get our gas in Europe and Russia crops up, of course it does.”
The source said Wicks was “amazed” later to discover the Gazprom connection. “Gazprom is no ordinary gas company, it’s crucial to the Russian economy and everyone knows how close it is to Putin and the state,” the source said.
Truscott, 49, has a Russian wife, Svetlana, and has written three books on the country, including a biography of Putin, the prime minister, which was well received in Moscow.
He told the undercover reporters that he had just had lunch with a Gazprom executive and had given the company’s delegates a guided tour of parliament.
He was recorded saying: “When I was energy minister they [the government] were very wary about letting Gazprom in and there were other issues, security issues as well, some of which is secret.
“Now it’s still very sensitive. The UK arm of Gazprom is gradually expanding in the UK and expanding in the retail sector. The big issue a couple of years ago was Gazprom buying Centrica. That was a security issue. So these are the sorts of things I advise them on as well.”
Truscott was unavailable for comment yesterday. His appointment with Gavin Anderson was cleared by the body that monitors former ministers’ outside interests before his meeting with Wicks.
Gavin Anderson has suspended Truscott pending the outcome of the lords for hire inquiry. A spokesman denied he had been advising Gazprom and claimed he had met their executives only informally at industry events. Gazprom Marketing & Trading, the UK subsidiary of Gazprom, said Truscott had never acted as an adviser.
Further details have also emerged about the activities of Taylor. The undercover reporters taped Taylor boasting of how he knew key civil servants and named Gary Mohammed, an official who recommends whether power stations should be approved.
Last week Mohammed said he had been lobbied by Taylor in the late 1990s about an application to build a £600m gas power station in Fleetwood, Lancashire. Taylor later took Mohammed for lunch at the House of Lords.
At the time Taylor was paid £80,000 over a two-year period by Canatxx, one of two companies behind plans for the power station. Last week Taylor confirmed that he had lobbied Mohammed and said he declared his paid interests at the time. His lawyer said: “Lord Taylor has committed no criminal offence and has broken no rule of the House of Lords.”
It can also be disclosed that Snape, who is paid by First-Group, tabled two amendments to the Local Transport Bill as it passed through parliament last year. The changes would have favoured bus companies in dealings with councils. Later Snape decided against formally moving the amendments.
His lawyer said last week the peer took the decision to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. A spokesman for First-Group said Snape was paid as a public affairs adviser and the company did not request him to put down amendments.
source: the times
The reforms are being drawn up by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, in an attempt to restore the Lords’ battered reputation after last weekend’s revelations in The Sunday Times. He plans to enact the legislation necessary to expel them before the general election, which has to be held by May next year.
Peers who are “non-domiciled” or “non-resident” for tax purposes - there are thought to be at least seven - will lose their seats, as will those who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence.
Our disclosures that Labour peers were prepared to amend laws in the Lords on behalf of businesses has lifted the lid on the frenetic business activity in the second chamber. Today we can further disclose that: Lord Truscott, one of those named in the lords for hire scandal, met the energy minister, allegedly without declaring that he was being paid by a lobbying firm that had among its clients Russia’s state-owned gas giant Gazprom.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who was also named, lobbied a civil servant about a planning application for a power plant put forward by a paying client. Lord Snape, another named peer and a consultant to First-Group, the transport company, had previously tabled two amendments favourable to bus companies. He withdrew them to avoid any suggestion of a conflict of interest.
Our inquiries have established that other peers are routinely attempting to change legislation that would favour companies and organisations which pay them.
At present the author Jeffrey Archer, who received a four-year jail sentence for perjury and perverting the course of justice, and Conrad Black, the former Daily Telegraph proprietor jailed for fraud, are allowed to remain peers despite their criminal convictions.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, said the system was “bananas”.
There is now also cross-party agreement on ridding the Lords of members who avoid paying tax. Nonresidents are people who live abroad to avoid paying tax and nondomiciles are people who are resident in the UK but were born abroad and are therefore “domiciled” abroad for tax purposes.
Lord Ashcroft, the billionaire Tory donor, has repeatedly refused to confirm his tax status, while Lord Laidlaw, the Conservatives’ biggest donor, lives in Monaco and is widely reported to be a tax exile.
Lord Paul, the steel magnate and billionaire Labour donor, and Baroness Gardner, the Australian Conservative peer, are both openly non-domiciled. Lord Foster, the architect who is a cross-bencher, lives in Switzerland. His staff refuse to answer questions about his tax status.
