Bishop Hill Yeo works late
Sep 1, 2012 Climate: Parliament Ethics Tim Yeo never gives up, does he?
Ever more entangled become the political and business interests of Tim Yeo MP, chairman of the Commons select committee on energy and climate change. Last Tuesday, Mr Yeo rose to the top of the news agenda by demanding to know whether David Cameron was going to be “a man or a mouse” in handling the issue of a third runway at Heathrow.
Yeo cited as his main reason for supporting this cause that it would help British businesses to open up more trade links with China. But it was then pointed out that a company of which he is chairman, TMO Renewables (which last year paid him £60,000, at up to £1,000 an hour), has just signed a memorandum of understanding with the largest farming corporation in China to supply it with feedstocks for biofuels. TMO’s latest annual report states that doing business with China has become a “key focus” of its activities.
Reader Comments (18)
The key paragraph for me:
Yeo must go.
Christopher Booker should have these articles on the front page, The Editors at the Telegraph are seriously underestimating the enormity of disdain that people now have for the self serving actions of politicians and the need to rid them from the system.
Tim Yeo should remember he is only able to enjoy such "top ups" to his MP's salary because he is an MP, not because he is a great business man.
In turn he only became an MP because he was elected to represent the voters of his constituency, not go off stuffing his own bank account with all these extras.
It's time constituents were allowed to re-call their MP at anytime, plus the banning of outside interests for any MP/Minister.
If they can't survive on an MP's salary and expenses, let them go, there's many more who could and be willing to serve their electorate.
Christopher Booker has done a majestic job exposing bent agenda science and EU related mischief for so long that we often take him for granted. In fact, in those dark days, not so long ago, when no-one apart from him dared question the dogma, he soldiered on bravely, completely alone with his Telegraph Comment slot in the otherwise silent MSM. He deserves our praise.
Shame he did not use Josh's latest- it was inspired.
Letter of excuse from Yeo, in the Telegraph:
Capacity at Heathrow
SIR – Sue Cameron (Comment, August 30) may disagree with the need for a third runway at Heathrow, but she should not impugn my motives for supporting it.
Once the risk of increased greenhouse gas emissions was removed by the inclusion of aviation emissions in the EU cap last January, I accepted that Britain’s competitive position was being weakened by a lack of capacity at Heathrow.
TMO Renewables, which I chair, has developed technology to produce ethanol from waste. It does not supply the home market, and needs to exploit its technology lead in several larger and more attractive overseas markets in the next two years. As it will be 10 years before a third Heathrow runway can start operating, its construction cannot bestow any financial advantage on either TMO or myself.
The suggestion that the answer to airport capacity is to expand Stansted ignores the fact that Stansted currently operates well below its capacity. If airlines wanted to fly to China from there, they could start now. But what business travellers need is a hub airport big enough to meet their needs.
Tim Yeo MP (Con)
London SW1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9512353/The-effects-of-Nick-Cleggs-economic-ideas-on-the-Coalition-Government.html
Yeo is looking more and more like Josh's cartoons of him. Is he actually turning into a porker..?
Could one of you fill us leftside-of-ponders in on any standard in the Commons which might be the measure of unseemliness at a minimum of Mr. Yeo's extracurricular activities? It appears that there might not be one.
Can that really be?
jferguson
The level of unseemliness in British politicians has no bottom. The level drops every year whoever is in power. This is because they do not go to jail for their criminal acts let alone their vested interest pursuits which know no boundary of integrity.
Interesting convergence between science and politics. Doug Keenan (the mathematician) has tried to raise awareness of the fact that there seems to be no system for regulating scientists and punishing those who "cheat". Similarly although there are recorded rules of behaviour for MPs there does not seem to be a system which holds MPs to account when they flagrantly breach those rules time and time again.
Well actually there is a system of sorts but it does not come into action unless the PM authorises it, he obviously thinks everything smells of roses as opposed to pig sties.
jferguson
You can find a pdf of the rules here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmcode.htmThey include:
6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special
duty to their constituents.
7. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.
They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public
resources.
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They
should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their
family, or their friends.
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public
duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public
interest.
10. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict
between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at
once, and in favour of the public interest.
It goes on... struggling to find one that Yeo has not breached.
Hmm
After reading further in the rules, I realise that I am able to make a complaint about Yeo to The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Over the next few days I will get my evidence together and do just that.
Thank you Dung. Is it possible that Yeo's activities have not reached the threshold of embarrassment to his colleagues that would be needed to provoke censure? It isn't hard to imagine why that could be?
I'm sure we have the same problem in the States.
I have sent a number of emails to "Top-up" Tim's Constituency Chair (Peter Burgoyne) pointing out Tim (I'm a serial adulterer and money grubber) Yeo's conflicts of interest. So far it has been water off a duck's back.
However I'm sure if more write in expressing their concerns, maybe he will take notice.
Peter Burgoyne's email address is; peterburgoyne@southsuffolk.fsnet.co.uk
Thanks, Don, I have emailed him; but I don't expect any more action than you have had. If Burgoyne had sanctioned Yeo, I wouldn't expect too much of him.
As one of Yeo's concerned constituents I am always interested in his activities regarding environmental matters, as are an increasing number of others in Suffolk South. The latest is that on Monday last week he came out in favour of expansion at Heathrow, however on Friday he re-affirmed his opposition to an extra runway at Stansted. http://www.eadt.co.uk/business...
At least he is consistent. He opposed a windfarm at nearby Clare in Suffolk, whilst continuing his support for the plan to cover the rest of the UK with these unwanted monstrosities. He opposes expansion at Stansted as his constituency is under one of the flightpaths, but Heathrow and West London are conveniently far enough away. Of course, another reason for publicly opposing Stansted expansion is that it might possibly turn out to be favoured over his own choice of Heathrow.
It is rumoured that he may not stand at the next election, which is perhaps why he now has his sights set elsewhere to follow up his thirty year tenure as 'our' MP.
It's time Mps became Mps, whole Mps and nothing but Mps. Any outside interest or payment should result in suspension and or by election.
@Edward.
Yeo is covering his own a***.
His hypocrisy know no bounds.
Aside from Yeo's jaw-dropping brass neck when it comes to 'bending' parliamentary codes of practice - isn't the received wisdom now (re airports) that a new airport to the EAST of London is best placed to serve the East..?