This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/world/europe/malcolm-rifkind-jack-straw-deny-wrongdoing.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
2 British Lawmakers Deny Wrongdoing Amid Graft Allegations 2 British Lawmakers Deny Wrongdoing Amid Graft Allegations
(about 5 hours later)
LONDON — In a renewed debate about the probity of British lawmakers, two of the most senior members of Parliament, both former foreign secretaries, on Monday denied wrongdoing after being caught by an undercover reporter posing as the representative of a Hong Kong-based company that purportedly sought to hire them. LONDON — After falling for an embarrassing media sting, two former British foreign secretaries were on Monday suspended from their parliamentary parties, pending investigations into whether they broke rules prohibiting lawmakers from trading influence for money.
“These are very serious allegations,” one of the lawmakers, Malcolm Rifkind, a member of the governing Conservative Party and the head of a parliamentary panel responsible for oversight of British intelligence agencies, told the BBC on Monday. “They are unfounded, and I’m going to fight them with all my strength.” Malcolm Rifkind, a member of the governing Conservative Party and head of a parliamentary panel that oversees British intelligence agencies, and Jack Straw, of the opposition Labor Party, were both caught by an undercover reporter posing as the representative of a Hong Kong-based company that purportedly sought to hire them.
Mr. Rifkind and the second lawmaker, Jack Straw, of the opposition Labour Party, both said they had asked for Parliament’s standards commissioner to investigate their cases. Mr. Straw said he would temporarily withdraw from Labour’s parliamentary party. In a more drastic step, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party ordered the suspension of Mr. Rifkind from its legislative group. The incident reopened a fractious debate over the probity of lawmakers, whose reputation with the British electorate has suffered from a series of earlier scandals. With a general election on May 7, both parties moved quickly to try to limit the damage.
Both lawmakers acknowledged meeting with an undercover journalist who was claiming to represent a bogus company, called PMR, and offering to pay them to use their influence. The episode is particularly problematic for Mr. Rifkind, whose responsibilities give him high visibility and access to highly sensitive information. He stressed that the allegations against him were not related to intelligence or security issues.
The investigation was conducted by Channel 4 and the newspaper The Daily Telegraph, which, in 2009, uncovered a scandal relating to lawmakers’ expenses from which Parliament took years to recover. Both men said they had asked for Parliament’s standards commissioner to investigate their cases. Mr. Straw said he would temporarily withdraw from Labor’s parliamentary party. In a more drastic step, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party announced the suspension of Mr. Rifkind from its legislative group.
Mr. Straw was said to have boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence with the European Union and with the government of Ukraine on behalf of a commodity firm that paid him around $90,000 a year. Mr. Rifkind was accused of telling the undercover reporter that he could provide access to “any ambassador that I wish to see.” Mr. Cameron added that Mr. Rifkind’s position as chairman of the intelligence and security committee was a question not for him, but for parliament.
Both lawmakers acknowledged meeting with an undercover journalist who claimed to represent PMR, a bogus company, and offered to pay them to use their influence. The investigation was conducted by Channel 4 and The Daily Telegraph newspaper, which, in 2009, uncovered a scandal relating to lawmakers’ expenses from which Parliament took years to recover.
Mr. Rifkind described the allegations against him as “very serious,” but unfounded, telling the BBC: “I’m going to fight them with all my strength.”
Mr. Straw was said to have boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence with the European Union and the government of Ukraine on behalf of a commodity firm that paid him around $90,000 a year. Mr. Rifkind was accused of telling the undercover reporter that he could provide access to “any ambassador that I wish to see.”
Mr. Rifkind, who was foreign secretary from 1995 to 1997 and held other senior positions, told the undercover reporter he expected payment equivalent to $7,500 to $12,000 a half day for his services, while Mr. Straw, foreign secretary from 2001 to 2006, spoke of a daily rate equivalent to $7,500.Mr. Rifkind, who was foreign secretary from 1995 to 1997 and held other senior positions, told the undercover reporter he expected payment equivalent to $7,500 to $12,000 a half day for his services, while Mr. Straw, foreign secretary from 2001 to 2006, spoke of a daily rate equivalent to $7,500.
Undercover operations to expose the behavior of people in high places are not unusual in Britain, but the practice — and its victims — have drawn criticism.Undercover operations to expose the behavior of people in high places are not unusual in Britain, but the practice — and its victims — have drawn criticism.
