Bishop Hill More cesspit
Jan 17, 2014 Climate: Parliament Deben Lord Donoughue has had an interesting answer to a question to Baroness Verma
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made on whether members of the Committee on Climate Change have or have had financial interests which may conflict with their independence. [HL4496]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con): The Department’s assessment is that members of the Committee on Climate Change do not have and have not had financial interests which may conflict with their independence whilst in post. Members are bound by a code of practice and with the rules relating to the use of public funds and to conflicts of interest, set out by the Cabinet Office. One of their responsibilities is to ensure that they must not misuse information gained in the course of their public service for personal gain or for political profit, nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their private interests or those of connected persons or organisations.
It's hard to know what to make of this. If you take the noble baroness's words at face value, she is saying that under the code of conduct you must not take advantage of any conflict of interest. What she doesn't say is that public officials should not have conflicts of interest.
This seems to be borne out by the Cabinet Office code of conduct, although it is somewhat contradictory:
You have a duty to declare any private interests relating to your public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
You must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between your public duties and your private interests – financial or otherwise.
You must comply with the rules of the body on handling conflicts of interests. As a minimum, these will require you to declare publicly any private interests which may, or may be perceived to, conflict with your public duties. The rules will also require you to remove yourself from the discussion or determination of matters in which you have a financial interest. In matters in which you have a non-financial interest, you should not participate in the discussion or determination of a matter where the interest might suggest a danger of bias.
And they wonder why we think Westminster is a cesspit.
Reader Comments (39)
Yawn ... I have been known to bang on about it before.... - but there is a piece if legislation on the statute books that is possibly redundant - but expensive archive shelf filler. In round terms it most certainly is an overarching set of codes of conduct which apply in addition to whatever local byelaws The Cabinet Office have bodged up and has the force of law as opposed to what I suspect is the traditional committee / tribunal model favoured by many in public service.
The 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act puts the Civil Servant's Code of Conduct(PDF) on a statutory footing - The formal scope of the act is immense (possibly too broad - but the definitions are clear) across all government. We have asked the Civil Service Commission about it and had quite a few (tortured) different interpretations of the enforcement...the gymnastics on their web site has in my view been considerable.
Anyway - it's on the statute books and I urge people to go look at Civil Servant's Code of Conduct(PDF) and compare and contrast the legally binding behaviour detailed there to say erm.... DECC antics.... let alone what advisors to CCC committee chairpersons etc get up to.
It would be very interesting to hear from the people that drafted this statute - since the scope could be interpreted to cover a whole load of semi-detatched government that at the moment is "running wild" - which is where I came in....
Well, that's alright then - because clearly no-one on the Committee on Climate Change is guilty of any conflict of interest...
Baroness venal?
She not know which way is up kemosabi.
"And they wonder why we think Westminster is a cesspit."
I think they are oblivious of what we think.
Didn't Trougher Yeo introduce an amendment to the energy bill earlier this year which would make it statutory that gas and coal fired power stations should be decommissioned by 2030? And wouldn't the companies that pay him £166k/annum have benefited from this amendment? Why isn't this misconduct in public life?
geronimo
Because it's Yeo and he is above all mundane ethical considerations
Question to the Bish? Are you funded to trawl through the news, committee meetings etc? Or are you a volunteer? Just interested, as it takes up a lot of your time. I know a lot of people who comment on here are retired but not you, you spring chicken :)
Tim Yeo is fighting so hard for re-selection purely for a philanthropic desire to serve for his constituents. Yeah.
http://order-order.com/2014/01/17/another-tim-yeo-lobbying-scandal/
No, I'm not funded apart from the tip box. That's a hint!
This story was emailed to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10579604/Newspaper-pursued-Chris-Huhne-over-liaisons-with-men-court-hears.html
Fantastic, lovely stuff.
Has anyone in this situation of having a conflict of interest but not acting conspicuously in its favor ever been disciplined?
Make up your mind WHO you work for polis !
- You can't have your cake and eat it : Have business interests and sit on a committee and make judgments which directly impact on the profits of those businesses.
- Either sell thoses shares out of your family or don't sit on the committee.
- If you just sit out some decisions there's danger of scratch my back favours.
- Yes we value their experience as farmers/businessme etc. but you can always stay off the committee and give evidence.
.. Coming to Channel 4 soon : Trougher Street the true documentary of a life on handouts
"Chris is going into jail for perjury, he gets some tips from old hands on the street Jeffrey & Jonathon"
Just put yourself in the shoes of the honourable members of the Committee on Climate Change. They are busy trying to "save the planet" and instead of receiving our humble and eternally grateful thanks, we harass them with questions about conflicts of interest.
