The House of Lords Conduct Committee has today published two
reports. The first is on the conduct of , and the second on the conduct
of .
In both cases (which are unconnected)
the Conduct Committee upheld the findings of the independent
Commissioner for Standards. Neither peer appealed against the
Commissioner's findings or recommended
sanction.
In the case of , the Commissioner found that
he breached the prohibition in the House of Lords Code of Conduct
on providing parliamentary services in return for payment or
reward and that he failed to act on his personal honour as
required by the Code.
In the case of , the Commissioner
found that he breached the prohibition on providing parliamentary
services in return for payment or reward, that he failed to act
on his personal honour, and that he breached House of Lords rules
on events in the House.
The Committee endorsed the
Commissioner's recommendations that the breaches of the Code in
each case warrant suspension from the House, for four months in
the case of , and five months in the case
of .
The Commissioner's investigation into
arose from comments he made to
undercover journalists, after which referred himself to the
Commissioner. Although no money exchanged hands, the Commissioner
found that in those conversations had showed a ‘clear
willingness to undertake activity that would have amounted to
paid parliamentary services', thereby breaching the requirement
that members of the House of Lords act always on their personal
honour.
During the investigation evidence
emerged of three separate cases in which had provided parliamentary
services in return for payment. These involved corresponding with
ministers and officials, and in two cases attending a meeting
with a minister or senior
official.
The Commissioner recommended that
be suspended from the service
of the House for four months. did not appeal against this
recommendation.
The Conduct Committee has
recommended that be suspended from the House of
Lord for four months.
The full report is available online
here
The Commissioner for Standards
considered allegations that , in the course of
meetings with undercover journalists, offered ‘cash for access'
to journalists posing as potential clients of a company,
Affinity, owned by Lord Evans' son, and in which Lord Evans held
one-third of the shares. Following publication of these
allegations Lord Evans referred himself to the
Commissioner.
The Commissioner found that Lord Evans
failed to act on his personal honour when he told undercover
journalists he would be willing to introduce them to members of
the House, given his financial interest as a shareholder in
Affinity.
The Commissioner found that Lord Evans
had separately sponsored events at the House of Lords on behalf
of the company, and that he had approached members of the House
of Lords to speak at those events, thereby providing
parliamentary services to the company in which he had a financial
incentive.
The Commissioner also found that Lord
Evans broke House of Lords events rules. Tickets for the events
were advertised for sale at above cost price, while the events
themselves were used to promote and drum up business for
Affinity. Lord Evans, as sponsor of the events, failed to satisfy
himself that the events complied with the House's
rules.
The Commissioner recommended that Lord
Evans be suspended from the service of the House for five months.
Lord Evans did not appeal against this
recommendation.
The Conduct Committee has
recommended that be suspended from the
House for five months.
The full report is available online
here
Both reports require the agreement of
the House before the suspensions come into force. It is expected
the reports will be put to the House in the coming
weeks.
