Does the reporter REALLY think this is only a London problem?
Alas not, as we have proved in East Devon:
Category Archives: Conflict of interest
Flagship Tory council may turn red due to councillors’ cosy relationship with developers
Owl says: If every Tory council with cosy relationships with developers turned red there wouldn’t be any left!!! Tory/developer, horse/carriage!!!
“It is the Conservatives’ local government flagship, blue since its creation in 1965. But in Westminster, amid a growing row about the influence of property developers, next month’s local elections are starting to look a bit tight.
In the ward covering London’s West End, some of the priciest real estate in Europe, two of the three sitting Tory councillors have been ousted by the party after opposing a wave of new building, which they say is overwhelming the area.
One of the councillors, Paul Church, said he had “tried to stand up for the communities I was elected to represent against the dominance of property developers and their agents, patronage and power in Westminster” but he had been “bullied, silenced and threatened by their powerful allies. Local government shouldn’t be like this.”
The other, Glenys Roberts, who has represented West End for 19 years, said: “I have tried to find out why I was deselected and they won’t tell me, so I feel as if I’m in a Kafka novel.” She said she had protested against “too much demolition” in Soho, part of her ward, adding: “If you completely get rid of the loucheness and the interestingness, do you just get rid of Soho and the reasons that anybody would ever come there?
“These are the issues I was very deeply involved with. They [the council leadership] didn’t like me being involved with State of Soho [a local group that campaigns against overdevelopment], but I just wanted the best for my area and the people I represent.”
Soho, a small area made up mainly of 18th and 19th-century houses, faces almost 20 large development schemes. Seven involve significant demolition of historic buildings, including the former Foyles bookshop in Charing Cross Road, a plan described by Historic England as doing “substantial harm” to the Soho conservation area.
The row will reopen concerns about developer influence at Westminster council, whose former deputy leader, Robert Davis, accepted more than 500 gifts or freebies, 150 of them from developers, while chairing the committee that decided on some of their planning applications.
Even the council leader, Nickie Aiken, admitted to The Sunday Times: “I do recognise that there was an historic issue in Westminster with the perception of these relationships. To date I have found no evidence of any wrongdoing or impropriety… [but] Westminster city council under my leadership will reassure residents about the integrity of the planning process.”
Davis left the planning job last year and “stepped aside” as deputy leader last month after it was revealed that he had taken gifts, meals or hospitality 514 times in three years, including nine free foreign trips, tickets to dozens of West End shows and hundreds of meals at top restaurants including the Ivy, the Ritz and Sexy Fish. He referred himself to a standards investigation but denies any wrongdoing and has been selected to stand for re-election as a Conservative.
In Mayfair, another part of her ward, Roberts said that “a lot of the rules [the council] have for keeping conservation areas in the right proportions and all the rest of it were being totally overruled”.
She said that Davis had once told her to “shut up” about a development and a number of other councillors “have told me he has tried [to silence them]”.
A third councillor who has been deselected in a different ward said Davis had telephoned to threaten them with “consequences” for their council career if they publicly spoke against controversial planning projects in their ward.
Davis said last night that he “never discouraged anyone from raising legitimate objections or concerns” but had “advised Mr Church that it is often sensible to air concerns with officers and members prior to a committee hearing, so as to allow them to be carefully considered and, ideally, addressed beforehand”.
He “expressly” denied threatening anyone with any consequences for opposing a planning application.
Roberts also said pressure was put on Westminster’s planning officers to change their recommendations to favour certain schemes.
“I was rung up by one of the officers saying there were meetings being held behind the scenes, off the record, no minutes taken,” she said.
“He was asked to change his recommendation and he refused . . . [but] the recommendations were changed subsequently.”
Roberts did not accuse Davis personally of pressurising officers and Davis said he had never asked any officer to change a recommendation.”
Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)
Jeremy Hunt didn’t tell Standards Commissioner he had bought 7 flats from an “a cquaintance” who was also a Tory donor
“Jeremy Hunt received a “bulk discount” on seven flats bought from a Conservative donor, the Guardian can disclose, as parliament’s watchdog opened an investigation into the health secretary’s admission that he breached money laundering rules.
The health secretary was forced to apologise for failing to declare his part-ownership of a company, which bought the luxury seaside flats in Southampton.
Kathryn Stone, parliament’s commissioner for standards, received a complaint about Hunt on Friday. The commissioner’s website confirms that Hunt is now under investigation.
Guardian inquiries established that the 82-flat block, called Alexandra Wharf, was developed by Nicolas James Group, a south coast property firm owned and chaired by businessman and Conservative donor Nicolas James Roach.
Neither Hunt nor Roach agreed to disclose the value of the deal but a source close to the health secretary said he had received a “bulk discount” for buying multiple apartments.
A spokesperson for Roach said that all sales at Alexandra Wharf were at “open market value”, adding that the businessman’s political donations had been properly declared on the Electoral Commission website.
They added that the pair had known each other for “several years” but had no business relationship beyond the purchase of the flats.
A spokesperson for Hunt said: “The owner of the development is a long-standing acquaintance.
“Jeremy paid standard market rates which would have been available to anyone else making an equivalent purchase.
