Category: Non-EU Countries

Andrew Dismore MP: Foreign trips and rule breaches

A BBC investigation has revealed that more than 20 MPs have breached rules in relation to registering and declaring overseas trips paid for by foreign governments.

The trips taken by Andrew Dismore, his relevant parliamentary activities and his detailed replies to the BBC are below.

Since 2001, Mr Dismore has been a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, whose role includes the scrutiny of the MPs’code of conduct.

He told the BBC that all his visits had been registered in time and in the appropriate manner, and that there was no breach of the rules on lobbying as overseas visits are excluded and his trips had been funded by the Republic of Cyprus Parliament and not the Republic of Cyprus Government.

Cyprus

Mr Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon in north London, visited Cyprus in October 2005, October 2006, September 2007, November 2008 andOctober 2009, courtesy of the Municipality of Morphou and Cyprus House of Representatives.

Within a year of registration of these trips, Mr Dismore tabled 90 questions relating to Cyprus without declaring an interest.

They were: 31080, 48898, 72084, 95204, 95205, 96907 to 96915, 96917 to 96920, 96939 to 96941, 96958 to 96961, 96969, 96970, 96974, 96977 to 96979, 136661, 162758, 162759, 162769 to 162771, 162773, 162812, 162819 to 162822, 163110 to 163118, 163121 to 163134, 163213 to 163221, 163284, 163627, 163793 to 163798, 180049, 180051, 180052, 180056, 245049, 252915 and 293708.

Mr Dismore also asked a further 112 questions relating to Cyprus where an interest was declared.

They were: 245029, 245050 to 245061, 245158 to 245174, 245180 to 245182, 245190 to 245199, 245217 to 245224, 252877 to 252881, 252884, 293650, 293696 to 293707, 293709 to 293744, 295162, 312737 to 312739, and 312838 to 312840.

The BBC put to Mr Dismore that asking ministers a total of 202 questions following visits to Cyprus – whether an interest was declared or not – might be perceived as lobbying on behalf of an overseas power from whom hospitality has recently been received. This would constitute a very serious breach of parliamentary rules.

In addition to those questions, Mr Dismore tabled a debate on Cyprus on 8 November 2005. Records of the summary agenda, the order paper and weekly bulletin indicate that he did not declare an interest. Whenever an interest is declared, the symbol “[R]” appears on the relevant notice or order papers.

However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismoresaid: “What is to be done immediately? Some things are relatively easy. Earlier, I mentioned the need to find finance to deal with the issue of missing persons.

“Two million Cyprus pounds is not too much for the UK to find, either on its own or with its partners.”

Similarly, Mr Dismore tabled adebate on Cyprus on 10 January 2007. Records of the summary agenda, the order paper and weekly bulletin indicate that he did not declare an interest. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

Mr Dismore secured a third debate about Cyprus on 15 January 2009. Again, no declaration of interest is recorded in the weekly bulletin,the summary agenda or the order paper. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismore said: “The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is working well and is not politicised by either side. I visited the laboratory for the second time and was very impressed by the progress that is being made.

“There have been 466 exhumations so far and 110 sets of remains have been returned – 78 to Greek Cypriots and 32 to Turkish Cypriots. The annual budget for the committee and its work is $3m a year.

“In the three years from 2004 to 2007, we donated £160,000. We ought to consider further payments because the committee needs those extra bilateral donations.

“Demining is also important for confidence building. The United Nations Development Programme has cleared 51 minefields. That has largely been funded by the EU but there is a 5m euro shortfall.

“That money will be needed to clear the rest of the zone, and the UN says that it could do it if it had the money. We could help by making a donation towards that. The buffer zone occupies 3% of the land.

“If that land could be liberated from the mines and from that part of the process, it would be available for civilian use, which could help towards a settlement.”

Mr Dismore secured a further debate about Cyprus on 10 November 2009 but again did not declare an interest on the weekly bulletin, thesummary agenda or the order paper. However, Mr Dismore did declare an interest at the start of the debate.

During the debate, Mr Dismore said: “The UN Committee on Missing Persons continues its work, although there is a significant backlog in its anthropological laboratory on the piecing together of the various remains.

