House Of Lords Committee For Privileges And Conduct The Conduct Of Lord Cunningham Of Felling Hl 94

The report The Conduct Of Lord Cunningham of Felling (HL 94) follows a request by Lord O'Neill to investigate him following a conversation between Lord O'Neill and undercover journalists working for the 'Sunday Times', which was covertly recorded by the journalists. The journalists posed as strategic consultants representing a South Korean investor looking to market innovative solar technology in the United Kingdom. The consultants wanted to recruit parliamentarians to further the client's interests within Parliament and government. The journalists alleged that Lord Cunningham was in breach of the code by indicating he was willing to: (i) Host functions in the House of Lords on behalf of a paying client; (ii) Help establish an all-party group at the behest of the client; and (iii) Act as a paid advocate in the House and to provide parliamentary advice and services. In addition to those three allegations, which were published,

The Sub-committee on Lords' Interests investigated the conduct of Lord Cunningham of Felling, following a complaint made by Norman Lamb MP. The complaint dates back February 2008 but as procedures were under review a decision was deferred. The Sub-committee have dismissed the complaint and the Committee for Privileges endorse this conclusion.

Lord Hanningfield's case arose after the Daily Mirror published, in December 2013, articles about Lord Hanningfield spending short periods of time on the parliamentary estate in July 2013 whilst claiming the daily allowance of £300. Following the articles a complaint was made to the Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner for Standards undertook an investigation which focused on 11 sitting days in July 2013 when Lord Hanningfield was on the Parliamentary estate for fewer than 40 minutes and claimed £300 for each day. The Commissioner found that Lord Hanningfield did not undertake parliamentary work on the days in question and was in breach of the Code of Conduct. The Sub-committee considered the case and recommended that Lord Hanningfield be required to repay the £3,300 he wrongly claimed and that he be suspended from the service of the House until the end of the current Parliament. Lord Hanningfield appealed but the Committee did not uphold the appeal and maintained the original recommendation to pay the £3,300 and be suspended from service of the House

This report arose out of a request by Lord Mackenzie that the Commissioner for Standards investigate his conduct in connection with a conversation that Lord Mackenzie had with undercover reporters working for the Sunday Times. The conversation featured in articles published in the Sunday Times on 2 June 2013 alleging that several members of the House, including Lord Mackenzie, had breached the Code of Conduct by seeking payment in return for providing access to Parliament and parliamentary facilities. The Commissioner found that Lord Mackenzie breached the Code in four respects. First, Lord Mackenzie is found to have breached the rules on Refreshment Department functions by hosting a function for the purpose of direct or indirect financial gain. Secondly, in respect of the same function, by arranging for another peer to host the function so as to get round a rule on the hosting of functions. Thirdly, by expressing a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement which would involve him providing parliamentary services in return for payment. Fourthly, by agreeing to help create an all-party group at the behest of a commercial entity he is found to have entered into an agreement to accept payment or other reward in return for providing a parliamentary service. The Sub-Committee on Lords' Conduct recommended that he be suspended from the service of the House for six months. Lord Mackenzie submitted an appeal. The Committee, however, has affirmed the Commissioner's findings and confirmed the recommended sanction

This is the 2nd report of the Committee for Privileges of the 2008-09 session (HLP 88-I, session 2008-09, ISBN 9780108444227) and looks at the conduct of Lord Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The background to this report, was a set of allegations by the The Sunday Times on 25 January 2009, stating that the peers had been willing to engage in paid advocacy. The Sub-Committee on Lords' Interests has reported on the conduct of the peers reaching the conclusion that three of the four members (Lord Snape, Truscott and Taylor) had breached the Code of Conduct. The main Committee in this report has examined the Sub-Committee's findings for each of the peers, along with three appeals from Lords Snape, Truscott and Taylor and a personal statement by one of the peers to the Committee. The Committee followed procedures as laid out by an earlier report (HLP 205, session 2007-08 - The Code of Conduct, ISBN 9780104014042). The Committee sets out a summary of conclusions in this report, focusing on the key points of the issue between the Sub-Committee and the three members who submitted appeals. The conclusions reached by the Committee, include: an endorsement of the Sub-Committee's exoneration of Lord Moonie of any breach of the Code of Conduct, but that he did make a number of unwise comments in respect of the Code of Conduct and should make a personal statement of apology to the House; the Committee upholds the appeal of Lord Snape against the Sub-Committee's findings and that he did not express clear willingness to exercise parliamentary influence in return for financial inducements, but he also demonstrated an inappropriate attitude to the rules governing the conduct of members and should apologise to the House; the Committee upholds the Sub-Committee's findings in respect of both Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, whose conversations with undercover journalists, showed a failure to act on their personal honour and therefore breached the Code and that both peers should be suspended from the service of the House until the end of the current session. Volume 2, Evidence is also available see (ISBN 9780104425176).

This report details the review by the Sub-committee of the Privileges Committee of the new Code of Conduct for members of the House of Lords, following the Code's first 18 months of operation. The main conclusion reached is that a detailed review of the Code is not required at present, as there have been almost no complaints about non-compliance. Therefore, the Code should be allowed to settle down for a period of years before changes are considered. The report also includes other recommendations regarding the declaration of pecuniary interests and EU pensions. The Committee endorses all the recommendations made by its Sub-Committee.

The Sub-committee on Lords' Interests investigated the conduct of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, following a complaint made by Norman Lamb MP. The complaint concerned the registration of Lord Fraser's financial interests. The interest had in fact been declared though the Register had not been re-published as in the usual timely manner due to stocktaking excercise. The Sub-committee have dismissed the complaint and the Committee for Privileges endorse this conclusion.

One of his most important American studies of labor economics published in the twentieth century, this book outlines an evolutionary and behavioral theory of value based on data drawn from court decisions. Analyzing the meaning of reasonable value as defined by the courts, he finds that the answer is based on a notion of reasonable conduct. Expanding this point to encompass the habits and customs of social life, he shows that court decisions are based on customs that are powerful forces shaping the economic system. In an early review Wesley Mitchell declared that Commons [1862-1945] carried this "analysis further along his chosen line than any of his predecessors. Into our knowledge of capitalism he has incorporated a great body of new materials which no one else has used adequately.": American Economic Review, XIV (1924) 253.