“As Jeremy has been clear from the outset, the rental income from these properties will be donated to charity.”
Roach has made more than £50,000 in donations to Hunt’s South West Surrey constituency office since 2011, mostly in the form of complimentary venue hire.
The pair were pictured together in 2011 at a party to launch a £60m hotel in Guildford, Surrey, that was developed by Nicolas James Group.
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman for the committee on standards in public life said: “In terms of public perception of ministerial priorities, Hunt seems more concerned with maximising his personal interests rather than ensuring that there are good public services.
“On a local level, there does seem to be an incestuous relationship between a local donor and a local politician in a way which will make the public uneasy.” …”
Being a councillor: a public service or a feather-bedded job?
“The ceremonial head of a cash-strapped council is set to be given a £2,500 pay rise just weeks after a decision to shut the county’s youth clubs.
A meeting of Gwynedd council’s democratic services committee today recommended that the council chair should see their pay upgraded to “band 1” status.
The role – known in some areas as the county mayor – changes hands every 12 months and involves presiding over full council meetings and representing the authority at various functions in a civic capacity.
At present, the holder is afforded “band 2” status, meaning they would receive £21,800 in 2018/19.
But, if Gwynedd’s full council accepts the committee’s recommendation when it meets on May 3, the chair’s pay will increase to £24,300.
The committee’s findings come just a month after the authority decided to introduce a new youth service model, which will see all 39 existing youth clubs replaced by a single county-wide offering in a bid to save £270,000.
Cllr Charles Wyn Jones, who proposed the pay rise during this morning’s meeting, said: “Having fulfilled the role myself, I know that the council chair usually has to attend at least 40 functions a year, many of which take place in the daytime.
“I feel the title holder should be paid more than the committee chairs, simply due to the number of hours they have to put into the role.
“I know the role only lasts a year, but it involves putting in many hours.”
Cllr Dewi Owen, also a former council chair, echoed his sentiments: “Living in Aberdyfi and having to travel to functions in places such as Bangor, it meant having to stay over in bed and breakfasts and many hours of travel time in order to do the job properly.”
The new council chair, succeeding Cllr Annwen Daniels, will be selected by county councillors next month.
Meanwhile, all 75 Gwynedd councillors will receive a £200 pay rise to £13,600 a year, in line with the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales’ (IRPW) findings for the 22 Welsh authorities.
Questioning the panel’s findings, Menai Bangor councillor Catrin Wager said: “I do feel that at a time when cuts are being made, an extra £200 for every member is questionable.
“Is there anything we can do apart from accept this?”
In response, democratic services manager Vera Jones confirmed that members could choose to waive the automatic pay rise by informing the authority in writing.
There will be no change in the salaries of the council leader and deputy, which will remain at £48,300 and £33,800 respectively.
Members of the cabinet will be paid £29,300 a year, and £22,300 for committee chairs.
The final decision on member salaries will be formally rubber stamped during Gwynedd’s full council meeting on May 3.”
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/gwynedd-council-pay-rise-chair-14524343
“PM among cabinet members earning money as a landlord”
“Nine cabinet ministers, including the prime minister, are making more than £10,000 a year by acting as landlords, a Guardian analysis has found.
Following Jeremy Hunt’s failure to declare the purchase of seven luxury flats that he subsequently rented out, an analysis of the parliamentary register of MPs’ interests shows eight other members of the cabinet own and rent out a property.
The health secretary was forced in to an embarrassing apology on Friday after it emerged that he had failed to declare a business interest with both Companies House and the parliamentary register of MPs’ interests.
Hunt has amended the register, which now shows that he has a half share of a holiday home in Italy, a half share in an office building in Hammersmith and seven recently acquired apartments in Southampton.
Theresa May and Philip Hammond, who both live in Downing Street, rent out their personal homes in central London. Communities and housing secretary Sajid Javid also rents out property, while Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, rents out two properties, according to the register
The foreign secretary Boris Johnson, the international trade secretary Liam Fox, the minister without portfolio Brandon Lewis – who is also the Conservative party chairman – and the Welsh minister Alun Cairns also own and rent out a property, according to the register.
There is no suggestion that the ministers are in breach of the ministerial code. …”
“Council fails in appeal over FOI request and commercial prejudice”
“Hartlepool Borough Council has lost an appeal against a ruling by the Information Commissioner because it failed to provide evidence of what harm to commercial interests would be done by disclosing material dating from 2005 and relating to the transfer of ownership of Durham Tees Valley Airport.
In the First-Tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights), Judge Anisa Dhanji said neither the council nor property firm Peel had shown any convincing reason for keeping private details of the deal they did over the airport.
John Latimer had made a Freedom of Information request for papers relating to how ownership of 75% of the airport came to be transferred by the six Tees Valley local authorities to Peel.
Some information was provided but the council withheld the rest – though it later made further releases – and Latimer took his case to the Commissioner, who ruled in his favour.
Giving judgment in Hartlepool Borough Council v IC & (Dismissed : Freedom of Information Act 2000) [2018] UKFTT 2017_0057 (GRC), Judge Dhanji noted Hartlepool had not put forward any submissions or witness statements for this appeal.