“Nonetheless, the committee told us that it was not really practical to expand the operation. Altogether the bicommunal teams have exhumed 570 sets of remains from both sides of the green line and returned the remains of 179 people to their families – 135 Greek Cypriots and 44 Turkish Cypriots.

“They are perennially in the hunt for money, requiring between 2.2m euro and 2.4m euro a year to function. The EU has just given the teams 2m euro for the next two years, but they are still 1m euro short for next year.

“Since the committee started its work many years ago, the UK has given it $159,000, but it is a long time since we last gave it a grant, and it is time that we gave it another one.”

Later in the debate, he said: “I hope that the minister will be able to find a little cash in the Foreign Office budget to provide the initiatives that I mentioned with at least token support, if not more substantive support.”

Further to these debates, on 18 December 2008, during a debate on Human Rights Mr Dismore spoke about Cyprus.

After declaring an interest, he said: “On a positive note, the Committee on Missing Persons, which is part of the United Nations – my Hon Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred to the United Nations in his opening remarks – is functioning well, but it cannot look at the cause of death or attribute responsibility.

“It is working on a bicommunal basis, which is one of the positive things in Cyprus. It has exhumed 450 bodies so far, out of a total of 1,996 missing people on both sides.

“It has been able to identify and return 107 sets of remains – 31 Turkish Cypriots and 76 Greek Cypriots – and investigated 224 sites. It needs $3m to run, and is funded year by year only.

“Does my Hon Friend the Minister think that the Government will consider putting their hand in their pocket to ensure that such vital work continues, because it has at least another two years’ worth of work to do?

“In relation to demining, to which both reports referred, another 4m euro is needed to clear the rest of the buffer zone. Both communities and the UN have put money into demining, but it remains a significant problem to conclude. I hope that the minister can respond to those important human rights points.”

The MPs’ code of conduct states that: “Members may not, for example, advocate in debate increased United Kingdom financial assistance to a government from which they have recently received hospitality.

“Nor may any Member advocate any other measure for the exclusive benefit of the host government.”

The BBC has put to Mr Dismore that some of his statements might be perceived as lobbying on behalf of an overseas power from whom hospitality has recently been received – a very serious breach of parliamentary rules.

Following visits to Cyprus, Mr Dismore also have signed 24 early day motions relating to the island. In the following three cases he did not declare an interest:

1. MR GEORGE IACOVOU / 12.12.2006 / EDM 474

2. SOTERIS GEORGALLIS / 16.04.2007 / EDM 1273 (of which he was the Primary Sponsor)

3. ILLEGAL SONGBIRD MARKET IN CYPRUS / 12.01.2010 / EDM 567

Reply

In response to the points put to him by the BBC Mr Dismore said he had declared an interest before debates and added: “There is no question of my having broken any rule in relation to lobbying, as overseas visits are excluded and I did not lobby for funding for the Cyprus government or Cyprus parliament.”

Mr Dismore said the hosts of his visits to Cyprus were the Cyprus House of Representatives and the Municipality of Morphou, and not the government of Cyrpus.

Mr Dismore denied that advocating increased financial assistance to the United Nations Committee for Missing Persons in Cyprus could be perceived as lobbying or amount to a breach of the rules.

Reply on early day motions

Mr Dismore said that the issue with EDMs (early day motions) was one of relevance. “As you rightly report, I declared an interest in relation to 24 early day motions. The other three were so remote, I did not believe that I had an interest warranting declaration.”

Reply on the written questions

Mr Dismore said that it was not possible for him to check if he had registered an interest in respect of the written questions, due to the way records are kept in Parliament.

“Accordingly, although I cannot confirm or deny that I registered an interest in relation to those questions, I do not believe that there was an interest to register in relation to them. ”

Responding to the large number of questions asked, 200 over a five-year period, Mr Dismore said an average of 40 to 50 questions a year was not excessive on an issue in which an MP has a speciality.

He added: “I normally ask several hundred questions a year on many different issues in which I take an interest relevant to my parliamentary work and constituency, and to that extent the number of questions over five years relating to Cyprus should be seen in that context.”

Mr Dismore also said that he had declared an interest at the start of each adjournment debate.

BBC

March 24, 2010
Israeli diplomat ‘spy’ expelled over cloned UK passports

Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent, and James Hider in Jerusalem

A serious rift in relations between Britain and Israel opened yesterday after a criminal investigation uncovered “compelling” evidence that Jerusalem had cloned the UK passports used in the assassination of a senior Hamas operative in Dubai.