This apparent corruption is bad enough but I wonder if there is not a much bigger issue which never seems to be aired at all. I do see others letting off steam here sometimes and the following may of course just be the irrational view of a very angry layman.
As soon as the nation’s keys were handed over to EU officials any patriotic British subject must conclude that treason was committed and it is still treason, whether punishable or not. Exactly when that happened in law may be critical because eventually treason was abolished as a crime, whereas until then it had rightly been a capital offence.
It is not disputed that Heath knew perfectly well that what he set in motion, when completed, would be the treasonous act of enabling a foreign power to govern the United Kingdom. He might not formally have committed treason at the time, because the original treaty concerned only trade.
Those who eventually did alter the treason laws surely hoped to benefit personally from EU largesse (There is no other reason why they should have done it.) and over the years since then many establishment politicians and civil servants have indeed done so and continue to do.
To be instrumental in changing a law which is subject to severe penalty when broken, perhaps even capital punishment, and then to benefit materially, personally, from the freedom the repeal permits must be regarded as a premeditated crime.
I should have thought that the repeal itself would be invalid in such circumstances. It is like having politicians pass a law stating that the Crown Jewels must not be kept under lock and key, after which the ‘reformers’ permit themselves the freedom to remove whatever they fancy for their own private profit.
"or could reasonably be perceived to arise"
A key phrase, but clearly one that is totally ignored.
Conflcits of interest are inevitbale fro a public official The issue is how such conflicts can be made visble and managed.
There seems to be two things bring addressed in the two statements shwon above. The misuse of information in the barness' reply appears to me to be related to the use of insider information. So, for example, a company executive cannot use confidential company information in trading in shares
As for the Cabinet Office document, it is common for a public official to be put in a position in which there might be a conflict of interest. This is inevitable given the workings of the economy. In such cases, the official must recuse himself or take some other action. In many cases, a politician will put his assets in a blind trust. The assets will be managed by an investment firm and the official will have no direct influence over how they are traded
TAG
But those assets are still his. In due course when he is out of office the Trust can be wound up and he gets his property back. The question is whether anything that he has done or not done or caused to be done or caused not to be done during his time in office has enhanced, by deliberate action or inaction on his part, the value of those assets.And the other side of the same coin: while having a detrimental effect on the well-being of those whom his office is intended to benefit — ie, by and large, the British taxpayer.
The accusation "but we're saving the planet" is not wide of the mark. If that is true, or Deben and Yeo seriously believe it to be true and their activities are geared to that end, then you are struggling to bring a case.
Of course, time was when the question wouldn't have arisen because the overwhelming majority of MPs and peers were aware of the possible conflict and avoided it. Those who didn't would be very quickly brought to heel by their colleagues.
Without suggesting that there is more corruption in government now there is certainly less inclination to rock the boat and the complexities of modern society mean the line between honest and dishonest has acquired what I believe are known as "error bars"! Which judging by the graphs that I keep getting referred to must be the origin of the phrase "a grey area".
Is it me, or does that say Baroness Venal (Con) ?
NB: 100% O/T
A new physics journal appears to have been cancelled before the first issue came out because the publisher did not like the possible political implications of research findings described in submitted papers.
cont …
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/#more-15344
[forgot the ref URL]
This is the publishers announcement.
Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics
Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.
Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled "Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts". Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).
Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.
Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.
Interested scientists can reach the online library at: www.pattern-recogn-phys.net
Martin Rasmussen
January 2014
"People hurling abuse are merely adding to the interest as everyone likes to know what a controversy is about."
I believe it's called The Streisland Effect
Surely a surgical debunking out in the woods of pattern recognition physics would have been a quieter way to do the deed.
Dodgy activity will usually eventually come out - the idea that one side or the other has a monopoly of "virtue" is risible.
If it's genuine novel finding supported by the data and analysis it's probably not helpful to make what is obviously a pretty charged assertion in the summation.
I wouldn't rush for the bookburner insults just yet - is the data any good?, are the conclusions of the analysis valid? I hope people concentrate on that rather than an inflammatory assertion at the end.
Looks like being "one of those"
Maybe if you blokes in the UK hadn't had the grandjury/grandjuries removed from you, you wouldn't be in the mess you are in with renewable energy issues.
Lost the legal "tool" to deal with government corruption.
Is it me, or does that say Baroness Venal (Con) ?
