Click on the image and scroll in to 42 mins.Yesterday afternoon I did an interview with Carolyn Quinn on PM on the fact that a list has been published about the jollies and freebies enjoyed by senior civil servants. It seems Sir Brian Bender, Permanent Secretary at BERR enjoyed a 'jolly' every week last year. It is easy to be puritanical about these things. I tried to make the point in the interview that just because you are taken out to lunch, it doesn't mean that your complicity is bought. At least we have a system now where these things are made transparent and people are able to judge for themselves. The problem is where to draw the line. At one time it was quite usual for civil servants to enjoy a three day jolly to Monte Carlo. That would never happen today. Public servants are well aware that perception is just as important as reality. It matters how things look, however innocent they may be.
But I do have to question why a company considers it necessary to invite civil servants or politicians to sporting events, or the theatre. How can you discuss an issue while watching a theatre production? There is nothing wrong with trying to influence the passage of legislation. It's what democracy is all about. Why shouldn't a trade body have lunch with the civil servant in charge of a bill? Should they, however, invite him or her to Wimbledon, or the Chelsea Flower Show? Proably not. It just looks bad, even if it isn't.
Then of course we come to the vexed question of foreign trips. I copped a lot of flack last year for going to Israel at the invitation of Conservative Friends of Israel. They paid for the travel and the hotel, something which I openly declared at the time. I went because I wanted to increase my level of knowlede. I was careful to ensure that we would meet the PLO and go to a refugee camp on the West Bank. I didn't need to declare a thing - I am, after all, not elected to anything. However, many people decided to believe the worst and assumed that my loyalty to Israel had been "bought", as if I don't have a mind of my own. Had I been an MP, would I still have gone? You bet I would. MPs and public servants who live in a cocoon learn nothing.
If one wants to be completely puritanical, we would abolish the fantastic Industry & Parliament Trust, which sends MPs on secondment to companies to work on the shopfloor and learn more about industry in general. In theory it stands to reason that if an MP spends three weeks working with the Port of Dover, it naturally follows, so the logic goes, that if there is legislation affecting the Port of Dover he might be more favourably disposed towards it. This assumes that politicians are incapable of rational judgement. That may be the case, but if we always think the worst of our public servants, we will end up with the worst public servants.
UPDATE: There was a discussion on this on TODAY with Lionel Zetter and Matthew Parris HERE.
19 comments:
Dear Mr Dale,
"if we always think the worst of our public servants, we will end up with the worst public servants."
It is difficult to think anything else when we learn of Sir Brian Bender partaking so freely of corporate hospitality, another word for which could easily be bribery.
Let me suggest another, equally trite phrase: Unless we demand the highest standards of our public servants we should not be surprised to receive the lowest.
"There is nothing wrong with trying to influence the passage of legislation. It's what democracy is all about. Why shouldn't a trade body have lunch with the civil servant in charge of a bill?"
Because buying influence through the back door is quite definitely not what democracy is about. What is the difference between this and the recent Lords for sale scandal, or cash for questions? Have our standards slipped so low?
They undoubtedly have, and that's half the f*****g problem.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to influence the passage of legislation". Of course not. Representations are made all the time by industry, trade and professional bodies and individuals to mandarins, MPs and ministers and are quite proper.
What is improper is that because I can't afford to buy the permanent secretary a centre-court seat at Wimbledon with champagne and strawberries my voice is not heard.
And who can convince an unsuccessful bidder for government work that his rival, who treated the permanent secretary and his team to a day at Glyndebourne and won the contract, hadn't improperly influenced the decision?
No, Iain, this won't do.
It's corruption by any other name. And I believe still actionable under s.2 of the 1916 Prevention of Corruption Act.
It is corruption. And look at all the directorships and consultancies that these troughing civil servants think they need to prop up their gold plated pensions when they retire. Nearly as bad as the elected politicians!
The Penguin
Why should not civil servants buy tickets for Wimbledon the same as ordinary punters?
Just think of the abuse Brian Bender will have suffered at school. Can't blame him enjoying himself know he's a grown-up.
"but if we always think the worst of our public servants, we will end up with the worst public servants"
Chicken and egg, no ?
Alan Douglas
Raedwald is on the right lines here. Because it's only big business that can afford Wimbledon seats - and for that matter public affairs departments, lobbyists, and so on, the voice of small business is not heard. Virtually all regulation tends to favour large incumbents against new or smaller (often entrant) companies - this is one reason why, and why we have so much more regulation than we need.
It's not so much that the civil servants are on the take - it's that they hear one side of an argument much more loudly than another.
" I copped a lot of flack last year for going to Israel at the invitation of Conservative Friends of Israel. They paid for the travel and the hotel, something which I openly declared at the time."
All well and good, but you're not a public servant being paid from our taxes. Those who are ought to be more circumspect. The rules on receipts of hospitality or gifts have clearly been eroded. How can any public servant who receives such benefits declare true impartiality? It's not just a question of honour and integrity, it's also a question of how things may appear. Those in the private sector who tender for public projects should be rebuffed when such overtures are made. However it's clear that the political masters have themselves set the tone as to what is acceptable.