Britain responded by expelling a senior Israeli diplomat, believed to be the Mossad station chief in London; imposing new travel advice, warning Britons of the threat of state-sponsored identity theft in Israel; and demanding a public assurance that Israel would never misuse British passports again.

Israel’s Ambassador expressed his disappointment but said he was determined to “strengthen the firm foundations” of the relationship between Britain and Israel. The froideur only increased, however, when it emerged that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had cancelled his scheduled attendance at a reception marking the renovation of the Israeli Embassy yesterday.

Instead, Mr Miliband told the Commons of the conclusion of the investigation by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and denounced Israel’s behaviour as “intolerable” and displaying a “profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.

“The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury,” he added. He said he had demanded a formal assurance that the fraud would not recur from Avigdor Liebermann, the Israeli Foreign Minister. The travel advice to be issued to British citizens would depend on the answer that he received.

Diplomatic sources told The Times that the assurance would have to be public — in effect, forcing Israel to admit its involvement in the fraud and, by implication, in the assassination of Mahmud al-Mabhuh on January 19.

Suspicions fell on Israel’s intelligence agency immediately after the killing, but they were reinforced when it emerged that all of the Western passport holders whose identities were used were also Israeli nationals. Mr Miliband said that Soca investigation had lead directly back to Israel and that no other country appeared to have been involved.

“Given that this was a very sophisticated operation, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judges it is highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service,” he said. “Taking this, together with other inquiries, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports.”

The passports of Irish, German, French and Australian citizens were also used but those countries are yet to conclude their investigations.

Israel said that it regretted the British move to expel the Mossad representative but, while the Government in Jerusalem was measured in its response, , MPs from the far Right denounced the British as untrustworthy “dogs”.

“I think the British are behaving hypocritically,” Aryeh Eldad, of the National Union, an ultra-nationalist, pro-settler party, told Sky News. “Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?”

Michael Ben Ari, another National Union MP, said: “The British are dogs but they are not loyal to us . This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism”.

, March 24, 2010

March 24, 2010
MPs’ foreign visit rules breached

Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments have been uncovered by a BBC investigation.

More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

The MPs – from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems – breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.

One former standards watchdog says it shows MPs cannot regulate themselves.

Some MPs dismissed the breaches as technical errors or oversights.

However, the former Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, told the BBC repeated rule breaches threatened to “undermine the integrity” of the democratic system.

He said it “demonstrated the failure of the self-regulating system”, adding: “This is a very worrying situation which will further demean the standing of Parliament.”

Conservative leader David Cameron said: “The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner must get to the bottom of what’s happened in every case and we must look at the penalties that apply when rules like this are broken.”

He said the self-regulating system was “at the heart of the problem” and that it might be necessary to change its structure.

Mr Cameron added that a system of imposing automatic fixed penalties on MPs who break rules might be appropriate.

The rules on overseas visits are there to ensure that no-one can accuse MPs of accepting foreign hospitality in return for political favours, for example pressing the UK government for financial assistance.

They require MPs to register such visits and then declare relevant trips in questions, motions or debates.

One of those who appears to have fallen foul of the code of conduct is Labour’s Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee – the very body which polices MPs’ behaviour.

He broke rules more than 90 times, following annual visits to Cyprus, by failing to declare the hospitality when raising issues about the island in Parliament.

In total, he has tabled more than 200 Commons questions about Cyprus since the last election in 2005, on topics such as missing persons from the island and its victims of past conflict between Turkey and Greece.

The Commons information office estimates it costs on average £149 to answer a written question.

Mr Dismore has also signed motions and led debates about Cyprus. However, he denies any wrongdoing and claims his questions about Cyprus were not sufficiently relevant to his trips to require a declaration.

Conservative David Amess has admitted failing to register a free trip to the Maldives – regarded as a “very serious” breach of the rules by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, according to the MPs’ code of conduct.

He also accepts he did not register a second trip for almost a year, blaming an administrative error by his office staff.

‘Paradise’

During a debate he tabled about the Maldives in 2007, Mr Amess told the Commons how his “splendid visit” had given him “an early taste of paradise”.

