Conduct Committee
Debate between Lord McFall of Alcluith and Lord Kakkar
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, there are two reports on today’s Order Paper and, while they are unconnected, in the interests of time I shall speak to both. The first report is on the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. This follows the publication of allegations in the Guardian newspaper in March, after which the noble Lord referred himself for investigation to the commissioner for standards.
The original allegations arose from conversations between the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and undercover journalists posing as potential clients. The commissioner judged that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, had expressed a clear willingness to provide paid parliamentary services to the journalists, thereby breaching the long-standing rule that noble Lords should act always on their personal honour. During the investigation, evidence emerged of three further cases in which the noble Lord had provided parliamentary services, such as facilitating meetings with officials or Ministers, in return for payment.
This is not the first time that cases involving the provision of parliamentary services have come before the House. I remind noble Lords that paragraph 17 of the current code states that Members must not
“accept or agree to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services”.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, argued that he was acting in the national interest but, even if that were so, it provides no defence. The code is clear that accepting payment in return for offering parliamentary advice or services, which includes setting up meetings or introductions, or writing to Ministers or officials, is prohibited. This is so whatever the motivations of the Member. I urge all noble Lords to read the report and, if they have any questions, to contact the Registrar of Lords’ Interests, who is always happy to advise.
Given the number of breaches that came to light in his investigation, the commissioner concluded that a significant suspension was appropriate. I therefore invite the House to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, be suspended for four months.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore now put the Questions that the Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, be agreed to.
Conduct Committee
Debate between Lord McFall of Alcluith and Lord Kakkar
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I turn to the second report, which is on the conduct of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Watford. He too was the subject of a sting operation; it was undertaken by journalists posing as potential clients of a company owned by the noble Lord’s son, in which the noble Lord held one-third of the shares. The noble Lord also referred himself for investigation to the commissioner for standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, was recorded offering to provide parliamentary services to the journalists, thereby breaching the rule that noble Lords should act always on their personal honour. The case uncovered several additional breaches of the code. It emerged that the noble Lord had sponsored events in the House of Lords on behalf of the company and had approached other noble Lords to ask them to speak at these events. In so doing, he provided parliamentary services to a company in which he had a financial incentive.
Moreover, the events themselves breached the events rules. They were designed to generate income and drum up business for the company which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, partly owned, and tickets were advertised at a price higher than the actual cost. The rules on events are clear. The facilities of the House are provided at public expense to support Members’ parliamentary work, not to help them generate financial or material gain. All noble Lords, if they sponsor events, are required to satisfy themselves and certify that the rules have been followed. The noble Lord failed to do so, and his actions put the reputation of the House at risk.
We therefore concurred with the commissioner that a significant suspension was warranted and have recommended that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, be suspended for five months.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore put the Question that this Motion be agreed to.
Conduct Committee
Debate between Lord McFall of Alcluith and Lord Kakkar
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, the report before the House on the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, follows a referral by the Metropolitan Police Service to the Commissioner for Standards.
The facts are not in dispute. In February, the noble Baroness wrote to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police regarding certain speeding offences with which she was charged. She indicated that if she lost her driving licence, she would have to give up attending Parliament and asked whether this would be a fair response to the offences. The letter was sent in her capacity as a Member of your Lordships’ House and was on headed House of Lords paper.
The noble Baroness has accepted that her letter was inappropriate and has expressed deep regret. She has also accepted that she breached the Code of Conduct, but appealed against the commissioner’s recommendation that she be suspended for eight weeks. We took the noble Baroness’s contrition into account in considering the appropriate sanction, but as our report explains, we did not accept the arguments advanced in her appeal and we upheld the commissioner’s recommendation.
This was a serious breach of the Code of Conduct. The noble Baroness sought to use her privileged position as a Member of this House to influence a live criminal process for her benefit. Not only was this a serious breach of the rule that noble Lords must act on their personal honour, but such behaviour risks undermining public confidence in your Lordships’ House.
The Conduct Committee concluded that a significant suspension was warranted. I therefore invite the House to agree the Motions before it. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, under Standing Order 68A, no debate is allowed on this Motion. I must therefore put the question.