The Conduct Of Lord Moonie Lord Snape Lord Truscott And Lord Taylor Of Blackburn Report

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 from the Committee for Privileges 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, made in 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 - Lords 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 (The Code of Conduct: Procedure for Considering Complaints Against Members (HL 205), ISBN 9780104014042). The Committee sets out a summary of co

The focus of this report is Lord Bhatia's use of the Members' Reimbursement Scheme between 1 October 2007 and 1 January 2009, regarding his designation of a flat in Reigate as his main residence whilst still owning and spending the majority of his time at a family home in Hampton. The Sub-committee on Lords' Conduct found that Lord Bhatia's interpretation of "main residence" was unreasonable and that he did not act in good faith in designating the Reigate property and in claiming for overnight subsistence and travel. Lord Bhatia appealed to the full Committee against the Sub-committee's findings and recommendations. The Committee upholds the findings of the Sub-committee, and recommends that he makes a personal statement of apology to the House and is then suspended from the House for one year or until she has repaid the sum of £27,446 wrongly claimed, whichever is the later.

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

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,

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

Parliament and the Law (Second Edition) is an edited collection of essays, supported by the UK's Study of Parliament Group, including contributions by leading constitutional lawyers, political scientists and parliamentary officials. It provides a wide-ranging overview of the ways in which the law applies to, and impacts upon, the UK Parliament, and it considers how recent changes to the UK's constitutional arrangements have affected Parliament as an institution. It includes authoritative discussion of a number of issues of topical concern, such as: the operation of parliamentary privilege, the powers of Parliament's select committees, parliamentary scrutiny, devolution, English Votes for English Laws, Members' conduct and the governance of both Houses. It also contains chapters on financial scrutiny, parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament and human rights, and the administration of justice. Aimed mainly at legal academics, practitioners, and political scientists, it will also be of interest to anyone who is curious about the many fascinating ways in which the law interacts with and influences the work, the constitutional status and the procedural arrangements of the Westminster Parliament.

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.