This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
Date Published: 9 February 2023
1. This report arises from an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards following a self-referral from Alex Davies-Jones MP. The Commissioner investigated whether Ms Davies-Jones had breached paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct for Members, on paid advocacy, when asking a topical question at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development questions on 8 November 2022.
2. The Commissioner has supplied us with a memorandum relating to this matter, which we publish as an appendix to this report.1 Ms Davies-Jones indicated to us that she did not wish to submit further written evidence. Written evidence relating to the Commissioner’s inquiry is published on our webpages.
3. Full details of the Commissioner’s inquiry and his opinion are set out in his memorandum. We summarise the Commissioner’s advice briefly before setting out our decision.
4. Ms Davies-Jones took part in a visit to Tokyo, funded by the British Council, between 31 October 2022 and 7 November 2022. Ms Davies-Jones registered the visit in the Register of Members’ Financial interests as follows:
Name of donor: British Council
Address of donor: 1 Redman Place, Stratford, London E20 1JQ
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): International flights £1,728.96, accommodation £973.13, transport and other costs £245.51, total value £2,947.602
5. On 8 November 2022, Ms Davies-Jones asked the following topical question during oral questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs:
Last week I had the immense pleasure of visiting Japan with the British Council. I put on record my sincere thanks to the ambassador Julia Longbottom, Matthew Knowles and the entire British Council team in Japan. I got to see first-hand the brilliant work that the British Council does in Japan, educating people in our English language and using our arts and culture for the greatest good. What more can the Government do to support the British Council, not just in Japan, but across the world?3
6. Paragraph 8 of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules, on paid lobbying, provides that:
[ … ] Members must not engage in lobbying by initiating a proceeding or approach which seeks to confer, or would have the effect of conferring, any financial or material benefit on an identifiable person from whom or an identifiable organisation from which they, or a family member, have received, are receiving, or expect to receive outside reward or consideration, or on a registrable client of such a person or organisation.
Paragraph 24 of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules also provides that:
Members may not initiate any parliamentary proceeding or approach to a Minister, other Member or public official which seeks to confer, or would have the effect of conferring, any financial or material benefit on a foreign government, non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other agency which has, within the previous six months, funded a visit they have undertaken or provided them with hospitality.
7. The Commissioner has noted that asking a topical question constitutes initiating a proceeding of the House under the lobbying rules; and that Ms Davies-Jones asked her topical question within 6 months of having received a funded visit.
8. The Commissioner has given his opinion that Ms Davies-Jones’ question, in requesting Government support for the British Council, sought to confer a financial or material benefit on the British Council, from whom she had received outside reward or consideration, and therefore breached paragraph 12 of the Code.
9. The Commissioner has stated that “the breach could be fairly classed as inadvertent as Ms Davies-Jones assured me that the question was spontaneous, was not drafted in consultation with the British Council, and she had made no follow-up approach to a Minister, other Member, or a public official”.4
10. The Commissioner has also drawn our attention to his opinion that:
a) on the facts the Member’s actions were more a technical breach of a particular provision of the Guide to the Rules than anything that would fall to be described as paid advocacy in natural language terms;
b) the Member did not intend to breach any Rule;
c) far from there being any lack of transparency, the Member was at pains to be completely transparent with the House as to the background to her question, including the involvement of the British Council; and
d) has continued to show commitment to the Nolan principles of accountability, honesty and openness in her cooperation with my investigation.5
11. Ms Davies-Jones accepts that her topical question breached the lobbying rules, and has apologised for this to the Commissioner. In correspondence to the Commissioner, she stated that:
[ … ] this was an inadvertent breach, and one which I am extremely apologetic for.6
12. We agree that Ms Davies-Jones was in receipt of outside reward or consideration at the relevant time. We also agree that her topical question sought to confer a financial or material benefit on the British Council.
13. We accept the Commissioner’s advice that Ms Davies-Jones’ question was spontaneous and that there was no intention to breach the rules; and that Ms Davies-Jones sought to be open and transparent when asking her topical question and throughout the Commissioner’s investigation.
