I've just squeezed this blighter out for the blog. Thank God it's Friday.
On Wednesday the London Assembly voted unanimously to investigate Boris Johnson’s appointments of senior staff and consultants. The formal motion protests a desire for constitutional tidiness. Don’t you believe it - more than a few Assembly Members hope to further ruffle an already somewhat dishevelled mayor.
Continue reading "At Guardian Politics: Boris & His Appointments" »
He tells Pippa Crerar:
"'I thought about taking the job for about two seconds really and the rest was just convincing myself that I should be leaving behind a very comfortable life. I intend to run the place for Boris but he is the boss. He has got some very good qualities ... Most of all I think he appreciates that despite having had a very distinguished career doing a variety of different things, he actually hasn't run large organisations. I think that's possibly where I can make a contribution for him.'"
Now read on.
OK, here's a new angle. It seems that Parker believes he need only make the standard staff declaration of interests, nothing more. I can confirm that Mike Tuffrey AM, who raised the issue with Parker yesterday, had expected greater detail. I've now been reminded that all five members of the Forensic Audit Panel have made declarations and that these are in response to the same categories assembly members have to address, which require much fuller disclosure. If members of the FAP - who aren't even GLA employees - have done this, why hasn't Parker? Has he been misadvised?
UPDATE, 17.20: To answer my own question, no he hasn't been misadvised. For the purpose of registering interests Parker is just another GLA employee. I've asked why the FAP's members have made the fuller disclosure, so watch this space. I'm still wondering how Parker's position fits with Johnson's fine campaign promises about transparency. That, perhaps, is the real inconsistency.
And so after all this it seems that what I was told yesterday was accurate in every detail. I'm told that nothing extra will appear on the website under the First Deputy's name. The impression that there would be was mistaken. Next to Register Of Interests we're going to be stuck with the word "none". Not even two "none"s. Not even the two propositions to which Parker responded with those "none"s. Once more I ask myself, is this "tough, new" transparency?
From the Assembly, a press release:
"The London Assembly today unanimously voted to investigate Mayor Boris Johnson's appointment of senior staff and consultants at City Hall.The move follows the resignation of two key Mayoral advisors in the space of two weeks 1. The investigation, to be carried out by the Business Management and Administration Committee (BMAC), will look at four key questions:
· How did Mayor Boris Johnson pick his senior City Hall policy advisors?
· Were proper recruitment procedures followed?
· Was the Mayor properly advised about the use of his powers of appointment?
· What lessons can be learnt for future changes of administration at City Hall?The investigation was launched following questioning of Tim Parker, First Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive of the GLA Group, appearing before the Assembly this morning."
And here's the text of the motion:
“That the Assembly notes the answers to the questions asked and the absence of one of our invitees. We instruct the Business Management and Administration Committee to look closely at the Mayor's appointments of staff under S67 of the GLA Act (and his temporary use of consultants in advisory posts akin to S67 appointments) in order to understand how the appointments were made, whether they fully followed proper process, whether the Mayor was properly advised in the exercise of his powers and whether any lessons are to be learnt.”
Oo-er!
On 30th June I posted the following questions about Sir Simon Milton and the "informal agreement" with the mayor about his role:
"Can we see this agreement on the GLA website, please? Can we see the protocol there, please? Was Sir Simon invited to sign the GLA code voluntarily, if not why not and if so why has he not done so? And can we establish any ways in which Sir Simon's activities and influence are different from what they'd be were he an orthodox planning advisor or director? Does he, for example, have an office or desk at City Hall? Does he expect City Hall staff to follow his instructions? Does he have a personal PA or other staff? Does he claim expenses?"
Last Thursday, just as I was scrabbling to leave the house for the Ray Lewis press conference, this arrived in response to my questions about Sir Simon Milton:
"Simon Milton’s position with the Greater London Authority is of an informal nature. For this reason, along with the fact that he is not an employee, he has not been asked to voluntarily sign the code of conduct as it does not apply to him. The protocol between Westminster and GLA will be available shortly online along with the confidentiality agreement. He has also signed the declaration of interests register.As an informal advisor, Simon Milton does not have the ability to direct GLA staff or bind the authority to any action, or have any decision delegated to him to take. In order for him to provide this advice to the Mayor, some resources have been made available to him including a desk, equipment and briefings from officers on request. Simon Milton would be able to claim expenses as other individuals who provide advice on an informal basis, but to date, has had no need to do so and does not envisage doing so in the futu
re."