“No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are,” he added, before suggesting the UK Government “could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment” for the islands in the Indian Ocean.

Despite leading two debates about UK support for the Maldives and asking 15 questions about the islands, he failed to declare an interest. Referring to the MPs’ code of conduct, Mr Amess told the BBC: “It is for the member to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant.”

Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has been actively calling for a clean-up of Parliament following the expenses scandal, has admitted breaching the rules on 37 occasions.

In a statement to the BBC, Mr Baker accepts he failed to declare an interest when leading debates and tabling questions about topics such as human rights in Tibet. He has travelled to India twice, courtesy of the Tibet Society and the Tibet government-in-exile.

“I should have then declared a relevant interest in respect of the parliamentary activities you list,” he said. “It is an unintended oversight that I did not.”

The MP who heads the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Tony Wright, told the BBC that such rule-breaking was “unacceptable” and that the system should be more transparent.

“Declarations should be the norm. It is quite proper for MPs to go on visits. Some of those visits will be financed by foreign governments. But… if they’re lobbying on behalf of governments who have paid for their visits, then clearly we need to know about it.”

The rules are enforced by MPs themselves. Breaches are only investigated if a formal complaint is made and there is no independent body to ensure that members stick to the regulations.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox has admitted breaking the rules on two occasions, having visited Sri Lanka five times in the past three years courtesy of its government. He failed to declare the hospitality when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, Mr Fox said: “I should have noted an interest and will be writing to the registrar to make this clear.” He blamed a “changeover of staffing responsibilities” for registering one of his visits more than two months late.

During the current Parliament, Gibraltar’s government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory.

Street party

Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times. Following his visits he has asked 30 questions, tabled three early day motions and signed a further seven, all without declaring his interest.

Mr Hoyle also broke the rules by failing to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

“I have never received or sought any financial benefit,” he told the BBC.

Conservative Andrew Rosindell has been a guest of Gibraltar’s government twice in recent years. He subsequently asked 48 questions and signed or sponsored nine motions related to the territory without declaring an interest.

Thirteen of his questions about Gibraltar were before a visit had been registered. The BBC put the matters to Mr Rosindell but has yet to receive a response.

The BBC has identified a further 10 MPs from all three major parties who have been guests of Gibraltar’s government and shortly afterwards breached rules when signing motions or tabling questions about the territory.

The investigation has also identified three more Labour MPs and another Conservative who failed to declare an interest following visits to Cyprus.

BBC

March 23, 2010
SCANDAL: MPs caught trying to sell their influence for cash
[1]

‘MPs for hire’ face lobbying clean-up

Cabinet ministers rounded on their former colleagues, including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, who were caught trying to sell their influence for cash.

Cabinet members have vowed to tighten up lobbying laws

Related Tags:

Geoff Hoon

Patricia Hewitt

David Miliband

ministers

secretary

They vowed to tighten up lobbying laws after MPs including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon were secretly filmed talking to undercover reporters.

‘There is absolutely no room for the sort of innuendo or promises that seem to have been floated in this case,’ said foreign secretary David Miliband.

Chancellor Alistair Darling sugges ted the MPs had been naive to fall for the sting targeting 20 MPs standing down at the next general election.

‘Really, what on earth did they think they were doing?’ he said.

‘The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again – it’s obvious.’

In the footage for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, former transport secretary Mr Byers described himself as ‘like a sort of cab for hire’ – charging £5,000 a day to pull the strings of movers and shakers. He also claimed to have influenced Lord Adonis in his dealings with National Express.

Former health secretary Ms Hewitt allegedly said she had helped a client paying her £3,000 a day to win a seat on a government advisory group.

And ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon is said to have offered introductions to current ministers, in return for fees of £5,000 a day.

Mr Byers last night insisted he had ‘never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations’. He said he had made ‘exaggerated claims’ in the discussions caught on camera.

, 21st March, 2010

[2]

Calls for inquiry into ‘MPs for hire’ scandal

Damian Whitworth, Francis Elliott and Alex Ralph

David Cameron demanded yesterday that Gordon Brown investigate a boast by the former Cabinet minister Stephen Byers that he had used his influence to change policies to favour businesses.

The former Transport Secretary [Lord Adonis], who was secretly filmed offering himself “like a sort of cab for hire” for up to £5,000 a day, will be referred to the parliamentary standards watchdog today.

