4 Mr Geoff Hoon
Introduction
37. Mr Hoon was the Member for Ashfield when he met
the undercover reporter on 3 March.[47]
The interview was referred to in the Sunday Times article
of 21 March and parts of it were broadcast in the Dispatches
programme the following evening. The Commissioner received
a complaint against Mr Hoon from the Member for Putney, Justine
Greening, on 22 March.[48]
The Commissioner accepted the complaint for investigation on 23
March.
The Commissioner's findings
38. The Commissioner has concluded that Mr Hoon committed
a "particularly serious" breach of the rules of the
House in making statements to the undercover reporter about disclosing
confidential information he implied he was receiving or could
access from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the UK's Strategic
Defence and Security Review for the benefit of business clients
who might be considering seeking contracts with the MoD and for
the benefit of a private equity fund. In the Commissioner's judgment,
Mr Hoon's conduct brought the House of Commons and its Members
generally into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 15 of the Code
of Conduct.[49]
39. The Commissioner's main findings are set out
below.
- Mr Hoon's comments to the undercover
reporter that he was looking forward to translating his knowledge
and contacts about the international scene into "something
that, bluntly, makes money" were ill-judged but because they
related to his prospective employment after leaving Parliament
they did not breach the Code or the rules.[50]
- Other remarks made by Mr Hoon, about chairing
companies, leading a delegation to a Minister, gaining personal
access to Ministers, briefing a private equity fund on defence
policy, and supplying an academic paper on defence policy were
within the rules.[51]
- Mr Hoon told the undercover reporter that he
had met officials who were working on the defence review. The
Commissioner concludes that there was no requirement for Mr Hoon
to declare a financial interest to those officials, because at
the time he met them he did not expect to have such an interest.[52]
But the Commissioner also concludes that Mr Hoon did breach the
Code of Conduct, because he offered to brief the fictitious company's
clients about the review, giving at least the impression that
he would draw on what he had learnt in his meeting with officials.[53]
- Mr Hoon suggested that he might brief a private
equity company on defence policy, giving the impression that he
was offering an inside track on defence strategy. Although it
was less clear-cut than the other breach, this offer also breached
the Code.[54]
Mr Hoon's evidence
40. Mr Hoon sent us written evidence on 29 November.[55]
He gave oral evidence on 30 November. Mr Hoon also sent us a statement
he had intended to make at the start of his oral evidence.[56]
APPLICATION OF THE CODE
41. In his written evidence to us, Mr Hoon develops
his argument, also made to the Commissioner, that the Code should
not apply to what he believed at the time was a private conversation
about his future as a private citizen.[57]
Mr Hoon writes that the Commissioner was "factually wrong"
to suggest that the Advisory Body on Business Appointments (ACOBA)
considers public appointments; he points out that ACOBA considers
all relevant appointments for former Ministers within a certain
timeframe after they leave office. The fictitious job for which
Mr Hoon—who at the time of the interview was no longer subject
to ACOBA guidelines—was being considered would not have
been public in the sense of being required to be published.
MOD BRIEFING ON THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE
REVIEW
42. In his written statement; in his introductory
statement; and in his oral evidence, Mr Hoon argues that the Commissioner
was wrong to conclude that he gave the impression that he was
briefed by Ministry of Defence officials about the strategic defence
review. Much of the case made by Mr Hoon rests on whether he said
to the undercover reporter that "some of the people in the
team in the MoD … briefed me about this." In the context
of the discussion, "this" would logically refer to the
strategic defence review, which Mr Hoon says he was not briefed
about and even if he had been he would not have offered to share
such a briefing with others. Mr Hoon contends that it is not clear
that he said "this" and that he was actually referring
to a briefing he gave to the same officials about a NATO policy
review in which he was playing a part, which was therefore something
he could repeat to others. The Commissioner concludes that Mr
Hoon did say "this". Some of us listened to a recording
of the conversation between Mr Hoon and the undercover reporter
and we conclude that Mr Hoon definitely said "this".
The sense that we gained from watching the interview was that
"this" was a reference to the strategic defence review.
43. Whether Mr Hoon said "this" matters
because, if he did, and if "this" referred to the strategic
defence review, then it appears that he was giving the impression
that he would be prepared to use information from a briefing by
officials to brief a paying client. Mr Hoon asks us to accept
that there are other possible interpretations of what he said.
He also points out that people rarely speak in perfectly formed
sentences in an informal setting.[58]
He says that he has heard from many people who have sympathised
with him for these reasons and because he was only trying to make
the best case he could for getting the job.[59]
44. Mr Hoon has acknowledged that in offering to
brief clients about defence matters he may have been "showing
off his knowledge and experience of the MoD and the people in
it" but he denies strongly that it was or could have been
his true intention to imply that he was in a position to share
a confidential MoD briefing on the strategic defence review.[60]
He rejects completely the Commissioner's conclusion that in the
context of the discussion, what he said could only have been understood
as an offer to brief clients on the review, drawing on briefings
he had received from MoD officials.[61]
He argues that the Commissioner is wrong to find that he has committed
a serious breach of the Code when "there is sufficient doubt
about the meaning of the words that I used to allow a different
conclusion to be reached" and he suggests that a high standard
of proof should be required for such a finding.[62]
AN INSIDE TRACK ON DEFENCE STRATEGY?