Jan 17, 2014 at 9:36 PM chippy
.
No, Vermis....
Have a look at this which suggests fracking industry bosses are at the heart of government . The trough is indeed bottomless. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-fracking-industry-bosses-at-heart-of-coalition-8707589.html
12:49 AM Barbara
I think there's some tools there - but there's nobody who knows how to use them and has the time/funding to put them into action.
It's like having rifles with no bullets and being reduced to shouting BANG
Troffa has shown the Parliamentary Policing system to be utterly toothless.
The whole setup is designed to legitimise corruption.
Tomo: "It's like having rifles with no bullets and being reduced to shouting BANG"
Actually, I tend to think about it as the other way round: We have the bullets - we made 'em; but we haven't the rifles, so all we can do is throw the bullets.
"The Department’s assessment is that members of the Committee on Climate Change do not have and have not had financial interests which may conflict with their independence whilst in post".
DECC plays a blinder.
Harry Passfield
yeah - that'll do too - what's clear is that some folk very obviously choose which laws and rules to enforce - it seems perverse in the extreme that the target of a complaint can also effectively be the one who investigates it ...
The goon squad in Westminster have disposed quite promptly of any enforcers who had aspirations to honesty and justice.
This is - I think - a bit relevant
The way the law is enforced in this country and the biased and uneven way which ordinary people are treated very differently to the officials of the state and agents acting on their behalf.
Interesting explanation!
Last year, Paul Bew, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech about, “Money, Influence and the decision making process: what are the risks”, including:
"The risks of influence
I mentioned earlier about the confluence of money, influence and power and vested interests: it is often not known who is influencing decisions or what may have been done to achieve that influence. This risk arises from suspicions:
that lobbying may be taking place in secret – people do not know who is influencing a decision and those who take a different view do not have the opportunity to rebut arguments and present alternative views;
that some individuals or organisations have greater access to policy makers, because they or someone they know works with them, because they are significant donors to a political party or simply because they have more resources;
of the way influence can be exerted, either because it is accompanied by entertainment or other inducements or because there is a lack of clarity about who is financing particular activities.
At a time of growing disengagement and disconnection from the political system, it is all the more important that the public has confidence that policy decisions are made fairly and on merit; without undue influence from vested interests and in an open and transparency manner – the process by which a decision is made matters.
But transparency is not enough on its own....."
This extract was part of a speech given at an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development event".
The next time Paul Bew lectures the rest of the world, will he have considered how his words might relate to Baroness Verma's explanation and the wording of the Code of Practice?
Apparently he wants to restore trust in Government and address the risks of influence in public decision making. Just as well that he has no statutory powers to do so allowing MP's to remain 'members'.
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/restoring-trust-in-government-oecd-event/
I think it is part that we no longer have any politician who was in combat in a World War. A family friend resigned from a district council as councilor because he did not like what was going on . His comment was " I did not fight the War for this. " he had been a bomber pilot in WW2, was shot down, survived the forced marches and was a test pilot after the war.
Until the early 80s , Britain was remarkably free from corruption due to the integrity of the British people. I think this was in part In part ,this was due to the guilt of those who survived combat. Those politicians who endured combat in WW2 and served in units with high percentage of fatalities appear to show more integrity than those who did not.
Heath appears to be the exception but he served in the heavy artillery and may not have been in combat ( compared to Whitelaw, Pym, Carrington who fought in the Guards and all won the MC) .
I think you will find that these codes of conduct actually apply only to other people...
"If you take the noble baroness's words at face value..."
Baroness Vermin?? No chance.
From the House of Commons rules of Conduct:
“When a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the Committee or its subsequent Report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to it.”
"In making any declaration a Member should clearly identify the nature of the financial interest. The form in which a declaration of interest is made, and its extent, must be primarily for the individual Member." A casual reference is not sufficient. "A Member should make a declaration in clear terms and should ensure that such a declaration is entered in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee."
“Where the subject matter of an inquiry of a Select Committee is of direct concern to an outside body in which a Member has a financial interest, the Member must consider whether on grounds of conflict of interest it is proper to take part in the inquiry. The Member must also consider whether the relationship of his or her interest to the subject of the inquiry is so close that it is not possible to participate effectively in the inquiry without crossing the borderline into advocacy”.
"Heath appears to be the exception but he served in the heavy artillery and may not have been in combat"
According to Wikipedia he served throughout the NW Europe campaign, as battery adjutant and then battery commander.
At what point does conflict of interest become self-dealing?