Lang the problem, not the solution

The new supremo of the body to control the revolving door from Ministerial office to retirement riches is Lord Lang. He is a former cabinet minister with three lucrative directorships.  He is not the independent new broom required; he is part of the parliamentary tribe that thinks it’s reasonable to have a clutch of jobs when ministerial life ends.

The Public Administration Committee (PASC) reached the wrong decision in the ‘retrospective pre-appointment hearing’ yesterday. This is far more important than duckhouses and bathplugs in the scandal of parliamentary greed.

PASC rarely divides on anything. For the sake of unity there are usually compromises. There are great advantages in having unanimous reports. On the question of the appointment of the new chair of ACoBA. I had to dig my heels in. Lord Lang will not halt the revolving door, he might lubricate it. I pressed for time to make a minority report. This is not allowed. I voted against.

As a director of Marsh and McLennan since 1997 Lord Lang was sued in 2004 'accused of orchestrating a massive fraud against customers.' Bloomberg reported on 13th of this month that the company 'will pay $400 million to settle a lawsuit by investors who said they had lost money because the company failed to disclose illegal practices'.
 
Ian Lang insisted that the company were blameless. I asked him whether 'they had paid the $400 million out of the goodness of their hearts?' Others will ask the same question. While there may be no sleaze, the perception of wrongdoing is present. That is not a sufficient reason to reject him. Failing to reform a ramshackle ACoBA is.  Lord Lang heard our objections and confirmed that he recognised the danger that ministers, top civil servants and military leaders may have their decisions in office distorted by their expectations of retirement incomes from Mega-greed PLC. The past procedures of ACoBA have been permissive, heavily influenced by the need to allow former office holders full scope to seek top-up job incomes to boost their MPs pay or their handsome pensions. 

 

Lord Lang is not a solution. He is probably part of the problem. There was no sign that he was going to be more rigorous than his predecessor. He has profited by retirement jobs, and believes that others should not be denied the same advantages. These are not the ideal attributes PASC was hoping for in a reformed ACoBA. 

 

There is a wide choice of independent candidates outside of the parliamentary tribe. Former trade union leaders, charity workers, ombudsmen,  even an 'ordinary person'. The last person likely to end the scandal of the revolving door is someone who have been propelled through it.

 

Pre-appointment hearings are new to the UK. PASC looked at the system in America. We commended its limited use here. Most of the hearings held so far in the UK have been formalities. The candidates were eminently suitable for their posts. I believe this is the first where hostile cross examination has taken place. The majority of committee members were unhappy in the public session.

 

The final decision by a majority of the committee was wrong. Rejection was judged to be a nuclear option. If holding pre-appointment hearings is justified, rejections must be seriously considered. One  unique feature in this case is that the appointment had already been made and retrospective rejection would have created a messy situation. That's no excuse for taking the wrong decision.

 

I believe for the first time in the UK the approval of a candidate is qualified. The committee's view that no former cabinet member should be appointed to the chair of ACoBA in future is a signal of serious unhappiness  at Lord Lang's appointment. I could not bring myself to vote even for the compromise. This is not a good appointment and PASC should have rejected it. It is possible that Lord Lang may re-consider his own position. I hope he does. Recent events cry out for fundamental reforms. 

I gave evidence on these lines to the Kelly Committee. They were interested in other reforms. Many of those are less important than the need to obstruct the revolving door.

I stressed that an MP’s job is a full time one.  This principle should underpin all measures to reform the system of remuneration.  It is known that some MPs earn up to £250,000 a year from “moonlighting”. Those who take additional paid employment, which could be considered a second job, should declare the hours spent on these commitments, and the income received, so that voters can consider if they are able to carry out the core job of an MP.  Parliamentary salaries should be adjusted to reflect the additional income derived from second jobs.  There are former ministers who are still Members of Parliament who are paid for giving advice to industries for which they were formerly responsible.  Former Ministers and former senior civil servants should be barred from taking jobs in those areas in which they served.’