Mr Byers told an undercover reporter that he had secured secret deals with ministers and said that he received confidential information from No 10 and was able to help firms involved in price fixing to get around the law.

The claims gravely embarrassed Labour, which rushed forward a promise to introduce a compulsory register of lobbying which it said had been planned for the election manifesto.

Thirteen Labour MPs and seven Tories were approached by investigators for Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times, pretending to be executives from a fictitious American lobbying firm. The others to feature in the documentary to be screened tonight are Labour’s Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt, Margaret Moran and Baroness Morgan and the Tory MP Sir John Butterfill, who is understood to have boasted about his closeness to Mr Cameron.

Mr Byers was covertly filmed telling the reporter that he would be able to lobby ministers and gave examples of where he had done so before. He said he would charge £3,000-£5,000 a day and claimed he had done a deal with Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, to benefit National Express. He later retracted his claims and he, Lord Adonis and National Express all strongly denied any deal yesterday.

All of the MPs filmed, including Ms Hewitt and Mr Hoon, former Cabinet ministers, denied any wrongdoing and insisted that they had breached no rules. “I am confident that any investigation from the Standards Commissioner will confirm that I have always fully complied with the MPs’ code of conduct,” Mr Byers said. “I have never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations and have always fully disclosed my outside interests.”

Mr Hoon, a former Defence Secretary, reportedly said that he charged £3,000 a day and was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into “something that frankly makes money”. He said: “At no stage did I offer, nor would I attempt to, sell confidential or privileged information arising from my time in government.”

Ms Hewitt said she “completely rejected” the allegation that she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying £3,000 a day.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said they would table parliamentary questions about the claims in an attempt to see if there had been breaches of the ministerial code.

“I have been warning for some time that lobbying is the next scandal to hit British politics,” Mr Cameron said. “These are shocking allegations. The House of Commons needs to conduct a thorough investigation into these ex-Labour ministers.”

He said that the Prime Minister “would want to get to the bottom of the accusations being made about his Government — and real change is needed”.

Senior Cabinet ministers distanced themselves from their former colleagues.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, said it was “ridiculous” that the MPs had been caught out in the sting. “The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again. There are rules about serving MPs — we’ve said that we are going to have to get a statutory-backed code of conduct to deal with former ministers. But really, what on earth did they think they were doing?”

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that he was “appalled” and added: “There is absolutely no room for anyone to trade on their ministerial office.”

Research by The Times shows eight former ministers have made up to £370,000 in outside work of various kinds since announcing they would be stepping down as MPs. They include John Prescott, John Reid, John Hutton, Alan Milburn and Ms Hewitt. Mr Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, has made up to £166,000, mostly through television documentaries and his autobiography.

, March 22, 2010

[3]

[4]

MPs’ foreign visit rules breached

Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments have been uncovered by a BBC investigation.

More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

Between them, the MPs – from all the major parties – breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.

One former standards watchdog says it shows MPs cannot regulate themselves.

Some MPs dismissed the breaches as technical errors or oversights.

However, the former Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, told the BBC repeated rule breaches threatened to “undermine the integrity” of the democratic system.

He said it “demonstrated the failure of the self-regulating system of discipline in the Commons” and called for a shake-up of the way MPs’ behaviour is monitored.

“This is a very worrying situation which will further demean the standing of Parliament,” he said.

BBC home editor Mark Easton, who led the investigation, said it would raise further questions about the Commons’ ability to regulate itself.

The rules on overseas visits are there to ensure that no-one can accuse MPs of accepting foreign hospitality in return for political favours, for example pressing the UK government for financial assistance.

They require MPs to register such visits and then declare relevant trips in questions, motions or debates.

One of those who appears to have fallen foul of the code of conduct is Labour’s Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee – the very body which polices MPs’ behaviour.

He broke rules more than 90 times, following annual visits to Cyprus, by failing to declare the hospitality when raising issues about the island in Parliament.

In total, he has tabled more than 200 Commons questions about Cyprus since the last election in 2005, on topics such as missing persons from the island and its victims of past conflict between Turkey and Greece.

The Commons information office estimates it costs on average £149 to answer a written question.