45. Mr Hoon's written evidence to the Committee provides
a fuller explanation than that which he provided to the Commissioner
of his role in a policy review carried out by the NATO Group of
Experts, of which he was a member.[63]
Mr Hoon also acknowledged in oral evidence that he had not explained
to the undercover reporter in detail what this role entailed and
that much of the review's work was publicly available.[64]
If he had provided such an explanation, Mr Hoon might have avoided
giving the impression that, in the Commissioner's words, he had
"an inside track on defence strategy" which was based
at least in part on confidential briefings from officials in the
MoD.[65] The Commissioner
has concluded that by giving that impression, Mr Hoon brought
the House into disrepute and breached the Code. When we questioned
him about this, Mr Hoon denied that his knowledge and understanding
of the issues was dependent on official briefings.[66]
He continued:
It's difficult for me to say what impression
I created, in the sense that I clearly had in my mind at the time
the fact that I believed that I was suitably qualified for the
job that appeared to be on offer. I was trying—I accept
this—to talk up my qualifications and experience for the
role. If, in talking that up, I failed to properly set out all
the detail, then I accept that there is some force in what you're
saying.
But part of the point of coming here is to try
and emphasise that, in my mind, I was doing no more than what
I think many people would do in the context of what was presented
to me as being a job interview, and trying to find a way to explain
my background and understanding of these issues that would appeal
to the people interviewing me.[67]
Conclusions and recommendation
APPLICATION OF THE CODE
46. In oral evidence, Mr Hoon accepted that most
of what was said at the meeting with the undercover reporter had
related to his experience of public life.[68]
That public life was of course as a Member of Parliament and a
Minister. For us, this is the key point. Mr Hoon was still a public
figure—still an MP—when he attended the meeting, during
which he referred constantly to his experience of public life
as qualifying him for the appointment he thought he was discussing.
Because he was an MP, talking about his experience as an MP, we
conclude that his behaviour and statements at the meeting were
covered by the Code of Conduct. In our view, the question of whether
the appointment he thought he was discussing was or was not a
"public appointment" is of less significance.
MOD BRIEFING ON THE STRATEGIC DEFENCE
REVIEW
47. We do not share Mr Hoon's doubts about the meaning
of the words he used when talking to the undercover reporter about
a possible role for him in briefing their clients on defence policy.
The words were uttered in the context of what Mr Hoon thought
at the time was an interview for a job in which his contacts and
ability to provide access to key people were a major part of his
qualification. In our view, Mr Hoon was giving a clear impression
during these exchanges that he was offering to brief clients about
the strategic defence review on the basis of a confidential briefing
he had received from MoD officials. Whether Mr Hoon intended to
give that impression, only he can say; but looking at the exchanges
between Mr Hoon and the interviewer as a whole we find it difficult
to accept that he did not know that he was giving that impression.
Having considered very carefully Mr Hoon's written and oral evidence,
we agree with the Commissioner that this was a breach of the Code
of Conduct, because it brought the House of Commons into disrepute.
And it was a particularly serious breach, because of the clear
implication that Mr Hoon was prepared to share inside knowledge.
48. The Commissioner reached his conclusion on the
basis of a balance of probabilities. Mr Hoon has asked us to apply
a higher standard of proof. We do not suggest that it is beyond
all reasonable doubt that our interpretation of the meaning and
effect of what Mr Hoon said at the meeting with the undercover
reporter is the correct one. But we do believe it to be significantly
more likely to be correct than not to be correct. In our view,
that is a sufficiently stringent test to apply to this case.
AN INSIDE TRACK ON DEFENCE STRATEGY?
49. We agree with the Commissioner that, in the context
of the discussion taking place between Mr Hoon and the undercover
reporter, Mr Hoon's reference to the possibility that he might
brief a private equity company about the relationship between
the NATO policy review and the strategic defence review was a
breach of the Code, because he gave the impression that he had
an inside track on defence strategy, which was based at least
in part on a confidential briefing from officials in the MoD.
This was a less serious breach than that identified above, because
the link to the confidential briefing was more tenuous.
RECOMMENDATION
50. We recommend that for committing breaches
of the Code of Conduct, one of which was a particularly serious
breach, Mr Geoff Hoon apologise to the House through this Committee
in writing and that his entitlement to a Parliamentary photopass
be suspended for five years, with effect from 1 January 2011.
47 Appendix 1, paragraph 405 Back
48
Appendix 1, paragraph 10 Back
49
Appendix 1, paragraph 705 Back
50
Appendix 1, paragraph 693 Back
51
Appendix 1, paragraphs 694 to 696, 701 and 702 Back
52
Appendix 1, paragraph 699 Back
53
Appendix 1, paragraph 698 Back
54
Appendix 1, paragraph 700 Back
55
Appendix 4 Back
56
Appendix 5 Back
57
Appendix 5 Back
58
Q9 Back
59
Q11 Back
60
Appendix 4 Back
61
Appendix 1, paragraph 698; Appendix 5 Back
62
Appendix 5 Back
63
Appendix 4 Back
64
Qq5 and 6 Back
65
Appendix 1, paragraph 700 Back
66
Q5 Back
67
Q7 Back
68
Q1 Back
| 
