Ex-Tory minister breached post-government jobs rules, watchdog says
Lord Harrington, a non-affiliated peer who was a Conservative minister under Boris Johnson, failed to tell the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) about two roles he took after leaving government in 2022.
Acoba said the peer's failure to notify it of roles with Stephenson Harwood LLP and Regal Holdco Limited showed an 'unambiguous breach and clear disregard' of the rules governing ex-ministers.
He apologised, telling the committee he miscalculated the period within which he had to give notice, while Acoba has written to the current Government complaining there is a 'general lack of understanding' of the rules it enforces.
On leaving Government, all ministers must notify Acoba for the next two years of any jobs they go on to hold, to ensure they do not use their influence or knowledge of government improperly.
Lord Harrington left his role as a refugees minister, working across the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, in September 2022.
In the role, he spearheaded co-ordination of the UK's efforts to house Ukrainian refugees in the early days of the war, as well as working to accommodate Afghan refugees fleeing the resurgent Taliban.
Acoba said it found out he had taken up a role with law firm Stephenson Harwood, which he began in March 2024, when a member of the public made a freedom of information request about it.
The committee also became aware of an appointment with Cluster Partners Limited in December 2023, and another with Regal Holdco Limited in July 2024.
It wrote to Lord Harrington asking why he had failed to give notice of the jobs, describing his actions as 'surprising', as he had sought advice for past roles after serving in David Cameron's government, and 'within the first few months of leaving office in 2022'.
In correspondence with the watchdog from April, which has now been published on Acoba's website, Lord Harrington apologised to the committee.
He said: 'I apologise for miscalculating the period in which I was required to notify Acoba of such appointments. The ministerial role I undertook in 2022 was a strictly limited project, concerning a subject on which I have had no professional interaction with prior or since that period.
'No paid employment I have commenced within two years of leaving ministerial office has been related to that role nor to Government.'
While he said Cluster Partners was established in 2023, Lord Harrington said the company did not 'commence any activity until much later on', until after the deadline by which he had to notify Acoba.
The watchdog accepted his explanation, but said of the other two appointments: 'The purpose of the rules is to protect the integrity of Government by considering the real and perceived risks associated with former ministers joining outside organisations.
'Protecting the integrity of the Government has not been possible here. Failing to await advice before taking up roles with Stephenson Harwood LLP and Regal Holdco Limited is an unambiguous breach and clear disregard of the Government's rules and the requirements of the ministerial code.'
Acoba also wrote to Pat McFadden, the most senior minister of the Cabinet Office, notifying him of the breach.
In its letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the watchdog complained that the rules governing ex-ministers jobs are inadequate.
It said: 'These breaches, alongside those of others, raise the wider issue around the general lack of understanding of the rules and the inadequacies of the framework in which the rules operate.
'As it stands, the process relies entirely on the co-operation of applicants in the absence of any sanctions or incentives to maintain compliance. This has risked undermining the integrity of the committee and the rules.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
Court upholds in part UniCredit's appeal against Italy's decision on Banco BPM bid
MILAN, July 12 (Reuters) - An Italian court has upheld in part an appeal by UniCredit ( opens new tab against the conditions the government has imposed to clear the bank's $16 billion bid for rival Banco BPM ( opens new tab, the court's ruling published on Saturday showed.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Divorcee forced to pay half of ex-husband's trans surgery in legal first
A divorcee has been forced by a judge to pay half for her ex-husband's trans surgery. The mother argued that it was unfair that she had to stump up £80,000 for the procedure when the decision to transition had led to the breakdown of her marriage. But in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the judge said that the surgery was a 'need', not a 'whim', and therefore it was 'reasonable' for the cost to be met out of their joint funds. The husband, 58, had said that the argument was 'like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery' during the hearing at Brighton Family Court. The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, met while working in the financial sector in London in the late 1990s and married in 2002, when the husband was living as a man. They had a 'very international lifestyle living in several countries in different continents and purchasing properties in various countries' and accumulating £3 million in joint assets. They have two children who were privately educated and are now at university. In 2022 the husband informed his wife he was 'intending to 'transition to a woman' and 'commenced hormone therapy at that stage', the judge said. Two months later the wife, 60, issued divorce proceedings. The husband had surgery in 2024 after they had been separated for almost two years and the £160,000 bill was paid out of their joint cash. During their separation, the husband, who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner, claimed he could not afford to pay the court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children but splashed £14,000 on an Amex card in one month 'mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants', got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months and racked up a £1,000 Milan restaurant bill. Bitter legal dispute Whether they should split the surgery cost was at the centre of the bitter legal dispute which cost the couple almost £1 million in legal fees. Judge Stuart Farquhar said: 'It is not surprising that this issue has generated significant emotions from both of the parties. 'It is the applicant's position that it is as a result of the respondent's decision to transition to a woman and undergo the surgery that the marriage has broken down and that in the words of counsel's opening note 'it cannot be right that the applicant should have to pay half the costs from her share of the matrimonial funds'.' But the husband, who says his wife always knew he was trans, said that it should be 'treated in the way of any other medical costs which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets'. In his ruling the judge noted that the husband had provided medical evidence of gender dysphoria which had caused 'significant anxiety, depression and distress' and for which 'the vaginoplasty surgery was considered the next appropriate step'. In her evidence the wife 'was adamant that she was not aware that the respondent wished to transition until the end of the marriage' and said it was 'devastating and a big surprise' when she discovered her husband wanted to take cross-sex hormones. She was 'deeply shocked' when her husband 'stated that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman' and that is when she began divorce proceedings. She argued that it was the husband's choice to have the surgery but it should be paid out of his personal assets, saying it was unfair for her to foot half the bill as the 'decision to transition that caused the end of the marriage'. The husband responded: 'You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them.' He argued that 'it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and that accordingly the cost of that surgery should be met from joint funds'. 'Genuine psychological need' The judge agreed with the wife's legal team that the husband had 'shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly' the ex-wife. Judge Farquhar said that while 'there is no doubt that this has been a hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience' for the trans woman, 'the lack of empathy' for the ex-wife 'is striking'. However, he said that could not be considered when dividing up the assets and the court 'will not consider the reasons that a marriage broke down within financial remedy proceedings'. He said he was satisfied the 'surgery was meeting a genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need'. 'This cannot be, and has not been, said to have been carried out as a whim when all of the effort and time that the respondent has invested in the process is considered,' the judge noted. Therefore, it was 'reasonable' for the money to be spent 'out of joint resources', he ruled.