She said: “It is not clear to what extent the council is still relying on prejudice to its own interests, but we entirely agree with the commissioner’s assessment…we do not find that the council has established that disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests,”
Peel’s case asserted that disclosure could weaken its position in negotiations with potential new investors in the airport and could be used by competitors against it.
“What Peel has completely failed to do, however, is to support its assertions with evidence,” the judge said.
“There are no witness statements, and no evidence or even arguments to link the disclosure of any specific aspect of the information with any specific business interests that would or would be likely to be prejudiced by its disclosure.”
Peel had “failed to show the causal link between the disputed information and the claimed prejudice”, the tribunal concluded, ordering Hartlepool to send Latimer the information within 35 days.”
http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php
Full Judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2018/2017_0057.html
“There’s enough tax money to feed hungry children – it’s just in the wrong pockets”
” … Over the past two years, health bosses have charged £5.8m on taxpayer-funded credit cards to finance their lavish lifestyles.
Purchases included helicopter lessons, go-karting outings, bookings at five-star hotels, trips to cocktails bars, and stops at fast-food joints.
This behaviour shines light on a deep hypocrisy from health bosses, who on the one hand work to implement a sugar tax – effective today – to discourage taxpayers from consuming sugary drinks, and on the other hand use the same taxpayers’ money to fund their own trips to McDonalds.
Putting the hypocrisy aside, there is a wider issue here, of how taxpayer money is spent once it’s in the hands of the state.
We are always told that the solution to any given problem is more spending, and consequently calls to ramp up taxes naturally follow. But that argument fails down flat when nearly £6m that could have been used to top up a low-income parent of three, or go towards a health service we are perpetually told is “in crisis”, has been spent on public officials to live their weekends like rock stars.
The UK government is already spending around 40 per cent of GDP – the majority of that is from tax intake, but tens of billions are still borrowed from future generations.
There is no justification for increasing the burden on taxpayers by a penny more. There are already funds in the system that could help the most needy. They are just sitting in the wrong pockets. …”
http://www.cityam.com/283465/theres-enough-tax-money-feed-hungry-children-its-just-wrong
Q: who audits the auditors? A: their pals
“The chief accountancy watchdog has hired lawyers to keep evidence confidential that might throw light on its contentious decision in 2013 not to investigate KPMG’s audit of HBOS.
Four of the auditor’s former partners were serving on the Financial Reporting Council’s conduct committee when it decided not to investigate their former firm’s role in the bank’s collapse. Another committee member had advised KPMG previously.
The FRC, which last week emphasised the importance of transparency in its workings, has appointed Fieldfisher, a law firm, to fight a tribunal appeal aimed at winning access to documents and emails under the Freedom of Information Act.
The regulator is under pressure to improve its investigatory processes after several corporate collapses where the auditors failed to spot problems. Last week Greg Clark, the business secretary, promised an independent investigation into the regulator.
Some concerned investors say that the FRC is soft on auditors because it has been “captured” by the accounting profession, with its board and decision-making committees liberally sprinkled with former Big Four accountants.
MPs described the regulator’s initial decision not to investigate KPMG as “a serious mistake”. Poor accounting and accounting rules have been cited as one reason why no one understood how bad the bank’s problems were until it was too late. The bank was rescued by Lloyds TSB with £20 billion of backing from taxpayers. Later £53 billion of its loans went sour as the extent of its reckless approach to creditors became clear.
The FRC belatedly investigated, only to find the auditor not guilty of any serious failings — triggering more astonishment from some MPs.
Margot Gibbs, a researcher originally backed by Greenpeace, is appealing against a decision by the Information Commissioner in November in order to establish how individual members of the conduct committee voted and whether there was any lobbying between KPMG partners and their former colleagues and advisers on the committee.
She also wants to challenge the FRC claim that, despite being a public body, it is largely exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. The watchdog and the business department, its sponsoring ministry, have been fighting the public sector classification for 14 years.
The former KPMG partners on the ten-member conduct committee were Paul George, a partner until 1999, Sean Collins, one until 2009, Joanna Osborne, a partner until 2011, and John Kellas, one until 2004. In addition, Richard Fleck, its chairman, is a consultant with Herbert Smith, which used to advise KPMG.
The minutes of the meeting show that Ms Osborne and Mr Collins left when KPMG was discussed, according to a report into the affair published by the FRC in November last year. Mr Kellas stayed but “did not participate”. The report did not say what Mr George and Mr Fleck did, nor how anyone voted.
The FRC confirmed that it had appointed lawyers. “We took this approach, ie explaining why the request was out of scope and referring Ms Gibbs instead to information we had published in connection with her request, for consistency of treatment and fairness with all other FOI requesters whose requests are out of scope.”
Fines by the FRC last year were their highest ever at almost £15 million.
KPMG has been auditor to several leading British companies that have failed or come to close to failing, including Co-operative Bank, Carillion and Conviviality, the group behind Wine Rack and Bargain Booze.
The tribunal is due to hear the case on April 27.”