Kelly kindly quoted part of my submission to them but they have not adopted my main recommendations. There are no waitresses, bus drivers or people independent of the new Great and the Good on ACoBA. They are all people who think it's normal for an MP being paid £65,000 for a full time job to take on five other jobs that pay him £157,500. That's Adam Ingram's reward for his wisdom as a defence minister in approving the charge of our forces into the valley of Helmand. One more death and twice as many British soldiers will have died in Afghanistan than the total killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade. The wages of those who retire from ministerial office are handsome.

They cannot see any wrong with Lord Warner who rubbished a critical report on the pharmaceutical industry in 2005 but is now working as a former minister for a pharmaceutical company. Nor former health ministers Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt coining £115,000 and £165,000 from healthcare firms while still pocketing their parliamentary salaries. Now former Education Minister Charles Clarke is working for an educational services provider contributing to his £90,000 supplement to his parliamentary salary.

PASC has expressed unhappiness with the revolving door.  The only reform of ours that has been accepted in those ACoBA members is now paid. The chair gets an honorarium of £8,000 and members £5,000. Just a token gesture, of course. But more than the annual basic pension. Such is gulf between the governed and those who govern.

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 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 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.

The Press release issued by PASC says;_

“We are satisfied that Lord Lang has the professional competence and personal independence required for the post of Chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments as it is currently constituted. However, we have serious concerns about the appointment of a former Cabinet Minister with business appointments of his own to a role that needs the perception of independence if it is to attract public confidence. We ask the Commissioner for Public Appointments to take account of our concerns when reviewing the appointment process.”

Paragraph 17 read.
Amendment proposed, leave out from the beginning to “we” in line 3 and insert “We are unable to endorse
Lord Lang’s appointment to this role because”. —(Paul Flynn)
Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negative

Comments

[Costa Rica 4 retirement]

Elderly people deserve a quality of life in old age. They have been people who have forged this effort and dedication we are living today. We offer the best of us and restore all the good they have done for our country

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Gar Hywel. I gave evidence on these lines to the Kelly Committee. Sadly he was more interested in cleaning and gardening bills.

[Gar Hywel]

I can go through quite a long list in my own mind of those former civil servants (usually the first secretaries) and cabinet ministers
who have taken top jobs in the city/plcs after etiring from parliament.

I shan't trouble to mention any names but it applies as much to DHSS secretaries as it does to Defence or Treasury ministers or secretaries, permanent or otherwise.

I would say the most glaring anomaly and wrong, is for Secs of Defence to be allowed to take Mercenary plc business after retiring, two of whom I could name now but won't since 1997.

Whether retiring Labor politicians will do the same, I really can't say. It is less likely, but it will just give more scope for the permanent secretaries say the no 2 as well to get those key jobs.

Paul does gallant work, against their causes.

He could campaign for legislation to prevent the Permanent secretary from taking the same kind of work, but to persuade a career politician not to, would be rather more difficult.

[Patrick]

'Let's appear to change our procedural tactics but please don't expect us to lose sight of our inflated outside bonuses , revolving doors ,and other arse licked privileges.' (what Lang meant to say).

As corruption and moral outrage appear to be rife from parliament to the loveable rougue should we not accept that it is just part of us and move on?

Parliament is mostly composed of predictably boring ,thoughtless, robotic ,tribal and party leaning cretins .

Why don't we go the full hog and have purpose made robots in parliament that could simply vote on party lines and be programed to fall asleep,wave papers, heckle , hiss ,and even sport here here vocals.

A British company would benefit with production and they could be operated from either tidal power from the Thames or solar from the roof earning us more Green points.

Second homes and corruption would not be an issue. Should a rogue robot take too much interest in one of an opposite sex , go looking for Badgers on a common, or spend too much time in the bar then they could be simply switched off.

This would save the taxpayer millions of pounds, prevent illegal invasions , and clear the good name of the HOC.