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs and political candidates face ‘industrial' levels of abuse, minister says
MPs and political candidates are facing 'industrial' levels of intimidation and harassment, a minister has warned, as the government outlines plans for stricter punishments for those found guilty of abuse. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, said her colleagues were suffering worse harassment than ever before and warned this was deterring many young people from becoming politically active. With two MPs having been killed in recent years and multiple candidates saying they were harassed during last year's election campaign, the government says it is acting before further acts of violence are committed. 'In the time that I've been an MP, we've lost colleagues – my friend Jo Cox, Sir David Amess,' Ali said. 'We also had the horrific situation of Stephen Timms being attacked in the first week that I was elected in 2010. 'What we've seen is the level of abuse and hostility increasing to the point where in last year's general election, there was industrial-scale abuse and threats and intimidation – creating a chilling effect on our democracy.' She added: 'Week in, week out, I hear of colleagues across different parties – particularly women, but not exclusively – being threatened and intimidated.' Ali was one of several candidates, several of them Muslim women, to be targeted by pro-Palestinian activists during last year's election. Videos showed campaigners following and shouting at her supporters in Bethnal Green, east London, while another image showed a fake Labour leaflet depicting her with devil horns. Her colleague Shabana Mahmood had to call the police twice in the course of one weekend to complain about harassment while out canvassing. But MPs say the harassment is not related to a single political cause, and is due more to a fragmented electorate who increasingly distrust their MPs while finding it easier than ever to contact or find them. Cox was killed by a far-right terrorist in 2016 and Amess by a supporter of Islamic State in 2021. A report by the Electoral Commission after last year's election found that 55% said they had experienced some kind of problem with harassment, intimidation or abuse, and 13% said the problem was serious. Vijay Rangarajan, the head of the commission, said earlier this year: 'Addressing the abuse and intimidation targeted at candidates and elected officials is crucial to safeguarding individuals and their families, but also the health of the UK democracy more widely.' A separate report by a panel of MPs convened by the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, warned: 'The nature of threats and abuse facing politicians today is a significant change from recent history and current trends suggest it could get worse.' Ali said she had received multiple death threats in the last year. 'Only yesterday I received a threat to torture and kill me,' she said, adding that she had received similar threats via email and through the post during the election campaign. 'A number of colleagues have had that sort of experience,' she said. 'So we've got to make sure that our democracy is safe and that people are protected when they decide to enter public life. 'I spent my whole life campaigning to encourage people into politics, young people, women, people from diverse backgrounds, men and women. And I fear that if we don't take action, then more and more people will be put off.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Ali said the government would take three concrete measures to make life easier for candidates and their supporters, and to discourage people from harassing those involved in politics. The measures will be included in an elections strategy paper, with the aim of including them in a bill at an unspecified point during this parliament. The first is that candidates will no longer be required to publish their home addresses on election material. At present, people standing for parliament have the option to remove their addresses from nomination forms, but not if they are acting as their own agents, which some do. The government's changes will allow everyone, including council candidates, to remove their addresses from the forms even if they are their own agents. It will not go as far as recommended by the MPs on Hoyle's panel, however, who said that even the option of including home addresses on election forms should be removed. Second, ministers plan to change legal guidance so that it will be considered an aggravating factor if someone is found guilty of harassing a candidate, campaigner or staff member. This will allow judges to hand down tougher sentences to those offenders. Finally, the government is planning to change the law to ban those found guilty of intimidating or abusing a candidate from standing themselves as a candidate in future. The measures reflect some, but not all, of the recommendations made by Hoyle's group of MPs in their report. That panel also suggested giving MPs protection by the Home Office during an election campaign, introducing ID and address checks for all candidates, and allowing returning officers to expand the exclusion zone around a polling station under certain circumstances. Ali said: 'It cannot be right that MPs, councillors and other others who seek public office are threatened with murder. Sadly, that climate of hostility has led to us losing two of our colleagues. 'This is about making sure that those people who are in public life, and those who seek to be in public life … receive the protection they need, and that people aren't put off politics. Because we are seeing increasing evidence of people not wanting to be in public life, not wanting to be in politics.'