In a further effort to clean up the upper house, Straw is ready to put the Lords Appointments Commission onto a statutory basis for the first time, giving it powers to eject peers who break undertakings made when they accept peerages.
Sources close to Straw say he is expected to use a Commons bill on constitutional renewal, already in the pipeline, to make the changes, which have Tory and Liberal Democrat backing. These changes would be retrospective. A private member’s bill on nondoms and nonresidents, drawn up by Matthew Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, and going through the Lords, is likely to be used as a template.
“Nondom and nonresident peers can hide their income in tropical tax havens: they must pay up or pack up. Meanwhile, peers convicted of fraud or perjury can stroll out of the prison gates after breakfast and into the division lobby after lunch. Tax-dodgers, bung-takers, fraudsters and perjurers must be cleared out of parliament now,” Oakeshott said.
Last week it was disclosed that Taylor, a former education adviser to Downing Street, Snape, a former whip and Truscott and Lord Moonie, former ministers, were secretly recorded telling undercover reporters posing as lobbyists that they could assist them in changing a law. They discussed fees of between £24,000 and £120,000.
Each said they could not personally put down the amendments and no payments were actually made, as it was a newspaper investigation. All deny breaking any parliamentary rules. But both Taylor and Truscott indicated they had previously helped to secure changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.
On Friday The Sunday Times sent dossiers of transcripts and tape recordings to the Lords authorities and to Scotland Yard, who had both requested our evidence.
During the undercover investigation, Truscott, the energy minister until 2007, said he had recently been talking to Gazprom about issues of interest to the firm. The Russian state-owned gas company is hoping to become a main player in the UK gas market.
He said that his contact with the gas company was through Gavin Anderson, a public affairs company which has been paying him as an adviser since November 2007. “One of the companies I advise, advises Gazprom. I don’t advise Gazprom directly,” he said.
It has now emerged that in February 2008 Truscott had lunch with Malcolm Wicks, his successor as energy minister, and, according to a source, did not mention his link to Gazprom.
Wicks said: “We had lunch and chatted about all sorts of things, mainly as I recall about Russia which Peter [Truscott] has a strong interest in. We talked about energy policy . . . we talked about where we’re going to get our gas in Europe and Russia crops up, of course it does.”
The source said Wicks was “amazed” later to discover the Gazprom connection. “Gazprom is no ordinary gas company, it’s crucial to the Russian economy and everyone knows how close it is to Putin and the state,” the source said.
Truscott, 49, has a Russian wife, Svetlana, and has written three books on the country, including a biography of Putin, the prime minister, which was well received in Moscow.
He told the undercover reporters that he had just had lunch with a Gazprom executive and had given the company’s delegates a guided tour of parliament.
He was recorded saying: “When I was energy minister they [the government] were very wary about letting Gazprom in and there were other issues, security issues as well, some of which is secret.
“Now it’s still very sensitive. The UK arm of Gazprom is gradually expanding in the UK and expanding in the retail sector. The big issue a couple of years ago was Gazprom buying Centrica. That was a security issue. So these are the sorts of things I advise them on as well.”
Truscott was unavailable for comment yesterday. His appointment with Gavin Anderson was cleared by the body that monitors former ministers’ outside interests before his meeting with Wicks.
Gavin Anderson has suspended Truscott pending the outcome of the lords for hire inquiry. A spokesman denied he had been advising Gazprom and claimed he had met their executives only informally at industry events. Gazprom Marketing & Trading, the UK subsidiary of Gazprom, said Truscott had never acted as an adviser.
Further details have also emerged about the activities of Taylor. The undercover reporters taped Taylor boasting of how he knew key civil servants and named Gary Mohammed, an official who recommends whether power stations should be approved.
Last week Mohammed said he had been lobbied by Taylor in the late 1990s about an application to build a £600m gas power station in Fleetwood, Lancashire. Taylor later took Mohammed for lunch at the House of Lords.
At the time Taylor was paid £80,000 over a two-year period by Canatxx, one of two companies behind plans for the power station. Last week Taylor confirmed that he had lobbied Mohammed and said he declared his paid interests at the time. His lawyer said: “Lord Taylor has committed no criminal offence and has broken no rule of the House of Lords.”
It can also be disclosed that Snape, who is paid by First-Group, tabled two amendments to the Local Transport Bill as it passed through parliament last year. The changes would have favoured bus companies in dealings with councils. Later Snape decided against formally moving the amendments.
His lawyer said last week the peer took the decision to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. A spokesman for First-Group said Snape was paid as a public affairs adviser and the company did not request him to put down amendments.
source: the times
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
