MP Johnny Mercer's salary funded by failed bond scheme marketing agent

Pic-On top of his pay as an MP, Johnny Mercer receives £85,000 a year from Crucial Academy to do four hours work per week(wp)

Special report(wp/bbc):::

A company that marketed a failed bond scheme that lost savers £236m has been funding an MP's private salary.

Johnny Mercer receives £85,000 from Crucial Academy, a company ultimately funded by Surge Financial Limited.

Surge Financial Limited took 25% commission for marketing bonds by London Capital and Finance (LCF), which is now in administration.

Mr Mercer - who is facing calls from investors to quit as an MP - said he had done nothing wrong.

The Conservative MP for Plymouth Moor View is a non-executive director of Crucial Academy, which trains military veterans and aims to find them employment.

Mr Mercer, himself a former Army officer, is contracted to work 20 hours per month, a rate of more than £350 per hour.

The basic annual salary for an MP is £79,468, and they also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office.

According to Mr Mercer's register of members' interests, his only other regular income is the £85,000 per year from Crucial Academy.

What are the rules for MPs on second jobs?

MPs are allowed to have other jobs in addition to their roles in Parliament and their constituencies.

Currently, there are a number of lawyers, some doctors and nurses, and even a football referee in the Commons.

But there are some rules they have to follow.

All MPs have to declare any individual work payments to the Register of Members' Financial Interests if they are more than £100.

If, over the course of the year, they earn more than £300 from one source, they then have to declare every payment from that employer, however big or small.

Government ministers are subject to the same rules, plus they are not allowed to be paid for writing newspaper articles and can't write books about their jobs while in employment.

Ministers are also meant to wait for three months after they leave the post before taking another job outside of the government.

Thousands of first-time investors put their pensions and savings into a bond scheme offered by LCF.

Amanda Cunningham was trying to save money for her autistic son when she lost more than £22,000 investing in LCF.

She said she was never told Surge Financial Ltd was taking 25% commission and was angry some of that money had been funding Mr Mercer's salary.

"Politicians are there for the people, and Johnny Mercer is not thinking about the people," she said.

"The best thing for him to do would be resign - or give that money back."

What is the Surge Group?

• Surge Group Limited and Surge Financial Limited are both owned by Paul Careless
• Surge Financial takes commission for acting for companies such as London Capital and Finance, which collapsed in February
• It takes commissions of up to 25% of the capital invested
• Surge Group is funded entirely by Surge Financial, and invests in various associated businesses including the Crucial Group, whose subsidiary company Crucial Academy employs Johnny Mercer MP
• Surge Group's independent auditors said Surge Group was reliant on funds from Surge Financial

John Wright invested £36,000 of his wife's money into LCF after being enticed by the 8% interest rates - far higher than the 0.25% offered by their bank.

"[Mr Mercer is] involved with a company like Surge, which took a quarter of my money for putting adverts on the web recommending LCF as their top buy," he said.

Mr Wright, a long-time Conservative supporter, said he had lost all faith in Parliament and called for Mr Mercer to stand down.

The company claims to have trained 80 veterans since July 2018, with more than 72 "finding gainful employment post-course in the cyber security industry".

Mr Mercer said: "I totally reject the assertion that I have done anything wrong in working as a non-executive director of Crucial Academy.

"I have sought rigorous assurances that at no stage was capital used from any business with LCF, in Crucial Academy.

"I received those assurances. It now appears there is a historical link between the two, that has been uncovered in the accounts when Surge Group loaned the Crucial Group £325,095."

He said having joined the academy "only last autumn" he clearly "had no role" in setting up the link.

"When this historic link was discovered, the leadership of Crucial Academy immediately implemented a management buy-out and the loan was repaid, in order to ensure the continuing integrity of Crucial Academy," Mr Mercer explained.

Crucial Academy was "a good organisation, doing good things, run by good people, with no financial link to London Capital and Finance", he said.

However, the accounts of Surge Group have been published and show nearly £9m was loaned from Surge Financial to Surge Group without which, the auditors said, the company would be unlikely to survive.

Surge Group then loaned £325,095 to the Crucial Group, which owns Crucial Academy.

An industry expert told the BBC the cost of training 80 people on the courses provided by Crucial would be about £240,000.

When added to the cost of Mr Mercer's £85,000 salary, the total almost exactly matches the amount loaned to Crucial Group.

In a statement to the BBC, representatives of Surge Group said that all financial links with the Crucial Group had now been severed.