Mr Dismore has also signed motions and led debates about Cyprus. However, he denies any wrongdoing and claims his questions about Cyprus were not sufficiently relevant to his trips to require a declaration.

Conservative David Amess has admitted failing to register a free trip to the Maldives – regarded as a “very serious” breach of the rules by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, according to the MPs’ code of conduct.

He also accepts he did not register a second trip for almost a year, blaming an administrative error by his office staff.

‘Paradise’

During a debate he tabled about the Maldives in 2007, Mr Amess told the Commons how his “splendid visit” had given him “an early taste of paradise”.

“No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are,” he added, before suggesting the UK Government “could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment” for the islands in the Indian Ocean.

Despite leading two debates about UK support for the Maldives and asking 15 questions about the islands, he failed to declare an interest. Referring to the MPs’ code of conduct, Mr Amess told the BBC: “It is for the member to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant.”

Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has been actively calling for a clean-up of Parliament following the expenses scandal, has admitted breaching the rules on 37 occasions.

In a statement to the BBC, Mr Baker accepts he failed to declare an interest when leading debates and tabling questions about topics such as human rights in Tibet. He has travelled to India twice, courtesy of the Tibet Society and the Tibet government-in-exile.

“I should have then declared a relevant interest in respect of the parliamentary activities you list,” he said. “It is an unintended oversight that I did not.”

The MP who heads the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Tony Wright, told the BBC that such rule-breaking was “unacceptable” and that the system should be more transparent.

“Declarations should be the norm. It is quite proper for MPs to go on visits. Some of those visits will be financed by foreign governments. But… if they’re lobbying on behalf of governments who have paid for their visits, then clearly we need to know about it.”

The rules are enforced by MPs themselves. Breaches are only investigated if a formal complaint is made and there is no independent body to ensure that members stick to the regulations.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox has admitted breaking the rules on two occasions, having visited Sri Lanka five times in the past three years courtesy of its government. He failed to declare the hospitality when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, Mr Fox said: “I should have noted an interest and will be writing to the registrar to make this clear.” He blamed a “changeover of staffing responsibilities” for registering one of his visits more than two months late.

During the current Parliament, Gibraltar’s government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory.

Street party

Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times. Following his visits he has asked 30 questions, tabled three early day motions and signed a further seven, all without declaring his interest.

Mr Hoyle also broke the rules by failing to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

“I have never received or sought any financial benefit,” he told the BBC.

Conservative Andrew Rosindell has been a guest of Gibraltar’s government twice in recent years. He subsequently asked 48 questions and signed or sponsored nine motions related to the territory without declaring an interest.

Thirteen of his questions about Gibraltar were before a visit had been registered. The BBC put the matters to Mr Rosindell but has yet to receive a response.

The BBC has identified a further 10 MPs from all three major parties who have been guests of Gibraltar’s government and shortly afterwards breached rules when signing motions or tabling questions about the territory.

The investigation has also identified three more Labour MPs and another Conservative who failed to declare an interest following visits to Cyprus.

MPs who have breached the rules:

David Amess

Norman Baker

Crispin Blunt

Graham Brady

Colin Breed

David Burrowes

Andrew Dismore

Jim Dobbin

Alan Duncan

Liam Fox

Mike Hancock

Lindsay Hoyle

Paul Keetch

Bob Laxton

David Lepper

Andrew Love

Madeline Moon

Mike Penning

Andrew Rosindell

Richard Spring

Theresa Villiers

Rudi Vis

DECLARING FOREIGN TRIPS
- Any MP who has an overseas trip paid for by a foreign government must register it within four weeks
- They must declare a financial interest if it “might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question”
- This includes when tabling questions, motions, bills or amendments, and when speaking out during Commons proceedings
- Members may not, for example, call for increased UK financial assistance to the government which provided the hospitality
- Q&A – MPs’ foreign trips rules
ANALYSIS

By Mark Easton, BBC home editor

The point of the regulations is to ensure that a sceptical citizenry can be confident about the integrity of their elected representatives.

Transparency is key.

The whole system only works if members take this responsibility seriously. Declaration doesn’t imply wrongdoing, but a failure to declare might be interpreted that way.

The widespread abuse of the system uncovered by our investigation suggests some Members of Parliament don’t understand this.

