Overall Conclusion
1) My individual reports on the allegations made
about Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw make it clear that I have not found
any evidence that their conduct, in itself, caused significant
damage to the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole,
or to other Members generally. Nevertheless I do consider that
these have been damaged by the circumstances and publicity surrounding
this inquiry and would like now to consider some of the implications
of this. The rule that: "Members shall never undertake
any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation
and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members
generally" is intended to be used in cases where it is
clear that serious misconduct by a Member could not be caught
within the letter of other existing rules. In this situation it
appears that the distorted coverage of the actions and words of
the Members concerned has itself been the main cause of the damage.
2) Mr Straw had already referred himself to me before
the Dispatches programme was aired and Sir Malcolm indicated
his intention to follow this course of action immediately afterwards.
In taking on any matter for investigation, I am required to consider
whether there is sufficient evidence to justify beginning an inquiry.
In this situation, as in other cases of self-referral, I took
into account the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that
unless I accepted the matter for investigation, there would be
no detailed, authoritative and independent examination of all
the evidence. There would also have been no finding on whether
the rules of the House had been breached. This would not have
been fair to the Members concerned.
3) Having considered the evidence, I could at a later
stage have decided to discontinue my investigations, rather than
completing a formal memorandum for the Committee on Standards
in each case, particularly since both of the individuals concerned
are now no longer Members. Had I done so, the evidence and the
depth of my investigation would not necessarily have been apparent
to others and could easily have led to suggestions that information
had been hidden. In addition to this, the Committee on Standards
would have had no opportunity either to comment on the matter,
or to consider any action it might wish to recommend in relation
to the damage to the reputation of the House. Both Sir Malcolm
and Mr Straw, while anxious to have this matter concluded as quickly
as possible, have understood my reasoning. I am grateful for their
full and timely co-operation with my work which must, on occasions,
have been onerous and intrusive. They have conducted themselves
throughout my inquiry with dignity and honesty.
4) It has already been made clear that the Dispatches
programme was intended to be a follow-up to a previous programme
undertaken with The Sunday Times in 2010. My predecessor[117]
observed that the interviews given by the six Members subject
to that undercover investigation raised some questions about the
adequacy of the rules on lobbying by Members of Parliament and
former Members. He raised questions about the way in which the
rules prohibiting paid advocacy operated and the need to avoid
giving the impression that a Member could advocate a policy or
lobby a Minister for personal benefit rather than a public purpose.
He also considered issues about the activities of former Members
of Parliament. While he found that three of the six Members had
not breached the Code, he concluded "The mischief which
needs to be considered is whether former Members of Parliament
should be able to be "hired hands", using the contacts
they have made in the course of their parliamentary duties to
benefit directly an employer."
5) Outside employment per se is permitted by the
House, but must be detailed in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests and declared appropriately when relevant to the proceedings
of the House. The new rules which apply in the 2015 Parliament
have tightened the restrictions on paid lobbying (as defined by
the House) by existing Members, and will in future prohibit Members
from taking up jobs involving paid lobbying for at least 6 months
after their departure from the House. [118]
However, it is not at all clear whether if either Member had taken
up the advisory board position being proposed by "PMR",
this would have infringed any rule of the House, provided that
it was registered and declared appropriately, since at no point
was either Member explicitly asked to lobby and at no point did
they offer to do so. Both in fact explained that there would be
limits on what they would be able to do.
6) As is clear from my inquiries concerning Sir Malcolm
and Mr Straw, although several allegations were made about each
of them, arising from interviews recorded by undercover reporters,
neither was in breach of the Code of Conduct or the Rules of the
House other than-in Mr Straw's caseby a minor misuse of
parliamentary resources. The use of carefully selected excerpts
from the recordings does not necessarily give the viewer a detailed
understanding of the circumstances and the full evidence behind
the interviews. This may result in the viewer being led to conclusions
which do not stand up to detailed scrutiny.