14. We accept that, under the rules that applied at the time, Ms Davies-Jones breached paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct for Members, on paid advocacy, in asking her topical question on 8 November 2022. However, we consider this to be a minor and inadvertent breach of the Code. As we set out in paragraphs 15–17 below, the rules that relate to this case will be changing from 1 March 2023.
15. For the benefit of Members, we note that the rules under which this case was considered will change when the new Code and Guide approved by the House in December 2022 comes into force, on 1 March 2023.
16. Following changes recommended by this Committee, the Guide to the Rules which comes into force in March 2023 lists the British Council among those organisations where visits undertaken on their behalf (or under their auspices) do not need to registered (ie, in Category 4 of the Register). Members who take part in visits funded by the British Council will therefore not need to register these after 1 March 2023.
17. The Committee’s intention, in recommending this change to the rules, was that such visits would also not engage the lobbying rules.7 We are aware, however, that there may be confusion as to whether the British Council would still count as a “non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other agency” in Chapter 3, paragraph 24 of the current Guide to the Rules, which clarifies the application of the lobbying rules in respect of hospitality from foreign governments. For the avoidance of doubt, we would not class the British Council (or the other organisations from which visits outside the UK do not fall to be registered in Category 4, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or Westminster Foundation for Democracy) as an “NGO or other agency” for the purpose of the lobbying rules. Visits funded by such organisations are not, in our view, intended to engage the restrictions under the lobbying rules: not least because it would frustrate the operation of the lobbying rules if interests which would give rise to restrictions on Members were explicitly not registrable. We intend to recommend to the House that this interpretation is made explicit in the Guide to the Rules, when an appropriate opportunity arises.
18. In accordance with our usual practice, we have considered whether there are any aggravating or mitigating factors in relation to this breach.
19. We consider the following to be mitigating factors:
a) Ms Davies-Jones has sought to uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life, in particular, the principles of openness, honesty and accountability, throughout;
b) The breach was inadvertent; and
c) Ms Davies-Jones has cooperated fully with the Commissioner’s investigation and has apologised for her breach of the Code.
20. This was a minor and inadvertent breach of the Code. Ms Davies-Jones has apologised to the Commissioner for breaching the rules. Indeed, in our view, Ms Davies-Jones would not have been in breach of the Code had she taken the same course of action after 1 March 2023. In view of this, we recommend no further action be taken.
This memorandum reports on the inquiry that I commenced on 23 January 2023.
I began an investigation following receipt of an email from Ms Alex Davies-Jones MP on 8 November 2022, which highlighted her own concern that a topical question asked by her, at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development questions earlier on the same day, might not have been in accordance with the Rules set by the House. Having reviewed the matter I determined it was possible that the question had breached paragraph 12 of the Rules of Conduct as set out in the 2019 Code of Conduct for Members for Parliament and I opened an investigation.
During my investigation, I took written evidence from Ms Davies-Jones only.
Having considered the evidence, I am of the view that the topical question asked by Ms Davies-Jones on 8 November 2022 inadvertently breached paragraph 12. This is because the question was a proceeding of the House that sought to confer a financial or material benefit on the British Council; an identifiable organisation who had recently provided Ms Davies-Jones with an outside reward or consideration in the form of a funded visit to Japan. I am satisfied that the breach could be fairly classed as inadvertent as Ms Davies-Jones assured me that the question was spontaneous, was not drafted in consultation with the British Council, and she had made no follow-up approach to a Minister, other Member, or a public official.
Breaches of paragraph 12, even when they are inadvertent, cannot be concluded by the rectification process that is laid out in the Standing Orders. I am therefore referring this memorandum to the Committee on Standards so that they can decide whether a breach has occurred and, if so, what sanction is appropriate. I draw to the Committee’s attention that on the facts the Member’s actions are more a technical breach of a particular provision of the Guide to the Rules than anything that would fall to be described as paid advocacy in natural language terms. I am also satisfied that the Member did not intend to breach any Rule, and that there was no lack of transparency in the Member’s conduct.
