ANNEX 1: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE
ON LORDS' CONDUCT
1. The Commissioner for Standards has submitted the
attached report into the conduct of Lord Laird.
2. Lord Laird asked the Commissioner to investigate
him following two conversations between Lord Laird and undercover
reporters, which were covertly reported. The first conversation
was with undercover Sunday Times 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 published articles about Lord Laird alleging that
during the conversation Lord Laird breached the Code of Conduct
by indicating that he was willing (a) to help establish an all-party
group at the behest of the client; (b) to act as a paid advocate
in the House of Lords and to provide parliamentary advice and
services; (c) to host functions in the House of Lords on behalf
of the paying clients.
3. The second conversation was between Lord Laird
and undercover reporters working for the BBC Panorama programme.
The reporters posed as communications consultants representing
a group called the Society of Friends of Fiji, whose objective
was to improve the image of Fiji in order to assist its re-entry
into the Commonwealth. The consultants wanted to recruit parliamentarians
to further the client's interests within Parliament and the government.
The Panorama programme subsequently broadcast alleged that
during the conversation Lord Laird breached the Code of Conduct
by indicating that he was willing (a) to help establish an all-party
group at the behest of the client; (b) to act as a paid advocate
in the House and to provide parliamentary advice and services.
The Panorama programme was accompanied by newspaper articles
in The Sunday Telegraph.
4. The Commissioner finds that Lord Laird breached
the Code of Conduct in three respects:
(i) he breached the requirement in paragraph
8(b) of the Code of Conduct to act always on his personal honour
by demonstrating a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement
with the undercover Sunday Times journalists which would
involve him helping to create an all-party group at the behest
of Coulton & Goldie (the consultants that the journalists
purported to represent) in return for payment or other reward;
(ii) he breached paragraph 8(b) of the Code by
demonstrating a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement with
the undercover Sunday Times journalists which would involve
him providing parliamentary advice or services to Coulton &
Goldie in return for payment or other reward;
(iii) he breached paragraph 8(b) of the Code
by demonstrating a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement
with the undercover Panorama reporters which would involve
him helping to create an all-party group at the behest of Alistair
Andrews Communications (the consultants that the reporters purported
to represent) in return for payment or other reward.
5. The Commissioner found that Lord Laird did not
reach an actual agreement to set up an all-party group for either
client or to provide parliamentary advice or services to them,
so was not in breach of paragraph 8(d) of the Code of Conduct.
The Commissioner also found that Lord Laird did not demonstrate
a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement with the undercover
Sunday Times journalists which would involve him breaching
the rules on the use of House of Lords facilities, and so he did
not breach paragraph 8(b) or 10(c) of the Code of Conduct in that
respect.
6. In accordance with paragraphs 129 and 130 of the
Guide to the Code of Conduct, our role has been to decide the
appropriate sanction to recommend for the breaches.
7. We consider the breaches of the Code of Conduct
by Lord Laird to be so serious that suspension from the service
from the House is the only appropriate sanction. In considering
the length of the suspension to recommend, we have taken account
of all aspects of the case, as well as precedents of when members
have been suspended. We have also taken account of the information
about Lord Laird's medical condition contained in his submission
to the Commissioner, and the confidential medical statements which
he appended to his submission (see paragraphs 97-99 of the Commissioner's
report). The date on which any suspension motion would be moved
is uncertain (it would depend on when the Committee for Privileges
and Conduct meets), as is the date of prorogation. Accordingly,
we favour suspension for a defined period, rather than until the
end of the session. We recommend that Lord Laird be suspended
from the service of the House for four months.
| 