7) The House has on several occasions considered
restricting the outside employment of Members, and has not done
so. (The most recent occasion was on 25 February 2015, when a
motion to ban Members from taking paid directorships and consultancies
was defeated.[119])
In this context it is not unusual for Members to be approached
and asked to consider positions such as the one described on this
occasion. It is Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw's misfortune that on
this occasion the company making the offer was a bogus one and
they have paid a heavy price for that.
8) Mr Straw had announced in 2014 his intention to
leave the House at the next election. He had responded to an initial
email from PMR because he was looking at possible opportunities
available to him after that time. The outcome has been that he
resigned from the Parliamentary Labour Party and his last few
weeks in Parliament were not the farewell he would have anticipated
after his long service.
9) Sir Malcolm had intended to stand for re-election
in May 2015. As a result of this "sting" the Conservative
whip was suspended, he resigned as chair of the Intelligence and
Security Committee and he was unable to stand for a further term
in office.
10) Both men suffered adverse publicity and were
presumed guilty of breaches of the Code of Conduct before any
authoritative examination of the facts had taken place, with consequent
reflection upon the House and Members as a whole.
11) The question of whether Members should be permitted
to take external employment has already been widely discussed
in connection with this incident. Such a discussion leads to a
consideration of the whole role of Members. It relates in part
to the insecure prospects of elected Members of the House
(who, in common with many others, cannot be sure of their long
term positions and may protect themselves by maintaining their
professional interests or seeking other opportunities) and in
part to the trust and confidence which the public has in the motivation
of Members and the level of their continuing engagement with the
"outside" world.
12) It may also be that "broad brush" rules
do not fit the circumstances of different Members who come from
widely varying backgrounds, nor the expectations which their constituents
from equally varied backgrounds may have of them and of the opportunities
available to them. This matter was discussed more fully in the
Committee on Standards' report on Interests of Committee Chairs:
a consultation.[120]
What is clear is that if the current arrangements remain, I and
my successors will continue to receive allegations concerning
external employment and lobbying, which may or may not be justified.
On each occasion the reputation of the House and Members risks
further damage from the inference that Members are serving their
personal interests rather than those of the public.
13) The report by the Standards Committee on The
Standards System in the House of Commons, published shortly
before the end of the last Parliament, identifies the issue of
the lack of public trust and its continued impact upon how Members'
activities are seen and reported.[121]
It also considers how the House might give a clearer picture of
the role and expectations of a Member. It makes proposals to improve
contact with the media in relation to standards matters, again
with a view to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the
general public of the work of Members. The new Committee, with
the increase in lay members from 3 to 7, may wish to take up some
of the ideas contained in that report and develop that work further.
14) If in their coverage of this story, the reporters
for Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph had accurately
reported what was said by the two Members in their interviews,
and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would
have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the
lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation
of the House. However, it is not for me to investigate or make
any judgement on the actions of the reporters or programme makers.
This is for others to consider.
15) It must also concern all those who value the
reputations of the House and of its Members generally that those
reputations proved so easy to tarnish. For the truth was that
in this situation, there was no breach of the rules on paid lobbying,
although it is clear that many people thought that there had been.
16) In this new Parliament the time has come to review
the rules again, as is done on a regular basis, and I hope that
this will provide an opportunity to clarify expectations and to
broaden understanding of the standards of behaviour expected of
Members. The resolution of the issues raised will be a matter
of political consensus and not easily achieved, but I am of course
ready to assist the Standards Committee and the House in any way
possible in tackling them.
Kathryn Hudson
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1 September 2015
117 9th report 2010-11 HC 654-11 Back
118
In addition, former Members are not allowed to use the parliamentary
estate for lobbying, and their security pass can be forfeited
if misused. And those who left Ministerial office within the last
two years are subject to a separate set of restrictions imposed
by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and those
who become peers are subject to the restrictions on lobbying which
apply in the House of Lords. Back
119
Official Report, 25 February 2015, cols 381-426 Back
120
Eighth report of 2013-14 HC997 Back
121
Sixth report of 2014-15 HC383 Back
|