Daniel Greenberg CB
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1 February 2023
1. Between 31 October 2022 and 7 November 2022 Ms Davies-Jones undertook a visit to Tokyo, Japan that was funded by the British Council.
2. At Foreign, Commonwealth and Development questions on 8 November 2022 Ms Davies-Jones asked the following topical question: 8
Last week I had the immense pleasure of visiting Japan with the British Council. I put on record my sincere thanks to the ambassador Julia Longbottom, Matthew Knowles and the entire British Council team in Japan. I got to see first-hand the brilliant work that the British Council does in Japan, educating people in our English language and using our arts and culture for the greatest good. What more can the Government do to support the British Council, not just in Japan, but across the world?
3. Also on 8 November 2022, Ms Davies-Jones emailed my predecessor, Kathryn Stone, to enquire whether her topical question was permitted under the Rules:
I am getting in touch, following advice, to just clarify my comments in the Chamber just now and to check whether these are within the rules. I returned from Japan yesterday (8th November) and am awaiting clarification on the cost before I register with on the Register of Interests. Today in FCDO questions I asked the below9 – and wanted to check whether this is in line with the Code of Conduct.
4. Ms Davies-Jones correctly registered her funded visit to Japan in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on 25 November 2022: 10
5. On taking up the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on 1 January 2023 this matter was passed to me for my review. I was concerned that Ms Davies-Jones’ topical question might not be allowed under the House’s Rules on paid advocacy and might therefore amount to a breach of paragraph 12 of the Rules of Conduct.
6. I decided that it was proportionate to open a formal inquiry under Standing Order No. 150(2)(e) to determine whether a breach of the Rules had occurred.
7. I met with, and wrote to, Ms Davies-Jones on 23 January 2023 to inform her of my inquiry and to put questions to her about the background to her topical question.
8. Ms Davies-Jones responded promptly on 24 January 2023. On reviewing her responses to my questions, I decided that I had sufficient information to reach a conclusion and to close my inquiry.
9. I sent Ms Davies-Jones the draft of this report on 26 January 2023 for her comments on its factual accuracy. Ms Davies-Jones responded on the same day to confirm that she was content with the accuracy of the report.11
10. The scope of my inquiry considered a single potential breach of paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament (“the Code”).12 The standard of proof that I have used to determine whether a breach has occurred is the balance of probabilities.
11. Paragraph 12 of the Code states:
No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House
12. This Rule is supplemented by extensive further guidance in Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (“the Guide to the Rules”). Paragraph 8 outlines in detail the Rule relating to paid lobbying:
The rules place the following restrictions on Members:
a) When initiating proceedings or approaches to Ministers, other Members or public officials. Subject to paragraph 10 below, Members must not engage in lobbying by initiating a proceeding or approach which seeks to confer, or would have the effect of conferring, any financial or material benefit on an identifiable person from whom or an identifiable organisation from which they, or a family member, have received, are receiving, or expect to receive outside reward or consideration, or on a registrable client of such a person or organisation
13. Paragraph 10 confirms the time limit under which the restrictions outlined at paragraph 8 above apply:
The restrictions under the lobbying rules apply for six months after the reward or consideration was received. A Member can free him or herself immediately of any restrictions due to a past benefit by repaying the full value of any benefit received from the outside person or organisation in the preceding six month period.
14. Paragraph 24 provides supplementary guidance on visits and hospitality that has been provided by a foreign government or non-governmental organisation (NGO) or any other agency:
Members may not initiate any parliamentary proceeding or approach to a Minister, other Member or public official which seeks to confer, or would have the effect of conferring, any financial or material benefit on a foreign government, non-governmental organisation (NGO) or other agency which has, within the previous six months, funded a visit they have undertaken or provided them with hospitality
15. To determine whether Ms Davies-Jones’ question of 8 November 2022 breached paragraph 12 of the Code, it is necessary to establish:
a) Did Ms Davies-Jones initiate a proceeding of the House or an approach to a Minister, other Member, or a public official?
b) Did the proceeding or approach seek to confer a financial or material benefit on an identifiable person or organisation or a client of such a person or organisation?
