House Of Lords Committee For Privileges And Conduct The Conduct Of Lord O Neill Of Clackmannan Hl 93

The report The Conduct Of Lord O'Neill Of Clackmannan (HL 93) follows a request by Lord O'Neill to investigate him following a conversation between Lord O'Neill and undercover 'Sunday Times' journalists, 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 newspaper subsequently contacted Lord O'Neill stating that they would publish an article alleging that during the conversation Lord O'Neill breached the Code of Conduct. The journalists alleged that Lord O'Neill 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) Act as a paid advocate in the House and to provide parliamentary ad

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).

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

The focus of this report is Lord Paul's use of the Members' Reimbursement Scheme from late 2005 onwards. The Sub-committee on Lords' Conduct considered whether in this period Lord Paul had correctly designated two successive properties in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire as his main residence, and made claims for overnight subsistence and travel in relation to them. Lord Paul has acknowledged that he wrongly designated the Oxfordshire property as his main residence, has apologised and repaid a sum of money. Lord Paul maintained that he acted in good faith in making the designation and claims, but the Sub-committee disagreed. Lord Paul appealed to the full Committee on this point. The Committee, while not finding actions that were dishonest or in bad faith, conclude that: designation of the Oxfordshire property was a deliberate misrepresentation of his domestic arrangements; his actions were unreasonable, and demonstrated gross irresponsibility and negligence. The Committee recommends that Lord Paul be suspended from the service of the House for four months.

The focus of this report is Baroness Uddin's use of the Members' Reimbursement Scheme from May 2005 onwards, regarding her designation of three successive properties - in Frinton on Sea, Maidstone and Wapping, London - as her main residence. The last of these, designated on 1 January 2010, has been Lady Uddin's family home since 1993. The Sub-committee on Lords' Conduct found that Lady Uddin's interpretation of "main residence" was unreasonable. The designation of the Frinton and Maidstone properties was a deliberate misrepresentation of her position and the travel claims were made with the intention of substantiating her designation of her main residences. In total, the Sub-committee calculated that she wrongly claimed £125,349.10 over the period in question. Lady Uddin appealed to the full Committee against the Sub-committee's findings and recommendations. The Committee upholds the finding on the sum wrongly claimed, and recommends that she makes a personal statement of apology to the House and is then suspended from the House for three years or until she has repaid the sum wrongly claimed, whichever is the later.

The Neill Committee investigated the House of Lords, not because of any scandal or or crisis, but due to the place of the Lords in public life and the need for such bodies to meet, and to be seen to meet, public expectations on conduct. Neill made 23 recommendations. This review group of the House of Lords believes, in most cases unanimously, that the House should be invited to endorse all the Neill Committee's recommendations, including having a code of conduct that enshrines the seven principles of public life (stated by the Nolan Committee in 1995), and that the register of intrerests should be mandatory.