Meanwhile, Len Duvall is on the case. Watch this space.
The Lib Dems' Mike Tuffrey asked the anticipated question about Parker's declaration of interests. Could he say that reports that he wouldn't be making one are untrue? Parker said he couldn't. He said that he had the necessary form in front of him and continued:
"As soon as I walk out this morning...I will go straight up to my office, fill out the form and it will be there for you...in a matter of minutes."
Well, it's not that there yet but when it is it seems it will show his responses to two propositions. They are:
"I have an interest whether financial or otherwise, or a person related to me or with whom I have a close personal relationship, [who] has an interest in an organisation which has business dealings with the Authority or the functional bodies."
And:
"I have an interest whether financial or otherwise in an issue on which I am advising the Mayor or Assembly which affects an interest held by me, and/or any person related to me or with whom I have a close personal relationship."
He'll be responding to both in the negative. How disappointing. The form in question is the standard "General Notice Of Interests To Be Registered – Staff (Mayoral Appointments)," that applied under Ken Livingstone. It requires far less information than the declarations made by assembly members, as we see from those posted by Parker's fellow deputies Richard Barnes AM and Kit Malthouse AM. Yet Parker is a multi-millionaire and international investor. Does transparency demand that we know more?
Let's look at what Boris Johnson promised during the election campaign. His manifesto on accountability (pdf) promised to, "Introduce tough new rules for Mayoral advisers to ensure their interests are declared and in the open" (page 3) and "Strengthen the accountability of Mayoral advisers by putting a separate
register of interests online." (page 11). And on page 12 it says:
"The current GLA staff code of conduct requires staff to register any financial interests. However, this register is not immediately accessible by the public. After the resignation of Lee Jasper over unethical behaviour and alleged misuse of public funds, it is clear that the system of declaring interests needs to be more open and transparent. Therefore, we will create a separate register of interests for advisers and require that this is open for public viewing at all times on the Mayor’s website."
The declaration Parker spoke of this morning is the one required under the existing code of conduct - nothing more. And unless some new and more demanding form of declaration is in the works, the only change from Livingstone's administration is that when a mayor's adviser completes the old declaration form it will appear on the website under his name. In Parker's case it's going to say "none" and "none".* With the best will in the world can someone with millions of pounds' worth of investments all over the planet really be that sure? Can we?
UPDATE, 17.55: *Oh no it's not! Not even that!
Two of Mayor Johnson's remaining deputies, Tim Parker and Kit Malthouse, will answer questions from Assembly members today regarding their roles and priorities. Proceedings will be webcast live. Unsurprisingly, non-Conservative AMs are more exercised than ever by the position of Tim Parker following my discovery yesterday that no register of interest is to appear under his name on the GLA website. Parker is, of course, a very wealthy man and an "international investor" (his term).
It emerged during the confirmation hearing relating to his appointment by Johnson to the chair of TfL that his assets are not held in a blind trust. His duties and position as First Deputy seem likely to result in his having detailed knowledge of GLA procurements and contracts. Is there a danger of a conflict of interest? If he isn't asked questions along that line this morning, I'll be very surprised.
To my surprise I've been informed that Tim Parker will submit no Register Of Interest to the GLA website. Last month I was told this would occur on 7th July - yesterday - when Parker took up his role as First Deputy. Or perhaps that only meant that if there was going to be one that's when it would appear. Whatever, nothing went up yesterday and I've double-checked that nothing will. How come Kit Malthouse and Richard Barnes have made declarations but the hugely wealthy Parker won't be? Do none of these criteria apply? And have we heard the last of this? I'd say no.
Still no declaration of interests on the Tim Parker page, and those transition team payment details haven't been updated either. Have made inquiries. Watch this space!
UPDATE, 16.14: I'm assured that all the above is being sorted out. That's good news, especially as Parker appears before an Assembly plenary on Wednesday.
Recent Comments