Fact finding tour to Monaco or Las Vegas anyone? All expenses paid and a little cash to spend in the casinos, of course. The sleaze is all pervasive - right the way down to Town Hall level and beyond.
I have worked for many companies that have entertained lavishly, all of civil servants, directors of large companies and bankers. The entertainment on offer has ranged from Ascot, Wimbledon, Henley, Lords, F1 races, Twickenham, Wembley and other footie matches, Glyndebourne, trips to Disneyland, golf at Gleneagles and Pebble Beach (California) and much more.
It is very effective. There are very few souls that can't be bought.
If civil servants want to go to these events then they can pay for it themselves (they get enough dosh at that high level) and they can take it out of their holiday entitlement. Why do they need to go to these events to discuss matters? The business of the people should be done by appointment at their offices or the offices of the corporate interests in question with someone taking minutes. Trust went out the window decades ago when we really learned how the Sir Humphreys work. All that is left to garner trust is complete, absolute and unremitting transparency.
Dear Mr Alex,
"It is very effective. There are very few souls that can't be bought."
Wanna bet?
It's moving off-topic, but may I commend to the attention of the assembled multitude a splendid piece in today's FT.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5a2670f0-f927-11dd-ab7f-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
"A tawdry episode that tells the story of political decay", by Philip Stephens, anatomises the contempt of the government for the people. At one point he says, "Mr Brown's party has been in power for something short of 12 years rather than the 18 of the Conservatives. But I detect the same curious, and fatal, mix of hubris and inertia." No surprise to those of us who can recall likening the arrogant cynicism of Blair's crowd in 2003, and noting to anyone who'd listen that it had taken the Tories 18 years to reach the same mulish absence of empathy and principle.
Sir John Bourne
Me? Iain Dale, ..on Eddy Mair, discussing a Bender? What were they thinking?
Bender? How apt.
But Mathew Parris, although entertaining as so often, got it wrong. He believes that these junkets do not pay off. If so, why do hard-nosed businessmen continue with them? Why pour out cash on projects which are useless. I mean, I know the Government does that with our cash, but you won't find many successful businesses doing it.
In my experience - and I have a little in this area - the targetting of individual decision-makers, a careful and thorough analysis of their personalities, their likes, dislikes, family profile, every possible detail of them and their personal lives, birthdays etc bear huge rewards.
Amazing what a bunch of flowers sent to a wife at home on suitable occasions can do. Equally effective, a birthday treat for their kids usually helps. Harrods hampers, Moyses Stevens bouquets, etc - all completely overpriced, of course - pay major dividends.
This is a subtle and highly professional game. But let us not kid ourselves - the recipients ain't stupid. They know exactly what is required of them. Nothing actually said, of course...
Even worse, if that's possible, is when civil servants leave for employment with the people who have been entertaining them.
It should not be allowed.
The system is corrupt.
Tony
I agree with Readwald and ex-apprentice: it is corruption and it is illegal.
According to the Prevention of Corruption Acts (1989-1916): it is immaterial whether any corrupt transaction can be proved; it is an offence merely to give a gift to a public officer if you are a contractor. The only exception to this is if the defendant can prove that no corrupt transaction occured (that is onus is on the defendant to prove innocence in much the same way as parking tickets work). The reason for this is that otherwise corruption would be virtually impossible to prove.
When I was a Civil Servant, I was prevented from accepting hospitality even though it would have helped me in the conduct of my duty because my superiors deemed it more important that there was no suggestion that my decisions had been bought.
When New Labour came to power they decided that the law only applied to people outside their tent; support NL and you can do virtually anything and get away with it.
Yet the law remains the same as it has done for the last 100 years and more (corruption is also illegal under Common Law). Why are these people not prosecuted?
Sorry Iain but I agree with the posters above - this is corruption and should not happen. There will be ex civil servants reading this who have lost their jobs for far less than these mandarins are taking. How on earth can they justify opera or tennis or the grand prix? The Civil Service code was clear but with devolution of responsibility to individual departments they make their own rules. The problem with this is that it is those who make/interpret those rules who stand to benefit. I know a department where senior figures from HR have been part of the board awarding major contracts to a company and subsequently secured themselves a secondment there before leaving the department for a permanent placement (directorship). This is all sanctioned by colleagues who are at least friends and given the level of nepotism that exists in departments often family members! And the people who sanction it do so knowing that their turn on the gravy train will soon arrive. This is why corruption amongst MPs and Lords and indeed in the NAO is so damaging because they are in no position to moralise on these matters.
Sorry Ian, it's not exactly that expensive to get on a plane and go to Israel. If you were really that curious, why didn't you go under your own steam and pay for it yourself? Over last couple of decades the idea seems to have taken root (hat tip the now enormormous public relations industry) that people should expect someone else to pay for and organise their "experience" for them. But it's a devil's bargain. The only way to be sure you are uncovering the unvarnished truth is to do the footslog yourself. Nothing encourages independent thought like paying for it yourself.
Post a Comment