Dispatches sting Revolving Door

The interview on the Revolving Doors that I blogged about was with Dispatches. They asked not to reveal the details in case a rival company became interested. I doubt whether my interview will survive into tomorrow's broadcast because of the more interesting apparently successful sting they set up with former ministers.

The programme will justify my Select Committee's call for stricter control on former ministers, generals and top civil servants hawking their contact books to the highest bidders. The Public Administration Committee produced a tough report. No party has yet fully backed it. The Old Boys Club rules still operate.

I wonder if Dispatches will nail the two former Generals who criticised Gordon Brown for low military spending. They are now paid advisers to arms companies. I submitted evidence on the Revolving Door to the Kelly committee on standards. They were not impressed. They were too preoccupied with duck houses and moats. I hope Dispatches may still have room to broadcast my barbs on the new appointments committee. I fear that the sensational sting will drown my words out. Dispatches appear to have performed another useful public service.

 

Written submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s 

Review of MPs’ Expenses 

by Paul Flynn MP  

 

 

Lobbying 

6. As a member of the Public Administration Select Committee I fully supported our 

recent proposals for reform of access and influence by lobbyists to government, 

which has relevance to this enquiry (although the Report was published before the 

current expenses row).  It has relevance because public perceptions of certain kinds 

of lobbying activity have contributed to public cynicism in the political process: there 

is a perception that commercial corporations and organisations have an advantage 

over not-for-profit bodies, an advantage which is related to the amount of money 

they are able to bring to bear on the political process rather than the cogency of their 

case;  there is concern about the freedom with which people are able to move to and 

fro between roles in industry on the one hand and ministerial and civil service posts 

in which they can benefit those industries on the other: a process that has become 

known as the 'revolving door'; and there is concern about the use of 'lobbyists for 

hire' (who have no legal obligation to make public who their clients are) to keep 

secret from the public the identity of those involved in lobbying decision-makers.  

PASC concluded that,  “In the current climate of public mistrust, voluntary self- 

regulation of lobbying activity risks being little better than the Emperor's new 

clothes.”  The Committee found the rules on lobbying loosely and variously 

interpreted such that former Ministers in particular appeared to be able to use  the 

contacts they built up as in office  to further a private interest. In other words, the 

present arrangements allow the influence of MPs (and peers)  to be bought, which is  

potentially corrupting – or worse. This is unacceptable, particularly where the former 

ministers continue to be paid as sitting Members of Parliament.  

E651 

7. Among its recommendations, PASC  has demanded full transparency of contacts 

between those working in the public sector and those attempting to influence their 

decisions. An  online register of  lobbying activity which could be kept regularly 

updated would make it clear in what capacity a Minister was acting (ie as a Minister, 

a Member of Parliament, a party politician, or a private individual). The register would 

record: 

 the names of the individuals carrying out lobbying activity and of any 

organisation employing or hiring them, whether a consultancy, law firm, 

corporation or campaigning organisation.  

in the case of multi-client consultancies, the names of their clients.  

information about any public office previously held by an individual lobbyist— 

essentially, excerpts from their career history.  

a list of the relevant interests of decision makers within the public service 

(Ministers, senior civil servants and senior public servants) and summaries 

of their career histories outside the public service.  

information about contacts between lobbyists and decision makers— 

essentially, diary records and minutes of meetings. The aim would be to 

cover all meetings and conversations between decision makers and outside 

interests. 

 

This submission to Sir Christopher Kelly’s  enquiry goes beyond the immediate issue 

of expenses but it  is I believe essential that effect is given  to root and branch reform 

of the financial  arrangements for MPs in order to restore public trust in parliament.  

 

Paul Flynn MP 

4 June 2009  

 

Hague's Porkies

No wonder Hague refused to face interrogation from the Public Administration Committee. He is telling porkies  and we would have two hours to unpick his spin. No problem on the ten minutes on the Today programme. Hague is in fantasy land.  

Porky one. 

He invented a non-existent accusation and then denied it.   Hague claims vindication because  he says he was  accused of a 'secret' deal that was not secret. Cobblers. We have always known that there was no secret. The deal was agreed with the Labour Government who believed that a clear and binding promise would be honoured by  Ashcroft. It's not secrecy. It's treachery. 

Porky two. 

He denied on Any Questions  that the whole justification for giving Ashcroft a place in the Lords was because 'ten of millions in taxes' would be paid. That is was the vetting committee understood as Brenda Dean confirmed.

Porky Three. 

Hague's says that Ashcroft's financial contribution to the Tory Party is too small to be significant. Like the £250,000 he has pumped into Gordon Prentice's Pendle seat in order to buy the seat? Most candidate spends about £8,000 in General Election campaigns. Spending a quarter of million wins huge publicity for the Tory candidate that could change the result. Gordon is being targeted because he has bravely campaigned against Ashcroft. Without Gordon we would never have known the truth.  As Gordon's says, 'Pendle is not for sale.'

Porky four

Hague repeatedly blames Labour for 'leaks' from PASC. The confidential papers that prove Hague's foolish conduct were PUBLISHED by PASC on our website. No Labour MP on PASC has ever been suspected of leaking. We have had leaks. Almost all have been associated with one Tory member. They ended when he left the committee. 