But what really struck me as I conducted the investigation is that the system of scrutiny surrounding the rules clearly does not work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8580183.stm, 22 March 2010

[5]

…
March 22, 2010
President Gül wins 2010 Chatham House prize

LONDON – Anatolia News Agency

Turkish President Abdullah Gül. DHA photo

The U.K.’s leading think tank, Chatham House, has awarded Turkish President Abdullah Gül with the 2010 Chatham House prize due to “his national, regional and international qualifications,” the organization’s president said Friday.

“President Gül is recognized for being a significant figure for reconciliation and moderation within Turkey and internationally, and a driving force behind many of the positive steps that Turkey has taken in recent years,” Chatham House said in statement on its Web site.

The think tank drew attention to Gül’s efforts to deepen Turkey’s traditional ties with the Middle East, mediate between rival groups in Iraq and bring together the Afghan and Pakistani leaderships to try to resolve disputes during 2009.

“He has also made significant efforts to reunify the divided island of Cyprus and has played a leading role, along with his Armenian counterpart, in initiating a process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia,” the statement said.

www.hurriyetdailynews.com, March 19, 2010

March 20, 2010
Fighting anti-Muslim racism: an interview with A. Sivanandan

By IRR News Team

IRR News spoke to one of the foremost analysts of racism and Black struggle as to how to meet the contemporary challenge of anti-Muslim racism.

SHOULD we look at Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism today as something new and apart, or as a continuation of the racism we have known in the UK?

A. Sivanandan: Every racism is different and every racism is the same.

Western culture, because it is a culture of conquest and subjugation, is impregnated with racist and nativist/anti-foreigner ideas. Such ideas develop into a fully-fledged ideology when harnessed to an economic or political programme such as slavery or apartheid. But they can still become a material social force, justifying discrimination and engendering racial violence, in areas and times of economic hardship when there is competition for jobs, housing etc between indigenous and foreign or immigrant workers

It is ‘natural’ for indigenous, poor, white people who have to compete for housing, employment, social services etc to be hostile to those who look like the obvious cause of their hardship, marked out by colour, foreignness or cultural difference. When such hostility is lent justification by government policies (domestic and foreign) and harnessed by political parties for electoral gain, racial ideas become firmed into a quasi-ideology which, in turn, feeds and justifies popular racism.

The components of racism are always the same – cultural, political, economic and social. But the shift from an industrial to a post-industrial society gives the components of racism a different weightage.

The racism of industrial capitalism was connected to exploitation – slavery, colonialism, indenture, immigration. Racism was imbricated in labour exploitation. The economic factor was dominant in the way racism changed and was shaped and became functional. In post-industrial capitalism, where the exploitation of labour in the old sense is concentrated in the periphery; the political and cultural components are dominant. And ideas, in an Information Society dominated by the media, become material irrespective of the economic factor. There is, in other words, very little disjuncture between the racist idea and the racist act; they virtually flow into each other.

Are you saying that before we even look at contemporary Islamophobia, per se, we have to look at the way that the balance within racism itself has changed over the last thirty years or so?

A. Sivanandan: Yes. By and large, under industrial capitalism, racist views, filtered down through slavery and colonialism, were prevalent mostly among the working class. But in post-industrial society racial ideas run through the whole of society and culture. For, globalisation and the market have sundered the ethos of the nation state and opened the door to nativism.

Let me explain. Globalisation has shifted the role of the state from welfare to market. The welfare state was guided by principles of social equality, which made for social cohesion. The market state is guided by the principles of wealth creation and individual success, which fractures society, fragments communities, and reifies personal relationships. There is nothing organic now to cohere the nation. Hence the imposition from above of British values and programmes of social cohesion to hold the nation together – aided now by the politics of fear and the ‘enemy within’, creating in the process a faux nationalism evident in everything from foreign policy to oaths of allegiance in our town halls.

How does this then relate to how we tackle Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism, are they really the same thing? Can the terms be used interchangeably?

A. Sivanandan: Yes and no. Yes, Islamophobia is implicated in anti-Muslim racism; but no, the one does not equate the other. I see Islamophobia as a term relating to a set of ideas which indicate an antipathy to Islam – which can range from the crude and direct demonisation we find in the tabloids to the intellectual sophistry we associate with people like Amis. Whereas anti-Muslim racism is the acting out of that antipathy, that prejudice – in violent attacks on the street or, when institutionalised in the state apparatus, in the impact of the anti-terror laws, in racial profiling by the police, and so on.

