Exclusive: how Byers' lobbying emails dump him and Adonis in it
Ed Howker 3:41pm
Stephen Byers is in a bind. Desperate to salvage some credibility following the Channel 4 Dispatches sting in which he claimed to be a "cab for hire" by lobbyists who were prepared to pay between £3,000 and £5,000 for his Westminster contacts, he referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the start of this week. Mr. Byers is sure that his comments, broadcast on Monday, will not constitute a breach of Parliamentary rules. And, I suspect, some of his defence will come in the form of the clutch of retractions he sent to the production company posing as lobbyists before broadcast. He should not be too sure. Coffee House has now seen Mr. Byers correspondence and there are a number of problems with it.
In total he sent four emails to the production company and made one phone call. The first email, sent from his blackberry just a few hours after the meeting on the 23rd February, was some distance from a retraction:
"Good to meet you today. Do get in touch if you have any further questions. Best wishes, Stephen"
The next day he emails again. This time the line has changed:
"Really good to meet you yesterday, I've been reflecting on our discussion and I'm afraid I completely overstated the part I played in trying to secure changes to the way in which government deals with issues. In reality I have not been engaged with lobbying ministers here in the UK. My statements yesterday may have given the opposite impression and I would like to take this opportunity to withdraw them. Given my lack of experience in this area it may well be the case that I am not the appropriate person to carry out the work you were thinking of. No doubt you will wish to give this further thought. No doubt this clarifies further matters and I am pleased to have set the record straight with you. If you have any other questions or would like to discuss it further please don't hesitate to get in touch. Best wishes, Stephen."
Later that afternoon, presumably worried, Byers then emails again, but what he says next is bound to give cause for concern to the Parliamentary Commissioner:
"As I said in my earlier email and in my follow-up phone call I felt it was important to make you aware that I don't have any experience of lobbying UK government ministers on behalf of commercial interests. In the context of our discussion on Tuesday (23rd February) this means that I have not spoken to Andrew Adonis, Hilary Benn, or Peter Mandelson about the matters I mentioned. I'm sorry that I indicated otherwise, but on reflection wanted you to be aware of any lack of expertise in this area before you speak to your board in the US about a shortlist..."
It is notable that even at this stage Mr. Byers had not withdrawn himself from the selection process for the lobbying firm but that's not what's really significant. What matters more is that the former transport secretary's story does not accord with the facts as we now know them. In particular, in this second email, Mr. Byers stated "I have not spoken to Andrew Adonis...about the matters I mentioned."
We now know this not to be true because, on Monday, the day of the Dispatches broadcast, Andrew Adonis made the following statement in reply to a question posed by Tory transport spokeswoman Baroness Hanham in the House of Lords. The question concerned Mr. Byers involvement with National Express's East Coast Mainline franchise:
"Stephen Byers had a brief conversation with me in the House of Commons last June about the East Coast Mainline. We discussed his experience in dealing with rail franchise difficulties when Transport Secretary. As regards the situation then facing National Express," he continued, "I told him that despite the company's difficulties I had no intention whatsoever of renegotiating the East Coast franchise on terms favourable to the company as the company was seeking in its approaches to my department.''
It is only in a final email, just a few days before the programme broadcast, and after some details of the sting have been leaked to a Sunday newspaper, that Mr. Byers formally withdrew from the lobbying company's selection process. Why it took him so long is a question he must answer before the Parliamentary Commissioner but it's a tough sell. He "indicated" that he had attempted secretly to influence the terms of a government negotiation, then denied that he met with Lord Adonis to discuss the matter at all. Both of these claims are false. So what, do you suppose, is the Commissioner expected to believe?
Previous
Billy Blofeld
March 26th, 2010 4:01pm Report this commentWe won't know the truth unless we get Adonis, Mandelson and Buyers into the public gaze under oath.
They will just New-Labour-Wriggle out of this sleaze.....
Tankus
March 26th, 2010 4:30pm Report this commentB.Blofeld ....
Do you honestly think that putting these chancer's under oath will make them suddenly splurge the truth out ?
Cuffleyburgers
March 26th, 2010 4:30pm Report this commentIn the lobbying world it is clearly a byers' market ha ha ha ha ahah
JohnAnt
March 26th, 2010 4:30pm Report this commentBut Stephen Byers wouldn't lie, would he?
Actually, on second thoughts, maybe the Parliamentary Commissioner should be given powers to take evidence under oath.
paul holdstock
March 26th, 2010 4:54pm Report this commentseems to me, that Byers claimed to have helped his 'clients' avoid millions of pounds, tax-payer pounds by intervening in the franchise matter.
if so, surely this should trigger a police investigation, as the job of an MP is surely NOT to harm the tax payers of the UK?
David Ossitt
March 26th, 2010 4:58pm Report this comment“So what, do you suppose, is the Commissioner expected to believe?”