What a shame Hague refused to answer our committee's questions. We would not have been fobbed off with porkies.

Beyond the moment of capture

Great evening with Newport Photographic Club. The distinguished photograph Brain Beaney charmed an appreciative audience with his artistic skills.

The question raised was, is this art, photography or the skills of a technician?   

Many of Beaney's original photographs are banal, busy and badly composed. The magic dust is added with Photoshop. Most of his pictures are of boats resting on mud. Beaney selects his central image of a boat and isolates it from its background. Follow the link and view Beaney's final pictures.

Mists are provided for atmosphere, busy clutter is faded, cold colours in the foreground are replaced by warm ones,sharp outlines are softened and the central image then merged with its new background. The final results are unquestionably beautiful.

 

The audience included many experienced successful photographers of mature years. Some said privately that this was digital manipulation and not photographic skills. Beaney's techniques  are certainly not the traditional prized skill of carefully selecting, framing and composing the subject.   Now a poor picture can be transformed with the digital paint-book. This is what Beaney calls 'beyond the moment of capture'.

The images do not represent reality. They create a never, never land of boats in mists. Sentiment regrets the loss of traditional of untouched images of merit. But the final product should be judged by the pleasure that the final results achieve. This is artistry of a high order created with a subtle pallets of pixels and digital tools. 

Photography will never be the same again.

When a Book Does Well

I am grateful to Iain Dale for this comment this morning.

 9:50 AM

One of the best things about being a publisher is seeing the look of sheer delight on an author's face when someone tells them they have genuinely enjoyed reading their book. Especially when the sentiment is heartfelt.

Paul Flynn's autobiography was never going to set the bestseller charts alight, but both he and we are very pleased at how it's going so far.

Today Paul has written a blogpost giving some of the reactions he has had to the book. You can read it HERE.

You can order Paul Flynn's book HERE.

Comments

[Kay Tie]

Ashcroft told Hague he was going to be a permanent resident. He became a permanent resident. You can be a permanent resident and also non-domiciled.

My guess is that Hague didn't know about this subtle difference (you didn't, and still apparently don't).

It's a myth that non-domiciles don't pay tax in Britain. I'd have hoped that you would have learned this after all the kerfuffle over non-doms and taxation a couple of years back.

I find it hard to believe that your ignorance isn't studied and this is just another Party-orchestrated attempt to keep a non-scandal going. Why don't you worry about more pressing issues, like how Bob Crow and the other £100,000+ union bosses are exploiting their MPs and workers to cause strife so unnecessarily.

[Paul Flynn]

The difference between £10 million and £100s of millions is not subtle KayTie. I have sat through hours of discussion on this issue and read all the papers. The position is clear and simple. At the time of the peerage, Mr Hague, then Conservative leader, told Tony Blair in a letter that the appointment of Lord Ashcroft would cost the businessman "tens of millions of pounds" – suggesting that he would be paying full taxes.
Ashcroft wanted to be a VANITY peer without doing the work of legislator. He wanted to pour his tax cash into he Tory Party not the Exchequer. Hague made three promise on his behalf. None were honoured. The vetting committee accepted hi word. They now say they were deceived.

He paid tax only on UK funds. He did not make the UK his main home. He speak in the HOL only once every two years.

[dave]

"I wonder if Dispatches will nail the two former Generals who criticised Gordon Brown for low military spending".

as i understand the matter the commons accounts show this was true.
gordon has either lied or cant add up his own accounts.
didnt he have to correct his statements in parliament and doesnt he have to write or go back and explain his untrue statements to the chilcott iraq inquiry.

as for soldiers not having the appropriate transport and equipment we all know this is a fact and still is today.

there are many companies who make a fortune selling basic equipment to our forces as the equipment supplied is rubbish and not fit for purpose.

why havent mp's tackled this scandal instead of trying to score points for political gain.

as for lord ashcroft no one cares other than labour mp's.
to me it just goes to show how ineffective labour are by not being able to sort the matter out over the years.
all labour has done is moan about this issue.

either he is a liar and a cheat who should have his lordship taken away from him and be made to pay back the taxes he has dodged or labour should shut up.

what about the fuel scandal paul.
not a word on this blogg just silence as usual on the matters people really want sorted or tackled.

you carry on talking about your book and matters that no one gives 2 hoots about.

yawn! yawn! yawn!

[Kay Tie]

"The position is clear and simple."

It involves complex tax regulations over residence and domiciled. Ergo it is not clear and simple.

"He paid tax only on UK funds."

People don't pay tax on UK funds, they pay tax on UK income. Non-domiciled people also pay tax on money remitted to the UK. You have no idea how much tax Ashcroft pays because you have no idea how much money he has remitted to the UK. Before you parade your ignorance of tax law any further why not go and find out what the law is?

"told Tony Blair in a letter that the appointment of Lord Ashcroft would cost the businessman "tens of millions of pounds" – suggesting that he would be paying full taxes."