Source: The Times, paywall
Hugo Swire, Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council – questions asked
Entry on Hugo Swire’s Register of Interest:
‘From 15 November 2016, Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Address: Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HX. I expect to be paid £2,000 every month until further notice. Hours: 10 hrs per month. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment. (Registered 16 November 2016)’
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170502/swire_hugo.htm
Another post from Sarawak (see below) on this company again mentions Swire’s involvement in this company:
“As part of a lengthy over-view of the Malaysian Government’s interesting ties with SCL, the company behind the scandal-torn ‘deep data election agency’ Cambridge Analytica, Sarawak Report last week highlighted connections between the role of Brtish peer Lord Marland as a “great supporter of Malaysia” and the work of SCL, of which he is a shareholder.
Marland, a businessman and Conservative Party Treasurer and donor, whom the party nominated to be a working peer, spent a short time as a government minister and then as David Cameron’s ‘Trade Envoy’, before returning to private business.
However, as Sarawak Report has pointed out, the private company he now heads bears a title that might confuse the unitiated into thinking that he retains some form of official government role as an envoy of the Commonwealth. Marland’s Wikipedia page describes him as having become Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council Limited (CWEIC) after stepping down as Trade Envoy.
In fact, Marland incorporated CWEIC as a £2.00 limited company, of which he was a joint shareholder together with a farmer named Oliver Everett, in July 2015 shortly after leaving political office. He therefore effectively appointed himself to the official sounding role.
Yet the confusion to an extent continues, since CWEIC’s website explains that the organisation is a ‘not for profit membership organisation with a mandate from Commonwealth Heads of Government to promote intra-Commonwealth trade, investment and the role of the private sector across the 52 member countries…”
The impression, therefore, is that Marland has decided to engage in a charitable role on behalf of the Commonwealth, which has been approved by Heads of Government and the Secreatariat based in the major public building, Malborough House, London.
So, is this outwardly rather strange arrangement with the Commonwealth Secretariat being conducted purely on a charitable basis or is there any danger that CWEIC’s voluntary role might play advantageously into the members’ other active business interests?
The incorporation documents of the company indeed make plain that the purpose of the company is not for profit:
“The income and property of the Company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects as set out at Article 4.1. and no part of such property and income may be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit, to members of the Company”
[Article 4.1:
Article 4.1
Article 4.1
On the other hand, the constitution of the company goes on to make clear that such strictures do not preclude ‘reasonable remuneration’ of ‘members’ (shareholders) who are also ‘office holders’ (including presumably that of the Chairman) or indeed the coverage of expenses: one would assume these would include the costs, for example, of travelling about the world organising conferences and hob-nobbing with key political leaders in Commonwealth countries.
Marland is well connected in current government circles and the not for profit CWEIC has been apparently provided office space in the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Malborough House from which it organises its trade boosting events, which have been regularly held at Malborough House.
We have asked both the Commonwealth Secretariat and CWEIC for the details governing their arrangement. We have asked the following questions:
“Could you provide the terms of the ‘mandate’ [given to CWEIC] and explain the circumstances under which Heads of Government executed it?
Can you also explain the parameters under which the CWEIC conducts its voluntary role and occupies a space in Malborough House and holds events there? Are those events sponsored or subsidised by member governments and are there ticket prices or any other payments required of attendees?
Finally, are there any agreed rules governing the relationship between the members of CWEIC and the Commonwealth Secretariat regarding this not for profit role in boosting intra-Commonwealth trade? In particular, for example, are there any agreed caveats with respect to possible conflicts of interest regarding the company members’ other business activities linked to Commonwealth countries involved with their Malborough House events?
As indicated in our previous article, Sarawak Report is anxious for these clarifications in light of the fact that a separate company, of which Lord Marland is a shareholder, has been pitching for election winning contracts that favour the present Malaysian Prime Minister and his ruling party. Malaysia is described as a ‘Strategic Partner’ of CWEIC and the company has just opened a “hub” in KL. …
… It is on this level that SCL’s Malaysia ties and its connection to the high profile Commonwealth activities of Lord Marland’s not for profit CWEIC becomes a potential matter of concern. Just last November Lord Marland (the man who takes credit for bringing Malaysia’s investment in London’s Battersea Power Station development) undertook a visit to KL where he was hailed as a ‘great supporter of Malaysia’.
It was not pointed out at that time that he is also a shareholder of a company that has been paid to promote BN’s electoral chances.
Earlier, in 2016, Marland equally spearheaded the Malaysian Trade Conference at Malborough House, shortly after the DOJ had fingered Najib as ‘MO1′ [Malaysian Official One]. When questioned by British media over the inappropriate nature of the conference the peer claimed that there was no evidence to show Najib had anything to answer for.
He did not mention that his company SCL had been pitching for a US$2.1 million contract linked to boosting Najib in the Sarawak elections weeks.during the preceding period.
Likewise, a key ‘partner’ of CWEIC is the State of Malta, whose tarnished Prime Minister is also a client of SCL’s, according to information received by Sarawak Report.
Lord Marland has copiously praised Malta for its support in establishing CWEIC’s Commonwealth trade initiatives, along with five other ‘strategic partners’, one of which is also Malaysia. Lord Marland was awarded the Order of Merit of Malta in 2015, but SCL’s contract appears not to have been mentioned in the Annual Review of CWEIC Limited.
