Obviously conversations do occur and party lines established but for another member to blatantly jeopardise such procedures would be wholly out of line. Notes can be passed using civic staff. It’s just such a fine line that i’d freak out a bit.

That would depend entirely of what, if anything, was said by any of the members of the committee he approached,

The fact that matter has been raised with other committee members, spawning an allegation of contempt, implies that three who Phillips spoke to will have the courtesy to listen long enough to find out what he wanted before advising him that it was a matter they could not take up,

Can’t really attach blame to that.

He did give evidence to the committee.

Why speak to individual members?

That’s the $64,000 question, and the reason that committee have alleged contempt.

Professor Kay Hampton:

Yes I suppose more than any of my colleagues around the table today I worked closely with Trevor for longer, for four years at the Commission for Racial Equality first and then at the Human Rights Commission. It reached the stage where we were terribly unhappy, particularly myself, in terms of some of the issues relating to governance, mainly conflicts of interest, the manner in which the board was being run, the inability for board members to participate fully in the discussions. It culminated really for me, the most important aspect, was the reappointment of ex-CRE staff who had taken redundancy packages. It was something I had actually challenged him on 18 months prior to resigning, in fact while I was at the Commission for Racial Equality, and he continued to deny any knowledge of it which I thought at that stage was terribly unprofessional of somebody to be the Chairman of an organisation that needed to lead by example.

Mr Ben Summerskill:

The key reason in the end why I resigned was that as chairman of the Commission’s Audit Committee I simply felt unable to offer appropriate assurance to the National Audit Office that the Commission was being led with probity.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/uc1042-i/uc104202.htm

So what kind of ‘lobbying’ do you think Phillips might have been doing after comments like that were made in regards to his leadership of the EHRC?

No. People can run campaigns. That’s ok, and there’s nothing improper about it. Let’s not fall into the Tory trap of only validating individualised engagement in politics. It’s ok for people to form collectives and to use their collective power in an organised way. It’s ok for trade unions to get their members to write to their MPs in order to try and improve working conditions, for example. The danger of corporate lobbying is in the possibility of corruption, not in the very act of a conversation. (But again, who someone wants to speak with says something about the individual.)

MPs can meet who they want. But if they find there has been a concerted campaign to influence them in some way to further the ends of the person or organisation concerned, which I assume happened here (to be fair on minimal evidence) can parliment not call the person abusing access to elected representatives for contempt? It is not democratic to allow certain people or organisations particular access to representatives without this being known to electors.

Having said that, I’m not a fan of Trevor Phillips either so I’m not going to defend him – of course none of us have any idea what exactly he said, but the very act of speaking surely can’t be an offence in itself.

Would it be OK if a representative of the BNP had met MPs just before this meeting? If a representative of Barclays met with MPs just before a Finance Select Committee (whatever they are called) or of Exxon before an Environment Select Committee.

I think this is what is called lobbying, which is a problem, however good the motives. At least this was in the open – although I am intrigued by the “at least three” members; would others not say if they had been approached?

They are not a court. There is no such thing as ‘approaching a judge’ in Parliament – being approached is part and parcel of their job.

They can take the lobbying on board or reject it. But this gazing-into-the-middle-distance and going on about holding Parliament in contempt is preposterous.

One look at the committee’s membership explains a lot – exactly the sort of people to petulantly go off on one for no reasons