It's entirely possible that's correct - it depends on how much money he remis to the UK.

"He did not make the UK his main home."

An MP complaining about where others are calling their main home is beyond satire.

[HuwOS]

"you carry on talking about your book and matters that no one gives 2 hoots about."- dave

Dave, you make the classic error of assuming that because you are not interested in something, that no one is. You are incorrect.

[Kay Tie]

"because you are not interested in something, that no one is. You are incorrect."

True, but I suspect dave is more representative of the country as a whole.

I'm interested in Stephen Byers selling amendments to legislation, but I bet most people are more interested in the Eastenders omnibus.

[Paul Flynn]

It is not true the Defence Spending has been neglected. It is true that the Generals were part of the revolving door with a vested personal interest in their retirement incomes in same way that Hoon, Byers etc are. All Governments have wasted fortunes on Defence - including Eurofighter and Trident.
Brown was wrong to sya it had gone up every year. But over the past 12 years it has gone up far beyond inflation.

[Kay Tie]

"But over the past 12 years it has gone up far beyond inflation."

A huge component of defence spending is wages. You'd expect it to go up in line with GDP, not inflation.

[Kay Tie]

Silent on your spurious assertions on Ashcroft, Paul? Are you going away and learning about tax residency and domicile, or are you just going to ignore my comments then repeat your falsehoods again later (which would be the Labour Way: wait a short time then resume dirty business as usual).

[Paul Flynn]

I am not ignoring your point KayTie. It's the same piddling lawyer's point that Hague and Ashcroft are trying to push to justify their deceptions.
The Selection Committee would not have approved Ashcroft if they had known the truth. Hague pathetically said he did not know the truth until recently. Don't be fooled by the bluster. This was a disgraceful way in which Ashcroft bought his vanity peerage.

[Kay Tie]

"It's the same piddling lawyer's point"

The truth of the matter is "piddling points" now? I'm sure you can use that defence for the next bent Labour MP to be exposed as corrupt (or "taking piddling sums" as you'll call it). Perhaps you coukd give your mate Elliot Morley a call and tell him to use the "piddling lawyer's point" defence against fraud charges.

[Kay Tie]

"This was a disgraceful way in which Ashcroft bought his vanity peerage."

If Ashcroft wanted a vanity peerage he could have bought one much cheaper by sending Jack Dromey a cheque, payable "The Labour Party". The going rate is less than a million, far less than it has cost Ashcroft so far. Of course, Jack Dromey has better things to fo now: he's going to be an MP in the new Parliament, and will help clean it up. Oh the irony!

[Paul Flynn]

You are a bit late with the Labour MPs defence of using parliamentary privilege as a defence. I've already condemned it.

[Tony]

Strikes me (!) that there are bad guys and good guys on both sides both Labour and Conservative - but quite frankly I don;t give a rats about most of it because I look around and I see things that matter are being ignored in favour or what seems like point scoring.

Sorry to be boring but we still have huge economic problems that damage the desires of all politicians to spend money - because lest we forget you have no money the tax payer does not give you ..

So the deficit piling up , the decline in people working, the failure to export lead growth I thought might have been a more useful thing to focus on - and you can get to Ashcroft, Hague, Dromey etc etc later..

I suspect this wave of guff on other matters is that we don't really have much of an idea on the way forward so this diverts the electorate ..

People I talk to are fearful of their jobs and the prospects of their kids - could I suggest that might be a subject more worthy of politicians attention right now ?

[Kay Tie]

"So the deficit piling up"

I think you have confused "deficit" and "debt". Instead of "deficit" I suggest that we use "overspend": it is the amount each year by which we, the nation, spends more than it takes in.

All the time the overspend is above zero, the debt continues to rise. It's the equivalent of not paying off each month what you add on to the credit card: the balance owed just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. At some point the interest becomes so big that there's no prospect of ever paying back the debt: this is called a "debt spiral" and leads to bankruptcy.

At some point, we will have to have a surplus (i.e. an underspend) and reduce the debt. Gordon Brown proposes to halve the overspend over four years: he won't even begin to start reducing the debt for at least a decade. If you knew someone who wouldn't begin to pay back their credit card bill, you'd call them a deadbeat.

"People I talk to are fearful of their jobs and the prospects of their kids"

The nation going into bankruptcy would do more than damage the prospects of kids: it would immediately result in almost the entire public sector workforce being sacked. Look at what is happening in California to see how a once-rich state ends up after years of deficit (i.e. overspend).

[Patrick]

We all know how the public sector works, it calculates how much to give itself then works out which public services to run at a loss and which to delete.

If it worked the other way around (as a private business) it would offer services and pay itself if any profit was generated.

Ask your local council why the council tax rises every year above inflation and why their wages have gone up likewise. Ask them why, at the same time, public services are being slashed.

The simplistic formula is thus.

'We must close down local parks, slash bus services, close toilets, shut down libraries because central government has only given us enough to give ourselves an over inflationary pay rise, a further contribution for our pensions and quite frankly there is very little left to give the public. We apologise for any inconveinience but feel we must continue to take everything we can and must strike for any reason possible including the weather.'