Last year CWEIC Ltd went so far as to set up what it describes as a “Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council Hub” in Malaysia, headed by a full time Director Malaysia, a former trade official, Tony Collingridge.
Although the Malaysia Trade event (above) was described as “unofficial” by the British Government in 2016, various UK ministers none-the-less attended the event, including Hugo Swire, then minister at the Foreign Office for South East Asia. It provided a massive image boosting filip for the then beleagured Prime Minister fighting the Sarawak election, for which SCL had pitched for a million dollar contract to support him.
Last year Hugo Swire was dropped from the government and he now taken up a new post as the CEO [Owl: Actually he lists himself as Deputy Chairman – see above] of CWEIC Ltd.
Sarawak Report asks, therefore, if the relationship which CWEIC Ltd has developed with the Commonwealth Secretariat, by staging trade events at Malborough House, has the potential to promote tainted political clients of SCL who are seeking re-election in their own countries?
For there is little doubt that the potential effectiveness of SCL’s ‘big data’ campaigns, which have the stated purpose of tricking voters to support its clients, bears little comparison to the importance of the image boosting value of a Trade Event at Malborough House to a tainted leader like Najib.
There is another planned CWEIC Trade event due there next month, at which ‘Malaysia’ is scheduled to send a delegation, just before the 14th General Election.
Sarawak Report suggests there is a valid concern that whilst the CWEIC Ltd work is not for profit, SCL sells its services for money and that its members are connected. …
… Given CWEIC’s high profile links to the Commonwealth Secretariat and quasi official status full disclosure on all potentially related or conflicting interests of the members of this private company is deemed appropriate.”
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2018/03/more-on-malaysias-mysterious-links-with-scl/
“Boris Johnson defends playing tennis match with wife of former Putin minister in exchange for £160,000 Tory donation”
… “Mr Johnson insisted not all Russians should be tarred with the same brush – and there was nothing wrong with accepting Russian cash if donors were not guilty of “gross corruption”. …”
Good use of the word “gross” there – minor or moderate us absolutely fine then?
He goes on:
“If there is evidence of gross corruption in the way that gentleman you mentioned obtained his wealth, then it is possible for our law enforcement agencies to deprive him of his wealth.
“That is a matter for the authorities, it is not a matter for me. …”
Again that clever and calculated use of the adjective!
“Mr Johnson admitted for the first time today that the tennis match happened.
Since then Ms Chernukhin’s total of cash donations to the Tories since 2012 has climbed to almost £500,000.”
Last month she bid £30,000 for a meal and private tour of Churchill’s War Rooms with Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson at the Tories’ lavish Black and White Ball fundraiser. … “
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-defends-playing-tennis-12209056
LEP governance … in the wrong hands?
The report below states that the lead council for a Local Enterprise Partnership should exercise firm control over all aspects of the LEP’s governance and claims.
In our area that would be Somerset County Council.
Aaahhh … Owl has already foreseen a problem here:
Warning light for our LEP council partner’s finances (Somerset)
Public Accounts Committee: “Government still failing to get a grip on oversight of LEPs”
Owl can see almost no difference between governance and conflict of interest issues between Peterborough LEP and the Heart of the South West LEP at which exactly the same criticism can be made. Another post to follow on this later today.
“The Public Accounts Committee report finds case of Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough highlights persistent concerns about ‘complexity and confusion’ in devolution.
In 2016 the Committee of Public Accounts reported on the governance of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and made clear recommendations for improvement which were accepted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the Department).
Despite this, the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership (GCGP LEP) provides the latest example of the Department devolving powers and funding to LEPs in a manner characterised by both complexity and confusion.
The Department needs to get its act together and assure taxpayers that it is monitoring how LEPs spend taxpayers’ money and how it evaluates results.
The Department assures us that there was no misuse of public funds in this instance; however, this is due more to luck than effective oversight given that there appear to have been no effective mechanisms in place for identifying conflicts of interest in GCGP LEP. We are not at all convinced that the issues uncovered in GCGP LEP might not be found elsewhere in other LEPs.
We also put on record our displeasure at the conduct of the former Chair of GCGP LEP when giving evidence. He failed to appreciate the importance of good governance, showed a lack of remorse about the outcome for GCGP LEP, and was evasive when questioned about his potential conflict of interest.
Such an attitude only serves to underline the need for the Department to get a grip of its oversight of LEPs. It needs to implement quickly the recommendations of Mary Ney’s review of Local Enterprise Partnership governance and transparency, ensure that all LEPs and their boards are aware of the Nolan Principles for the standards of conduct expected in public life and ensure that they live up to these principles in practice.
Chair’s comments
Comment from Committee Chair, Meg Hillier MP:
“Local Enterprise Partnerships are not an abstract concept on a Whitehall flipchart. They are making real decisions about real money that affect real people.
This troubling case only serves to underline our persistent concerns about the governance of LEPs, their transparency and their accountability to the taxpayer.
The Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership failed to comply with the standards expected in public life. Yet there are also clear failings in oversight by central government.
Taxpayers need to be assured their money is being spent wisely and with adequate protections in place to prevent its misuse.
Central government must move swiftly to ensure the recommendations of the Ney review are fully implemented and we expect to see evidence that this has happened.