London Capital & Finance

• London Capital & Finance (LCF) is now in administration after collapsing while owing £236m to bondholders
• It advertised bonds as ISAs, offering returns of 8% despite giving 25% of the money straight to Surge Financial Limited as a commission
• Nearly 12,000 lost their money, with many investing for the first time with inheritances or pensions
• Four people were arrested by the Serious Fraud Office in relation to LCF
• Less than 20% of the lost money is expected to be recovered

Factbox - The Brexit law: What is the UK government considering putting to parliament?

Special report(wp/reuters):::
Prime Minister Theresa May wants to get her Brexit deal with the European Union approved by lawmakers in time to avoid taking part in next month’s European Parliament elections.

To do so, she needs to get a law passed through the British parliament. Here is some information about that legislation:

WHAT IS THE ‘WAB’?

The ‘European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill’, known as the WAB, formally ratifies Britain’s exit agreement with the EU. It gives legal effect to the transition period, due to run until December 2020, the rights of EU citizens, a financial settlement with the bloc and an agreement on how to avoid a hard border in Ireland if a future trade deal with the EU cannot be concluded in time.

WHEN COULD IT BE INTRODUCED TO PARLIAMENT?

Parliament has rejected May’s Brexit deal three times since the start of the year. The government is now holding talks with the opposition Labour Party aimed at reaching a compromise on the way forward.

May’s spokesman said her team of ministers had agreed the WAB should be put before parliament as soon as possible. A government source said this could be as early as next week.

Introducing the legislation directly would bypass the so-called ‘meaningful vote’ on May’s deal, which the House of Commons speaker has ruled cannot be brought back for another vote without substantial changes.

It would put pressure on lawmakers to support the legislation to ensure Britain leaves the EU before the European Parliament elections. It would also enable compromise to be reached through amendments, or changes, to the bill, which could be put forward by pro- and anti-Brexit factions in parliament, giving the legislation a better chance of gaining support.

HOW QUICKLY COULD IT BE PASSED?

To avoid holding European Parliament elections on May 23, the bill would have to pass through all its stages in both the lower House of Commons and upper House of Lords to ratify the deal and leave the EU. Timing is tight.

Parliament is due to sit for just 15 days before May 23. Several previous bills on Britain’s relationship with Europe have taken more than 30 days to pass.

Legislation can be rushed through, although many provisions in the bill are expected to be contentious. Lawmakers are likely to object to not having the opportunity to give it enough scrutiny.

If it is not passed by May 23, Britain must take part in the European elections. Its EU membership is due to end on Oct. 31, with or without a deal. If it does not take part in the elections and has not ratified an exit deal, Britain will leave without an agreement on June 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE BILL IS VOTED DOWN?

Without a breakthrough in talks with Labour, it is risky for the government to introduce the legislation. If it is voted down, rules dictate that the same bill cannot be brought back during this parliamentary session.

Britain cannot leave the EU with a deal if it does not pass the bill to ratify the agreement.

In order to bring back the bill, the government would have to ‘prorogue’ parliament to end the session and start a new session. This process could take several days and is likely to end any hope of it passing before May 23.

Proroguing could bring problems: May’s Conservatives do not have a majority in parliament and its agreement with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to prop up the government is due to be reviewed at the start of any new session. The DUP oppose May’s deal.

DOES THERE STILL HAVE TO BE A ‘MEANINGFUL VOTE’?

The legal requirement to hold a ‘meaningful vote’ in parliament to approve May’s deal would remain, but the government believes that if lawmakers have voted to approve the legislation, passing a meaningful vote would become a formality.

UK government Brexit talks with Labour cannot be open ended - May's spokesman

Political reporter(wp/reuters):::

British government talks with the Labour Party on finding a Brexit compromise cannot be open ended, Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman said on Wednesday.

The spokesman said working groups from both sides were pressing on with the talks this week, including a meeting to discuss financial services on Wednesday.

Britain to allow Huawei restricted access to 5G network

IT(wp/reuters):::
Britain will allow Huawei Technologies a restricted role in building parts of its 5G network, seeking a middle way in a bitter dispute between the United States and China over the next generation of communications technology.

Huawei, the world’s biggest producer of telecoms equipment, is under intense scrutiny after the United States told allies not to use its technology because of fears it could be a vehicle for Chinese spying. Huawei has categorically denied this.

Britain’s National Security Council, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May, met to discuss Huawei on Tuesday.