Or
Would the proceeding or approach have the effect of conferring a financial or material benefit on an identifiable person or organisation or a client of such a person or organisation?
c) Had Ms Davies-Jones, or a family member, received, or expected to receive, an outside reward or consideration from the person, organisation, or client who stood to benefit from the proceeding or approach?
d) Was the proceeding initiated, or the approach made, by Ms Davies-Jones within six months from the date of the outside reward or consideration provided by the person, organisation, or client who stood to benefit from the proceeding or approach?
For a finding of paid advocacy to be safely made, I must be satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the answer to the first, third and fourth questions is “yes”, and that the answer to one of the two limbs of the second question is also “yes”.
16. I will now take each of these questions in turn before reaching a conclusion.
Did Ms Davies-Jones initiate a proceeding of the House or an approach to a Minister, other Member, or a public official?
17. Paragraph 11(c) of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules confirms that asking a topical question qualifies as “initiating a proceeding of the House”. I am therefore satisfied that Ms Davies-Jones’ question of 8 November 2022 amounts to initiating a proceeding of the House and that the answer to this question is “yes”.
18. During my inquiry, Ms Davies-Jones was able to assure me that no approaches were made outside the Chamber to Ministers, other Members, or public officials about support for the British Council.13 I am therefore satisfied that Ms Davies-Jones’ question of 8 November 2022 was a single incident.
19. Ms Davies-Jones was also able to assure me that her question of 8 November 2022 was spontaneous and was not requested by the British Council nor was the wording suggested by, or agreed with, them.14 I am therefore satisfied that if Ms Davies-Jones’ question is deemed to have breached the Rules, the breach was inadvertent and was not a designed attempt to lobby on behalf of the British Council.
Did the proceeding or approach seek to confer a financial or material benefit on an identifiable person or organisation or a client of such a person or organisation?
20. Ms Davies-Jones explained that her topical question “was about raising awareness of the work of the British Council in Japan”, and I accept this. However, her question to the Minister concludes with “What more can the Government do to support the British Council, not just in Japan, but across the world”. This part of her question can reasonably be interpreted as a direct request for Government support for the British Council exclusively, which amounts to seeking a benefit for an identifiable organisation i.e. the British Council. Government support would clearly constitute a “financial or material benefit”.
21. I am therefore satisfied that Ms Davies-Jones question of 8 November 2022 amounted to seeking to confer a financial or material benefit on an identifiable organisation and that the answer to this question is “yes”.
Had Ms Davies-Jones, or a family member, received, or expected to receive, an outside reward or consideration from the person, organisation, or client identified above?
22. Paragraph 13(b) of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules confirms that outside reward or consideration includes “all present financial interests or material benefits which must be either registered or declared”. At the time of Ms Davies-Jones’ topical question she had just returned from a funded visit to Japan, the value of which passed the threshold for registration under “Category 4: Visits outside the UK”. Ms Davies-Jones’ visit to Japan was funded by the British Council; the organisation that was the potential sole beneficiary of Ms Davies-Jones’ question.
23. I am therefore satisfied that at the time of Ms Davies-Jones’ question of 8 November 2022 she had received an outside reward or consideration from the organisation who stood to benefit from her question and that the answer to this question is “yes”.
Was the proceeding initiated, or the approach made, by Ms Davies-Jones within six months from the date of the outside reward or consideration provided by the person, organisation, or client who stood to benefit from the proceeding or approach?
24. Ms Davies-Jones’ topical question, which we have already established qualifies as a proceeding of the House, was asked within twenty-four hours after the end of her visit to Japan that was funded by the British Council.
25. I am therefore satisfied that Ms Davies-Jones’ question falls within the time limit on lobbying laid down by the House and that the answer to this question is “yes”.
26. I am grateful to Ms Davies-Jones for promptly referring this matter to my predecessor; in my opinion this illustrates Ms Davies-Jones’ commitment to compliance with the Nolan principles of accountability and honesty.
27. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that Ms Davies-Jones’ topical question of 8 November 2022 sought to confer a financial or material benefit on an identifiable organisation from which she had recently received an outside reward or consideration, contrary to paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct and paragraph 24 of Chapter 3 of the Guide to the Rules.
28. I do not have the power to rectify a breach of paragraph 12 of the Code under the provisions laid out in the Standing Orders but am obliged to refer it to the Committee for their consideration and decision, which I now do.
29. In referring this matter to the Committee, I draw to their attention to my opinion that:
a) on the facts the Member’s actions were more a technical breach of a particular provision of the Guide to the Rules than anything that would fall to be described as paid advocacy in natural language terms;
b) the Member did not intend to breach any Rule;
c) far from there being any lack of transparency, the Member was at pains to be completely transparent with the House as to the background to her question, including the involvement of the British Council; and
d) has continued to show commitment to the Nolan principles of accountability, honesty and openness in her cooperation with my investigation.
Daniel Greenberg CB
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1 February 2023
Sir Chris Bryant, in the Chair
Tammy Banks
Andy Carter
Alberto Costa
Rita Dexter
Allan Dorans
Yvonne Fovargue
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Dr Michael Maguire
Mehmuda Mian
Victoria Smith
Paul Thorogood
Sir Charles Walker
Sir Chris Bryant declared that he would take no further part in the inquiry.
In the absence of the Chair, Sir Bernard Jenkin was called to the Chair.
***
Draft report (Alex Davies-Jones), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 20 read and agreed to.
A paper was appended to the Report.
Resolved, That the Report be the Sixth Report of the Committee to the House.
None of the lay members present wished to submit an opinion on the Report (Standing Order No. 149(8)).
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
The following written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for publication:
Written evidence bundle from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
The Committee adjourned.
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviour in Parliament |
HC 227 |
|
2nd |
Code of Conduct: Procedural Protocol |
HC 378 |
|
3rd |
New Guide to the Rules: final proposals |
HC 544 |
|
4th |
Andrew Bridgen |
HC 855 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Boris Johnson |
HC 549 |
|
2nd |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke, Sir Roger Gale, Adam Holloway, Bob Stewart, Theresa Villiers |
HC 582 |
|
3rd |
Mr Owen Paterson |
HC 797 |
|
4th |
Review of the Code of Conduct: proposals for consultation |
HC 270 |
|
5th |
Daniel Kawczynski |
HC 1036 |
|
6th |
Review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system |
HC 1183 |
|
7th |
All-Party Parliamentary Groups: improving governance and regulation |
HC 717 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Kate Osamor |
HC 210 |
|
2nd |
Stephen Pound |
HC 209 |
|
3rd |
Greg Hands |
HC 211 |
|
4th |
Conor Burns |
HC 212 |
|
5th |
Mr Marcus Fysh |
HC 213 |
|
6th |
Confidentiality in the House’s standards system |
HC 474 |
|
7th |
Sanctions in respect of the conduct of Members |
HC 241 |
|
8th |
David Morris |
HC 771 |
|
9th |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan |
HC 904 |
|
10th |
The House of Commons and the criminal law: protocols between the police and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards |
HC 883 |
|
11th |
ICGS investigations: Commons-Lords agreement |
HC 988 |
|
12th |
Sanctions and confidentiality in the House’s standards system: revised proposals |
HC 1340 |
1 Appendix 1
2 Appendix 1, para 4
3 Appendix 1, para 2
4 Appendix 1, Summary
5 Appendix 1, para 29
6 Written evidence WE4
7 The lobbying rules provide that “outside reward or consideration” includes past and present registrable interests, whether one-off or continuing.
8 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-11-08/debates/DE2C682B-465A-4AF2-B4BC-BE5C062E56DF/TopicalQuestions
9 See paragraph 2 above
10 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/221212/davies-jones_alex.htm
11 See item 4 of Appendix 1
12 By virtue of paragraph 6(a) of Chapter 2 of the Guide to the Rules, Ms Davies-Jones did not need to declare her financial interest when asking her topical question. This is because a topical question is a type of supplementary question.
13 See item 3 of Appendix 1
14 See item 3 of Appendix 1