But it must also do a far better job of explaining the objectives and anticipated benefits of these local partnerships to local people.
Taxpayers surveying the increasingly complex landscape of local government might reasonably ask what LEPs are for.
It is wholly unacceptable that central government does not have a clear, up-to-date answer to that question.”
Follow link for:
report summary
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89605.htm
report conclusions and recommendations
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89605.htm
full report: Governance and departmental oversight of the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/896/89602.htm
Rees-Mogg’s firm manages nearly £100m invested in Russia
“Jacob Rees-Mogg praised the Prime Minister’s plan to impose sanctions on Russia this afternoon, saying “tyrants must be stood up to”, Adding:
“Can I encourage her to impose a freeze on assets so that people don’t have the opportunity to take them out of the country in the short-term.”
Scrapbook wonders if Rees-Mogg would similarly support a retaliatory Kremlin backed freeze on British assets in Russia – which could see his own financial interests jeopardised.
It’s a well known fact that the MP for North East Somerset has earned millions of pounds as a founder partner at Somerset Capital Management (SCM) and owns up to 15 per cent of the shares in the company, according to register of MP’s interests.
But according to investment websites, SCM manages sizeable assets invested in Russian firms (for which it takes a tidy management fee every year).
One of the company’s flagship funds (worth £1.4bn) has over £90m invested in Russian equities, according to investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown.
And most of that (£57m) is invested in Sberbank, a Russian state-owned banking service.
The Somerset Emerging Markets Dividend Growth fund was in fact set up by Mogg with fellow founding partner of SCM Edward Robertson in the early days of the company, according to SCM’s website.
What’s more, the fund’s done awfully well for SCM (and for Mogg as a shareholder and director), seeing as its capital has grown by 45 per cent over the past five years alone.
Rees-Mogg seems a little too happy to toe a strong line on Russia after having profited from the country for so many years.”
https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018/03/jacob-rees-mogg-firm-manages-nearly-100m-invested-in-russia/
Speechless
Conservatives and Russians … and Saudis … and Quataris
Owen Jones, Guardian:
“The Conservative party is in the pocket of foreign powers that represent a threat to the national security of Britain. It is a grotesquely under-reported national scandal, lost amid a hysterical Tory campaign to delegitimise the Labour party with false allegations of treason. If Labour had received £820,000 from Russian-linked oligarchs and companies in the past 20 months – and indeed £3m since 2010 – the media outrage would be deafening. But this is the Tory party, so there are no cries of treachery, of being in league with a hostile foreign power, of threatening the nation’s security.
When questioned about the Russian donations to the Tory party, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, pointedly refused to return the money. “There are people in this country who are British citizens, who are of Russian origin,” he protested. “I don’t think we should taint them, or should tar them, with Putin’s brush.” How noble: a Tory challenging the demonisation of migrants.
Before we get out the bunting, though, let’s look at one donation as an example. It was 2014, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, paid the princely sum of £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron and Boris Johnson. In total, since 2012 – when the Electoral Commission initially declared her an “impermissible donor”, before subsequently allowing her to donate – she has handed the Tories £514,000.
I put it to you gently that if Labour took half a million pounds from the wife of a former Cuban minister, there would be no debate about whether this represented a scandalous financial relationship with the Cuban regime. Other examples include £400,000 from Gérard Lopez, a businessmen on the board of a company that partnered with Russian banks that had sanctions imposed on them during the Ukraine crisis.
It goes further than that. By last October, Tory MPs had received four times more money from Russia’s state-run Russia Today TV channel than Labour MPs: it is welcome that the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has said that his colleagues should no longer appear on the channel. The Conservative party is notoriously dependent on donations from the financial sector. The tens of millions of pounds poured into the Tories’ war chest are not offered as acts of charity and munificence.
In 2011, for example, the Financial Times reported that “even donors admit that Tory MPs’ desire to cut the 50p top rate of income tax is because these rich City donors are so close to the party”. This same City of London is awash with dodgy money from Russia. No wonder, then, that in 2014 a secret government document revealed plans to stop any sanctions against Russia that might damage the City. Labour has attempted to introduce legislation that could prevent certain Russian individuals entering Britain or block their assets: how mysterious, then, that the Tories blocked it for “technical reasons”.
Then there are the links to other regimes that combine contempt for human rights with a threat to our national security. Take Saudi Arabia, ruled by a totalitarian, fanatical regime that likes to slice the heads off gay men and dissidents, which treats women with what can only be described as barbarism, and which exports international extremism. In the two years or so after it began bombing Yemen – including with British weapons – Tory MPs received £99,396 from the Saudi regime in the form of gifts, travel expenses and consultancy fees. Hammond was one of them: he received a watch worth nearly two grand from the Saudi ambassador.
In the past five years, moreover, Saudi Arabia and other autocracies spent £700,000 on luxury trips for MPs, more than 80% of whom were Tories. Just under £200,000 of that was money from Saudi Arabia to pay for the excursions of 41 MPs, 40 of whom were Conservatives. Now why would they possibly be doing that? Could it be – given that MPs receive nothing from our democratic allies for such trips – that this is part of a clear PR offensive, an attempt to secure influence over the Conservative government?
