|
Cash for Influence (also Cash for Amendments or Cash for Laws) is the name given by some in the media to a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2009 concerning four Labour Party Life Peers offering to help make amendments to legislation for up to £120,000. The Lords Privileges Committee recommended the two men be suspended from the House for up to six months after an investigation into allegations made against four Labour peers.〔(" Two Labour peers face suspension", BBC NEWS, Thursday, 14 May 2009 )〕 Lord Taylor of Blackburn was suspended as a Labour Party member pending the investigation while Lord Truscott quit the party. On 20 May, the House of Lords considered the report of the Privileges Committee and voted to suspend Lord Taylor and Lord Truscott for six months. The suspensions are the first since Oliver Cromwell’s era in the 1640s.〔"Parliament's darkest day: MPs suspended and Michael Martin at risk", The Times, 15 May 2009 ()〕 The last individual to be suspended from the House of Lords is believed to have been Thomas Savile, who was barred in 1642 for siding with King Charles I.〔(Two peers facing Lords suspension ), The Press Association (via Google News), 20 May 2009.〕 ==Allegations== The allegations were made by ''The Sunday Times'' Insight team in an article published on Sunday, 25 January 2009. In a series of covert interviews, the four peers stated that they could use their political influence to amend legislation. The individuals concerned are Lord Snape, Lord Moonie, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott. Six other peers either declined to help or did not respond to the undercover reporters' approach. The newspaper claimed its reporters approached the four peers masquerading as lobbyists acting for an unnamed company. The firm, they said, wanted to set up a chain of shops in the UK and were seeking exemption from current laws on business rates. A recording was later released of Lord Taylor saying firms paid him up to £100,000 a year. Lord Taylor tells an undercover reporter: "Some companies that I work with would pay me £100,000 a year." When the reporter questions it, he adds: "That's cheap for what I do for them. And other companies would pay me £25,000." On 30 January, The Sunday Times released further material via their website containing audio and video purporting to show Lord Truscott describing how the passage of legislation in both the House of Commons and House of Lords could be influenced and what part he could play in successfully facilitating amendments on behalf of paying clients. Two of the fundamental principles set out in the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords are that members "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" and "must not vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question in the House or a committee, or promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit (the "no paid advocacy" rule)." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「2009 cash for influence scandal」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|