The answer to the question that you pose; is a very simple one, the Commissioner, will, just like the rest of us, believe that Stephen Byers is an inveterate liar, a man who’s entire political existence is built on lies.
However I am absolutely 100% convinced that the Commissioner will not tell the world of his belief; rather he will obfuscate the wording of any of his conclusions.
David Ossitt
March 26th, 2010 5:01pm Report this commentCuffleyburgers
“it is clearly a byers' market”
Clever.
Chuck Unsworth
March 26th, 2010 5:08pm Report this commentWere there to be an Inquiry (how likely?) any evidence would not be given under oath - witness Chilcott.
Fearless Frank
March 26th, 2010 5:28pm Report this commentSo in emails 2 and 3, he told his would-be lobbying clients, "Nice to meet you yesterday, by the way I was lying to you"!
What prompted this sudden attack of honesty, you might ask.
ajs
March 26th, 2010 5:36pm Report this commentI can't believe it - the Parltry Commissioner does NOT take "evidence" under oath!! What sort of an enquiry is that - just the old pals chatting.
Try that sort of thing on HMRC. Any statement made to them is, I believe, subject to test in a court of law for veracity, in effect. If I am correct, same shd apply to Parltry Comm.
strapworld
March 26th, 2010 5:54pm Report this commentSo, this is the real reason they banned water boarding!!!!
Send them all to Afghanistan.
Rhoda Klapp
March 26th, 2010 6:40pm Report this commentWith all due respect (!) exclusive or not, the Spectator is missing the point. It's not that the evil Byers has been caught out, he never has been clever enough to dissemble successfully. The point is that no part of the lobbying system should be allowed to exist. Because it all takes place in smoke-free rooms away from the public gaze. Protected by parliamenary privilege on one side and commercial privacy on the other. Our only contribution to supply the money. Sometimes paying lobbying groups to hire MPs to lobby paid ministers to spend government money them, or bend the rules free of parliamentary scrutiny. The point is not that Byers is a crook, it's that the system exists at all. Lobbying parliament should be for constituents to lobby their MPs in order to get questions asked in the house. All else is chicanery.
Oh, and have a look at GLOBE, while you are in this area. Lobby fiddling on an international scale
TGF UKIP
March 26th, 2010 7:45pm Report this commentOne important factor you are forgetting is who the Parliamentary Commissioner is and the track record he has.
Norman Dee
March 26th, 2010 7:47pm Report this commentThat the lobby system is crap is obvious by the kind of flies the crap attracts.
Moriarty
March 26th, 2010 8:39pm Report this commentOT: can anybody at the Spectator explain to me why it is in order for "Richard" to intimate on this blog that he has access to the personal medical records of other posters? And that he will publish them? Do any moderators actually bother to police these boards?
David Ossitt
March 26th, 2010 11:54pm Report this commentMoriarty
“OT: can anybody at the Spectator explain to me why it is in order for "Richard" to intimate on this blog that he has access to the personal medical records of other posters? And that he will publish them? Do any moderators actually bother to police these boards?”
Moriarty please point me in the direction of these intimations (blog date time etc), he has twice on replying to me referred to a medical condition that I have!
2trueblue
March 27th, 2010 12:18am Report this commentMoriarty, scary. The police should be involved. If it is the case, it is illegal.
2trueblue
March 27th, 2010 12:22am Report this commentThe only way to avoid Byers problem is not to lie, unless you are very clever and have a fantastic memory. There are those who have managed to accomplish this, but I can't tell you who they are.
Ron Todd
March 27th, 2010 6:22am Report this commentI have a problem with this. I have long assumed that Byers always lies.
If he is now making two opposing statements do I have to assume that in one of them he was telling the truth.
If he was will the universe explode?
Fergus Pickering
March 27th, 2010 8:08am Report this commentAre we suggsting that 'Richard' is a member of the government and therefore free to poke arund our secret files. But could anyone as stupid as Richard... No. Forget I spoke. Some people think he is John Prescott, but since his latest posts are not as ungrammatical and ill-spelt as they used to be, he is someone else now. We are looking for someone educated privately. Fat Balls?
David Ossitt
March 27th, 2010 3:14pm Report this commentRon Todd
“I have a problem with this. I have long assumed that Byers always lies.
If he is now making two opposing statements do I have to assume that in one of them he was telling the truth?”
No; sorry Ron they are both lies.
Dr John Dellingham
March 30th, 2010 10:11am Report this commentThe wheedling Byers always was a tenth rate minister (at best!)and Adnois is just there to waffle and smooth trouble waters. As anyone who's aware of the Nat Express/East Coast Line debacle will acknowledge it was always going to be a disaster and someone would have to pick up the pieces, in this case the tax payer - which as it has turned out is no bad thing. Transport overall is badly run, badly funded, and badly misunderstood. They deserve each other.
Back to top