Indeed, Rehman Chishti – the newly appointed vice-chair of the Conservative party for communities – received £2,000 a month from the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies between March 2016 and January 2018. Although the parliamentary commissioner for standards saw no reason to take action, it is worth noting his rampant pro-Saudi dictatorship sympathies. His Twitter feed includes boasting of being congratulated by the Saudi dictator for being re-elected as an MP in 2015, hosting lectures by Saudi officials, and leading Tory parliamentary delegations to Saudi Arabia. His colleague, Daniel Kawczynski, goes on TV to justify the barbaric Saudi assault on Yemen, crows about writing the “most pro-Saudi book ever written by a British politician”, but then threatened to sue when this was linked with went on a trip worth £6,722.14 paid for by the Saudi regime.
Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations
And then there is the Tories’ financial heart. The Qatari dictatorship owns three times more property in London than the Queen, and more than the mayoralty. Indeed, the Qatar Investment Authority owns Canary Wharf, the Shard and Harrods. Let’s be clear: the Qatari regime has backed extremist and terrorist organisations, as have wealthy individuals under its jurisdiction. As Paddy Ashdown put it in 2015, David Cameron failed to put sufficient pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop funding extremism, leading Ashdown to “worry about the closeness between the Conservative party and rich Arab Gulf individuals”. Consider Theresa May’s refusal to publish a report on foreign funding of extremism. Well, it would hardly go down well with the Gulf states, which are so deeply embedded in Tory milieus, would it?
What a farce. There was rolling coverage smearing Jeremy Corbyn as a traitor based on the testimonies of a single crank from the former Czechoslovakia. And yet the Tories are at the centre of a web spun by the Russian and Gulf regimes. Hundreds of people in Salisbury are now washing their belongings after traces of a nerve agent were found at the restaurant suspected to be the location where a Russian spy, and his daughter and a British policeman were poisoned.How is it morally acceptable for the Tories to take the Russian or Saudi shilling? What are the practical implications of this? And where is the never-ending media outrage over it? The answers to these three questions paint a damning picture indeed.”
“Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations”
Why should ANY UK Party be allowed to take donations from non-UK companies or nationals?
The Conservative Party has also blocked us knowing who funded the DUP anti-Brexit campaign that paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for anti-Brexit newspapers not available in Ireland.
“The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.
Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.
“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”
The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.
A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”
Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim. …”
Jeremy Hunt personally intervened to ensure Virgin hospital contract in his constituency
“Jeremy Hunt, the new health secretary, personally intervened to encourage the controversial takeover of NHS hospitals in his constituency by a private company, Virgin Care, raising fresh concerns last night over his appointment.
Hunt, who replaced Andrew Lansley in last week’s cabinet reshuffle, was so concerned by a delay to the £650m deal earlier this year that he asked for assurances from NHS Surrey officials that it would be swiftly signed.
Virgin Care, which is part-owned by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, subsequently agreed on a five-year contract in March to run seven hospitals along with dentistry services, sexual health clinics, breast cancer screening and other community services. The takeover took place despite concerns being raised in the local NHS risk register about the impact on patient care following the transfer of management from the NHS to one of the country’s largest private healthcare firms, until recently known as Assura Medical.
The director of nursing highlighted the danger of “significant issues” emerging during the first year of Virgin Care control, which NHS Surrey has tried to ameliorate through contractual controls. There was also prolonged wrangling between NHS Surrey and Virgin Care over the terms of the deal, including staff’s terms of employment. However, during the lengthy delay before the deal was agreed, Hunt intervened to ask for assurances from the head of the primary care trust “that the delay is to ensure the best possible outcome for patients and staff”. Writing on his website about the issue, he added: “I hope that Assura and NHS Surrey are able to complete the transfer of services soon, but I am glad they are crossing every T and dotting every I.”
The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, said last night that the revelation would add to concerns about Hunt’s appointment and his affinity to big business so soon after the furore over the minister’s relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp while he was culture secretary during the attempted takeover of BSkyB. …”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/09/jeremy-hunt-virgin-hospital-deal
“Westminster councillor resigns after receiving nearly 900 gifts and hospitality packages in six years”
Owl says: what is happening to Westminster council’s Monitoring Officer, Leader and Standards Committee? Nothing, so far.
And NO-ONE should be Chair of a Planning Committee for SEVENTEEN years!
“The deputy leader of Westminster city council has stepped down after it was revealed he had received nearly 900 gifts and hospitality packages over six years.
Robert Davis, a Tory councillor, was the chair of the borough’s planning committee until last year.
He has stepped aside as deputy leader and cabinet member for business, culture and heritage as an independent QC investigates his conduct.
Councillor Robert Davis has referred himself to the City Council’s monitoring officer and has decided to stand aside as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Culture and Heritage while the investigation is undertaken,” said Nickie Allen, the leader of Westminster City Council.
“Our residents need reassurance that the planning process is not only impartial, but is seen to be impartial,” she said, adding she had “asked the council’s chief executive to look at all aspects of the decision-making process to ensure planning is, and is seen as, an independent and impartial process.”