The distinction is important because Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism reside by and large in two different constituencies – and each has to be fought on its own ‘merits’. Islamophobia, in its most sophisticated form, is the province of middle-class opinion formers, erstwhile liberals, defenders of the true liberal faith against the encroachments of illiberal Islam, as defined by them, the ‘liberati’. Anti-Muslim racism is the province of the working class and is no different from past working-class racisms. Except that now it finds its justification in Islamophobia – suitably translated into the vernacular of stereotype and scapegoat by the tabloids, the carriers of racist culture. Racism is now justified not on notions of racial superiority but on notions of Islamic ‘barbarity’. And religion is racialised.

Hence the confusion that fighting Islamophobic discourse is tantamount to fighting anti-Muslim racism. But, as I have said, Islamophobia is not the cause of anti-Muslim racism but its rationale. Religion is not race. And unless we unravel race from religion and employ different strategies for the different sites of struggle, while still keeping their relationship in view, we will be rendered ineffective on both sites. Conversely, to let the fight against Islamophobia (ideological/theoretical) dictate the fight against anti-Muslim racism (strategic/practical) is to intellectualise both and undermine action. To concentrate on the anti-racist aspect of struggle without missing out on the fight against Islamophobia, however, is not only to be able to draw on the long history of that struggle but also to gain the support of allies that were made on its way, especially – at a time of British National Party (BNP) resurgence – the anti-fascists. Such solidarity is also important to make sure that the liberati’s use of the term Islamofascism does not let the real fascism off the hook.

There are other reasons, too, why we need to focus on the struggle against anti-Muslim racism. Firstly, because anti-Muslim racism has become institutionalised through the government’s ‘Muslim wars’, its anti-terror laws, its use of stop and search and its failure to curb the media’s excesses. (And institutional racism, as we know, reproduces itself at other levels of society.) Second, these in turn breed a culture of fear and suspicion and give groups such as the BNP and the English Defence League a hold on public opinion. Third, the government’s elevation of ‘British values’ (as opposed to universal values) to which we should all aspire – and therefore to British culture – confirms the popular view that Muslim values and Muslim culture are raw and threatening. And this gives a fillip to nativism which, in the hands of the Right, turns into the rough and tumble patriotism of the street.

Do you feel that the extreme Right in the UK has shifted, like other rightwing groups in Europe, towards recruiting on the basis of Islamophobia?

A. Sivanandan: In the past, the extreme Right’s fascist ideology was per se reprehensible to all sectors of society in a democracy. Today, the classlessness of Islamophobia, ie the fact that it runs through the whole of society, from the liberati to the illiterati, and is made respectable by government policies, has given groups like the BNP a new constituency within ‘middle England’ on whom they work for electoral purposes. Hence its two faces: one electoral and the other populist – and its bipolar tactics of putting on a respectable front for the first and a militant front for the second. And the politics of fear engages both constituencies. The middle-England constituency is frightened by the immolation of its culture and values, and the working-class constituency is frightened by the spectre of aliens taking their jobs, homes, shops, and marrying their children.

So are you really saying that activists should be just addressing anti-Muslim racism as it affects poor communities on the streets?

A. Sivanandan: At the risk of repeating myself, we have to fight both Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism when and where they are acted out. But the fights are at two different levels which need two different strategies and weapons. We need to dismantle and critique the intellectual arguments being put forward by Islamophobia’s intellectual protagonists and attack the media at every turn for popularising and disseminating that discourse. And we have simultaneously to take up the other fight, the fight against Anti-Muslim racism, be that at the level of government policy or the level of hate crime on the street.

Why it is important to understand the two fights as different but connected is because of the danger that, in confining ourselves to the religious aspect of the fight against Islamophobia without taking on its political translation on the street, we would once again descend into the inward-looking politics of identity.

Any Asian could be a Muslim. Any Asian wearing a headscarf or a beard must be a Muslim. Every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Every fundamentalist is a terrorist. We are in danger of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust not only between communities but within communities, indeed within families and between individuals – which can hardly count for British values or democracy!

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

, 15 March 2010

March 20, 2010