{"id":1179,"date":"2020-08-10T06:24:45","date_gmt":"2020-08-10T05:24:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scscsussex.wordpress.com\/?p=1179"},"modified":"2021-10-05T08:57:34","modified_gmt":"2021-10-05T07:57:34","slug":"the-westferry-affair-the-fallout","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sussex.ac.uk\/centre-for-the-study-of-corruption\/2020\/08\/10\/the-westferry-affair-the-fallout\/","title":{"rendered":"The Westferry Affair \u2013 the Fallout"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recent events have focused attention on conflicts of interest and potential \u2018cash for access\u2019 in UK politics. Following his first post on the Westferry affair, Joseph Sinclair<\/strong>, a lawyer taking our Master\u2019s in Corruption and Governance, examines the fall-out and wider implications.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>A Recap (see full background <\/strong>here<\/strong><\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Conservative Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, has been implicated in a \u201ccash-for-favours\u201d arrangement with Richard Desmond, a billionaire property developer. Desmond\u2019s company, Westferry Developments, sought to build 1,524 residential units to which the London mayor and local authority had objected.<\/p>\n

Jenrick and Desmond had sat next to one another in a \u00a3900-per-head fundraising dinner. They spoke about the development and Jenrick was shown a video. The pair texted one another after dinner. Desmond said to Jenrick: \u201cwe appreciate the speed as we don\u2019t want to give Marxists loads of doe for nothing!\u201d <\/em>The message referred to the \u00a345m community infrastructure levy (\u201cCIL\u201d) due to be paid by Desmond\u2019s company if the development was not approved by 15 January 2020.<\/p>\n

Documents published<\/a> show that Jenrick\u2019s office put considerable pressure on civil servants to get the decision to him before the CIL deadline. Against his department\u2019s advice he approved the development on 14 January 2020. On 29 January, Desmond made a \u00a312,000 donation to the Conservative Party.<\/p>\n

The local authority took the matter to court. On agreeing to quash the decision, Jenrick\u2019s department accepted that the fair-minded observer would conclude a real possibility of bias towards Desmond\u2019s company.<\/p>\n

Further Developments<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jenrick told the Commons<\/a> that he made the decision with an open mind and approved it with the view to the development producing 250 \u201caffordable homes\u201d. The Cabinet Secretary said<\/a> that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, considered the matter closed.<\/p>\n

Further allegations<\/a> against Jenrick have been raised. In 2019, another property developer, Mark Quinn, gave the Conservative party \u00a311,000. Shortly thereafter Jenrick\u2019s department became involved in Quinn\u2019s appeal against the refusal of planning permission for 675 homes in Kent. Three weeks after Jenrick\u2019s involvement, Quinn donated a further \u00a326,500. Jenrick denies<\/a> being directly involved.<\/p>\n

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee wrote<\/a> to Jenrick with several questions, including a request to outline the measures in place to avoid \u201c<\/em>\u2026such [an] obvious conflicts of interest\u201d<\/em>. They asked Jenrick why a target of 20% of affordable homes was deemed acceptable instead of the local authority\u2019s required 35%. Jenrick responded<\/a> by saying that the plan offered 142 more homes than the original permission given by Boris Johnson as London Mayor. He went before<\/a> the Housing Committee on 22 July 2020 to answer questions.<\/p>\n

What Does the Westferry Affair Tell Us?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This had the appearance of a significant conflict of interest, meaning that Jenrick ought to have recorded the meeting and recused himself. He told the Housing Committee that he did not because he was not advised to do so. This approach to monitoring conflict does not accord with the self-governing positive obligations in the Ministerial Code<\/a>. The PM\u2019s in fully investigating Jenrick\u2019s against the Code actions also shows serious shortcomings<\/a> in its operation.<\/p>\n

While the platitude \u201cbuild build build<\/em>\u201d bounces around the Commons, we need to ask who is going to benefit. Johnson has announced<\/a> \u201c\u2026the most radical reforms of our planning system since the end of the second world war\u201d. <\/em>His government will \u201c\u2026scythe through red tape\u201d.<\/em> Will we see affordable sustainable housing or a perpetuation of what we see in London: multi-million pound new-builds sitting empty<\/a>?<\/p>\n

The Conservatives have received<\/a> more than \u00a311 million in donations from property developers since Johnson became PM. The government is also being taken to court<\/a> over dishing out questionable contracts for personal protective equipment. A report<\/a> by the National Audit Office on the \u00a33.6bn Towns Fund suggests pork barrel spending. The fund is intended to help struggling towns. Yet all but one<\/a> of the 61 towns chosen at Jenrick\u2019s discretion to receive support were Conservative-held or were targets seats for the election – including his own.<\/p>\n

Desmond\u2019s relationship with the Conservative leadership is deep-rooted. A chummy email from Desmond to Johnson revealed in an FOI<\/a> request reads:<\/p>\n

Thank you so much for your book, The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History, I will read it over the half term and when I say read I mean read. Keep in touch. <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>I will see you on 22 Oct at 8 am at the Ruby Breakfast, London Hilton Park Lane, where I will be supporting you as always.<\/em><\/p>\n

Boris\u2019 diaries show countless opportunities for them to cross paths: Johnson had been for lunch<\/a> with Desmond at Northern & Shell\u2019s offices on 30 September 2015 and met Desmond for a drink<\/a> at the Corinthian Hotel near Whitehall on 09 September 2015.<\/p>\n

There should be real concern about the probity and motivations behind the government\u2019s latest moves to remove \u2018red tape\u2019. Greater discretion gives the government free rein to favour their own ambitions or their cronies\u2019.<\/p>\n

What more does the Westfair affair tell us? Well\u00ad\u2013<\/p>\n