Mr. Straw, who is set to retire from Parliament when Britons go to the polls in May, said in a statement that he was “mortified that I fell into this trap, despite my best efforts to avoid this, and my previous public criticism of colleagues of all parties who have done so in the past.” Mr. Straw, who is supposed to retire from the House of Commons in May, said in a statement that he was “mortified that I fell into this trap, despite my best efforts to avoid this and my previous public criticism of colleagues of all parties who have done so in the past.”
While he had tried to investigate the company’s credentials, he said, “my checks were not sufficient to overcome the skillful deception of the undercover reporters.” He said, “any discussions with them were about what I might do once I left the Commons, not whilst I was still a serving M.P.” He tried to investigate the company’s credentials, he said, but “my checks were not sufficient to overcome the skillful deception of the undercover reporters.” He added, “any discussions with them were about what I might do once I left the Commons, not whilst I was still a serving M.P.”
Mr. Straw said he would withdraw from the activities of the Labour Party in Parliament while the case was under investigation. British lawmakers receive a basic salary of around 67,000 pounds a year, or about $103,000, and additional expenses “to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and traveling between Parliament and their constituency,” according to Parliament’s website. British lawmakers receive a salary of around 67,000 pounds a year, or about $103,000, and additional expenses “to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London and in their constituency, and traveling between Parliament and their constituency,” according to Parliament’s website.
Interviewed on BBC radio, Mr. Rifkind said that “many ex-ministers, former chancellors, home secretaries, prime ministers, as well as other people, have served on advisory boards” and that it was “entirely proper” to do so.Interviewed on BBC radio, Mr. Rifkind said that “many ex-ministers, former chancellors, home secretaries, prime ministers, as well as other people, have served on advisory boards” and that it was “entirely proper” to do so.
“If you are trying to attract people of a business or a professional background to serve in the House of Commons, and if they are not ministers, it is quite unrealistic to believe they will go through their parliamentary career being able to simply accept a salary of £60,000,” he said. Mr. Rifkind argued that, though a parliamentary salary sounded substantial to those earning less, “the vast majority of people from a business or professional background earn far, far more than that.”
“That sounds a lot to a lot of people earning less than that, but the vast majority of people from a business or professional background earn far, far more than that,” Mr. Rifkind said. “If they are told they have to choose one or the other, they just won’t come to the House of Commons at all, and Parliament will lose their skills.” He added that he would not resign from the intelligence oversight committee “unless my committee colleagues wanted me to; certainly not.”
He said he would not resign from the intelligence oversight committee “unless my committee colleagues wanted me to; certainly not.” Mr. Cameron said the Conservative Party would conduct its own disciplinary inquiry into Mr. Rifkind’s activities. His prospects of running in the general election in May as a candidate of the Conservative Party could be threatened unless the inquiry clears him.
“None of the matters, even that The Telegraph are alleging, or complaining about, are remotely to do with intelligence and security,” he said.
In 2009, weeks of newspaper disclosures and political turmoil swirled around dubious expense accounts claimed by legislators, forcing a string of lawmakers and ministers to quit and denting public faith in the political elite.
As the newest scandal grew on Monday, Mr. Cameron told an audience in southern England that the Conservative Party would conduct its own disciplinary inquiry into Mr. Rifkind’s activities. But he added that Mr. Rifkind’s chairmanship of the intelligence and security committee was a question for the parliamentary authorities, not for him.
Suspension is a blow for Mr. Rifkind and could impede his prospects of running in the general election in May as an official candidate of the Conservative Party — unless the inquiry announced by Mr. Cameron clears him by then.
Mr. Cameron gave a partial defense of the right of lawmakers to pursue some outside activities, while saying that it was important that there were “clear rules” that were properly enforced.
The prime minister’s comments followed a meeting between Mr. Rifkind and Michael Gove, the chief whip of the Conservative Party, a post with responsibility for parliamentary discipline. Ahead of that meeting, Mr. Cameron’s office had pointedly declined to say that Mr. Rifkind should remain the chairman of the committee.
Asked directly whether Mr. Cameron believed that Mr. Rifkind should maintain his oversight position, Mr. Cameron’s spokesman, Jean-Christophe Gray, replied that Mr. Rifkind “is meeting with Michael Gove this morning, and I am sure there will be an opportunity for the chief whip and the prime minister to discuss matters following that meeting.”