A security source told Reuters that Britain would block Huawei from all core parts of the 5G network and access to non-core parts would be restricted. A second source confirmed that. Both spoke on condition of anonymity.

“It’s essential that we get the balance right, ensuring that our networks are built in a way that is secure against interference from whatever source, but also are competitive,” said Britain’s finance minister, Philip Hammond.

“Where our security experts tell us that there are ways in which we can maintain security - whether it’s in networks or installations - that avoid the most economically costly outcomes, then we should look very carefully at those options.”

The Daily Telegraph newspaper first reported the Huawei decision.

5G, which will offer much faster data speeds and become the foundation stone of many industries and networks, is seen as one of the biggest innovations since the birth of the internet itself a generation ago.

In what some have compared to the Cold War arms race, the United States is worried 5G dominance would give a competitor such as China an advantage Washington is not ready to accept.

European nations are treading a fine line in the dispute between the world’s two most powerful countries, under pressure from the United States to take a hard line on Huawei but also anxious not to sour trading and diplomatic relations with China.

Huawei welcomed London’s move, though ministers cautioned that a final decision may not have been made.

FIVE EYES?

Britain’s compromise could provide a template for other Western nations to follow as they try to navigate the row between Beijing and Washington.

The world’s leading intelligence-sharing network - the anglophone Five Eyes alliance of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand - will not use technology from Huawei in its most sensitive networks, a U.S. official said.

“What I see playing out here is a discussion amongst all of us about the realities of where do you define sensitive networks, where does that start and end,” said Rob Joyce, a senior official from the U.S. National Security Agency.

Ciaran Martin, head of the cyber center of Britain’s main eavesdropping agency, GCHQ, played down any threat of a rift in the Five Eyes alliance.

“There have been different approaches across the Five Eyes and across the allied wider Western alliance toward Huawei and toward other issues as well,” said Martin, head of the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

Huawei, founded in 1987 by a former engineer in China’s People’s Liberation Army, denies it is spying for Beijing, says it complies with the law and that the United States is trying to smear it because Western companies are falling behind.

THREAT

Huawei’s equipment is either not present or is being stripped out of existing core networks in Britain, but is widely used in lower risk parts such as radio masts.

The world’s second largest mobile company, Vodafone, has warned a complete ban would significantly extend the cost and time to deploy 5G.

What Britain is trying to do is keep Huawei’s technology away from the brain of the network, while using it in the less sensitive parts of the nervous system.

But lawmaker Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said allowing Huawei to remain in the 5G network would undermine trust between Five Eye allies.

“Our most important security alliance is the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network,” Tugendhat said. “The problem with therefore having Huawei running our infrastructure is that it undermines that trust.”

Tugendhat said it was difficult to define core and non-core with 5G and that the Chinese company should not be allowed to build Britain’s 5G network.

The telecoms equipment market is divided between three majors suppliers - Huawei, Sweden’s Ericsson and Finland’s Nokia - and network operators oppose any reduction that would limit competition among them.

Scotland will prepare for an independence referendum before May 2021 - Sturgeon

International(p/reuters):::
Scotland should hold an independence referendum before the current Scottish parliamentary term ends in May 2021 and will prepare legislation for this to happen, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said on Wednesday.

“A choice between Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent European nation should be offered in the lifetime of this parliament,” Sturgeon told Holyrood, Scotland’s devolved parliament.

She said a devolved parliament bill would be drawn up before the end of 2019.

The permission of Britain’s sovereign parliament at this stage was not needed, she said, but would be eventually be necessary “to put beyond doubt or challenge our ability to apply the bill to an independence referendum.”

Sturgeon is under pressure from her nationalist movement to provide a clear way forward in the quest for an independent Scotland.

But Britain is mired in political chaos due to Brexit and it is still unclear whether, when or even if Britain will leave the European Union.

Scotland, part of the United Kingdom for more than 300 years, rejected independence by 10 percentage points in a 2014 referendum.

Differences over Brexit have strained the United Kingdom. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU in a 2016 referendum, while Wales and England vote to leave.

Those who want to maintain the United Kingdom argue that Brexit has made no difference to how Scots feel, and the secession vote should not be repeated.

But Sturgeon argued that leaving the world’s largest trading bloc endangers Britain and Scotland’s economic well-being.

“We face being forced to the margins, sidelined within a UK that is itself increasingly sidelined on the international stage. Independence by contrast would allow us to protect our place in Europe,” she said.

“We need a more solid foundation on which to build our future as a country.”