The Guardian revealed Mr Davis had received gifts and hospitality invitations 893 times over the last six years, which frequently came from property developers who were seeking planning permission.
Gifts and hospitality packages worth more than £25 must be declared and some of the items and invitations received by Mr Davis exceeded the figure.
The Cambridge graduate is the longest serving member of the council, having been elected in 1982. He was voted Conservative councillor of the year in 2014 and given an MBE in 2015 for his service to local and government planning.
“I think it’s important to recognise Robert Davis remains a candidate for the May election,” Adam Hug, leader of the Labour Group, told The Independent. “He remains a councillor.
“This move has been described as standing aside, with a clear view that if no legal wrongdoing is found he may return to his post. As he remains a candidate it is clear that the Tories believe what is known and not disputed is acceptable for them.”
He added: “Westminster Tories knew this was going on, did nothing for decades, and it is clear that unless legal wrongdoing is found, he may return to his post.”
In a statement, Mr Davis said: “Due to the ongoing interest and wrongful assertions regarding my time as chairman of planning I have decided to step aside from my roles as deputy leader and cabinet member for business, culture and heritage whilst the council investigates.
“In 17 years as chairman of planning committees which granted hundreds of applications and resulted in the council receiving substantial sums for affordable housing, public realm and other public amenity, I have at all times acted with the independence and probity required by my role.
“My desire to rigorously declare all meetings and hospitably, regardless of its nature, underpins this transparency and independence. It is trite to confirm that within these 17 years, I have got to know many of the developers and associated professionals who work in the city and help to develop Westminster into one of the most important economic centres in the country and home to over 280,000 people. Any suggestion or implication that I have done anything other than to further the interests of the city and its residents are baseless and strenuously denied.”
“Tories seek to block move to reveal donations to DUP in EU referendum”
Imagine if this was Corbyn paying off the Lib Dems with £1 billion and then agreeing to keep all Lib Dem referendum donations secret – what would the Conservative Party be saying and doing?
“Ministers will whip Conservative MPs to block a move to reveal donations to the DUP during the EU referendum, which Labour has said is “doing the party’s dirty work”.
The government is set to help the Northern Irish party conceal details of past political donations, including a highly controversial sum given during the referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The rules on transparency were to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK, which first introduced in legislation in 2014 with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the government has since said the transparency rules will apply from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 will not be made public.
The shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith, said it was outrageous that the government would not backdate the donations rules.
“All parties in Northern Ireland apart from the DUP support the government’s previous promise to publish. There is simply no excuse to not publish the donations,” he said.
“The Tories must explain why they are doing the DUP’s dirty work by helping them avoid publishing the source of the funds received in the EU referendum. Those funds played a significant part in the referendum campaign across the UK and the public have a right to know precisely where that money came from.”
Serious questions remain over the DUP’s spending on the EU referendum in June 2016 – including a £435,000 donation from a group called the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservatives and Unionist party.
The DUP spent more than £280,000 of that money on a wraparound advertisement in the London-based Metro newspaper, which is not distributed in Northern Ireland.
On Monday night, the government attempted to enact the transparency rules in the legislation via statutory instrument, a process which allows the provisions of an act of parliament to come into force or be altered without parliament having to debate them.
However, after objections by Labour at the last-minute nature of the SI, the measure will now be put to a vote on Wednesday, where the party will attempt to get the law backdated to its introduction in 2014. Conservative MPs are under a three-line whip to oppose.
A Labour source said: “The government tried to pull a fast one and got their minister to sit down early so they could vote on the SIs last night rather than deferred on Wednesday. We stopped it but it’s very unusual and shows the nervousness on this, especially the NI political donations.”
Housing minister who attacked NIMBYs is a NIMBY – or maybe a BANANA!
Sajid Javid has attacked councils and NIMBYs for standing in the way of more housing.
Now, it seems Javid is even worse – a BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone!
“…1) Just months before his re-election in 2015, Javid slammed plans from his local Tory Council, Redditch Borough, to build 2,800 new homes. He said:
“…..I wish to re-emphasise my concern that land within Redditch Borough is fully utilised before any consideration is given to expanding the area’s housing need into Bromsgrove Green Belt as a neighbouring district.”
Ah, the green belt, of course. Javid is a man of principle, let us not forget.
2) In June 2016, Javid slammed his local council’s plans to build 1,300 houses in Perryfields:
“While I understand this land was designated for housing, there is significant concern about the implications such a large-scale development would have on local infrastructure, facilities and environment.”
Aaaah, it all makes sense now: Javid cares about providing sustainable housing. Makes perfect sense:
3) In 2012, Javid backed another campaign against plans to build 175 homes in the Worcestershire village of Hagley. At the time, he said:
“People aren’t against it just for the sake of being against the development, it’s can the local infrastructure cope?”
Hmm, a theme seems to be emerging. Surely Javid was again rallying to defend the green belt, no? Well, no. The council head of planning Ruth Bamford responded to Javid’s NIMBYism by pointing out: “If it didn’t go here it would most likely go on greenbelt because there isn’t much land around Bromsgrove district that can take new housing.”
Slippery Javid just keeps on passing the buck #NIMBYpamby.”
East Devon Watch 