House of Commons Committee on Standards
Simon Hughes
Third Report of Session 2013–14
Volume II Written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 5 November 2013
The Committee on Standards
The Committee on Standards is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
Current membership
Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Mr Robert Buckland MP (Conservative, South Swindon) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Sharon Darcy (Lay Member) Rt Hon Sir Nick Harvey MP (Conservative, North Devon) Mr Peter Jinman (Lay Member) Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Walter Rader (Lay Member) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test)
The following were also Members of the Committee during the Parliament: Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Powers
The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/standards.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Eve Samson (Clerk), Danielle Nash (Second Clerk) and Miss Christine McGrane (Committee Assistant).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615
Simon Hughes written evidence 3
Written evidence to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 1. Complaint letter from Peter John to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards [attached to Report (HC 805) as Appendix 2] 3 2. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the former Commissioner, 26 November 2012 3 3. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 4 January 2013 7 4. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes’ MP’s letter of 4 January 2013 9 5. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 22 January 2013 14 6. Enclosures to the Commissioner’s letter of 22 January 2013: Summary of donations from Companies A, B and C since 2006 17 7. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 8 February 2013 18 8. Letter to the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 14 February 2013 23 9. Letter to the Commissioner from the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 7 March 2013 27 10. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter to the Commissioner of 7 March 2013: Letter from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP to a director of Southwark Metals, 5 April 2012 30 11. Letter to the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 12 March 2013 31 12. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 8 May 2013 35 13. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 8 May 2013: Meeting Note: Appendix B 37 14. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 8 May 2013: Appendix B1: E-mail of 17 October 2012 from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s diary manager 37 15. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 20 May 2013 37 16. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 3 June 2013 40 17. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 18 June 2013 40 18. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 18 June 2013: Appendix B2: E-mail of 1 November 2012 from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s diary manager: 45 19. Letter to Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats from the Commissioner, 21 May 2013 46 20. Letter to the Commissioner from Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, 21 June 2013 48 21. Agreed Note of Interview with Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 15 July 2013 49 22. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 18 July 2013 58 23. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 18 July 2013 59 24. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 5 August 2013 59 25. Letter to Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats from the Commissioner, 16 July 2013 62 26. E-mail to the Commissioner from Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, 4 September 2013 62 27. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 19 September 2013 63
4 Simon Hughes written evidence
Evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1. Complaint letter from Peter John to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards [attached to Report (HC 805) as Appendix 2]
2. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the former Commissioner, 26 November 2012
I would welcome your help on a complaint which I have received from Councillor Peter John in respect of the registration and declaration of your financial interests and possible lobbying activities.
I enclose a copy of Mr John’s letter of 19 November. In essence, the complaint which I have accepted is that from December 2007 you failed to register donations to your constituency party received from three named companies despite the links you had with the donors, that you failed to declare two of these financial interests in the House and that you arranged one meeting which amounted to lobbying, contrary to the rules of the House. I have not accepted the complaint that your reported actions in proceedings in the House amounted to lobbying for reward or consideration since I do not consider the evidence the complainant has provided is sufficient to justify initiating an inquiry into this allegation.
The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament approved by the House on 12 March 2012 provides in paragraph 13 as follows:
“Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
These provisions replace similar provisions in the Code of Conduct approved by the House on 13 July 2005.
The rules relating to the registration and declaration of Members’ interests are set out in chapters 1 and 2 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members. Chapter 1 of the Guide identifies the categories of registrable interest. In the 2005 and 2009 Guides, Category 4 defines registrable sponsorships as follows:
(a) Any donation received by a Member's constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House; and
(b) any other form of financial or material support as a Member of Parliament,
amounting to more than £1,000 from a single source, whether as a single donation or as multiple donations of more than £200 during the course of a calendar year.”
The relevant thresholds were increased to more than £1,500 and more than £500 from 1 January 2010.
Paragraphs 30 and 32 in the 2009 Guide provide further guidance on the interpretation of whether any donation is “linked” to a Member’s membership of the House. (They do not appear in the 2005 Guide). In particular, paragraph 30 provides as follows:
“For the purposes of the Register of Members' Financial Interests, support should be regarded as "linked" directly to a Member's candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member by name, eg if it is a contribution to the Member's fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate. Financial contributions to constituency associations, parties or area associations, etc, which are not linked to a Member's candidacy or membership of the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or Member, and the candidate or Member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered on the Register of Members' Financial Interests.”
Simon Hughes written evidence 5
And paragraph 32 provides as follows:
“It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of what might be considered 'linked' to an individual, and, as always, Members who are in any doubt should consult the Registrar.12 They are also reminded that the requirement to register covers only donations of which they are aware or might reasonably be expected to be aware. Registration by the Member is additional to any registration required of the local organisation.”
Footnote 12 to that paragraph provides as follows:
“Members might, in this context, ask themselves such questions as 'Did I write to or meet the donor asking for a contribution?' 'Was a letter sent out headed 'Campaign to [Re-] Elect [name]', 'Was I the guest of honour at a dinner where donations were sought?' and 'Have I a particular relationship to the donor which would not be the case in respect of another candidate?'. If the answer to any of these is 'Yes', then the presumption should be in favour of registration.”
The rules in relation to the declaration of Members’ interests are set out in Chapter 2 of the Guide. Paragraph 72 of the 2009 Guide (paragraph 55 of the 2005 Guide) provides as follows:
“In 1974 the House replaced a long standing convention with a rule that any relevant financial interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, should be declared in debate, or other proceeding. The same rule places a duty on Members to disclose to Ministers, or servants of the Crown, all relevant interests. The term 'servants of the Crown' should be interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies as well as to all staff employed in government departments.”
Paragraph 73 (paragraph 56 of the 2005 Guide) includes the following:
“The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in three important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those current within the previous twelve months, need normally be considered for declaration.”
The paragraph also provides as follows:
“Members are also required to declare relevant indirect interests, for instance those of a spouse or partner, and also non-registrable interests of a financial nature where these are affected by the proceedings in question (as, for instance the possession of a second home when the council tax treatment of these is under discussion). Members may also think it appropriate to declare non-financial interests of the kinds itemised in paragraph 64 where these are relevant to proceedings.”
Paragraph 64 of the 2009 Guide (paragraph 48 of the 2005 Guide) provides as follows:
“The general principle of the Register is that the requirement to register is limited to interests entailing remuneration or other material benefit. Members are not, therefore, required by the rules to register unremunerated directorships (eg directorships of charitable trusts, professional bodies, learned societies or sporting or artistic organisations) and the Category should not be used to itemise these or other unremunerated interests. However, when a Member considers that an unremunerated interest which the Member holds might be thought by others to influence his or her actions in a similar manner to a remunerated interest, such an interest may be registered here…”
Paragraph 74 (paragraph 57 of the 2005 Guide) provides the following definition of a relevant interest:
“The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Member’s interest.”
6 Simon Hughes written evidence
The rules relating to lobbying for reward and consideration are set out in Chapter 3 of the 2009 Guide. Paragraph 96 of the 2009 Guide sets out the following guidelines provided by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to assist Members in applying the rule:
“1. Parliamentary proceedings: When a Member is taking part in any parliamentary proceeding or making any approach to a Minister or servant of the Crown, advocacy is prohibited which seeks to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament, from which the Member has received, is receiving, or expects to receive a financial benefit, or upon any registrable client of such a body (or individual). Otherwise a Member may speak freely on matters which relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual) from which he or she receives a financial benefit, provided the benefit is properly registered and declared.
2. Constituency interests: Irrespective of any relevant interest which the Member is required to register or declare, he or she may pursue any constituency interest in any proceeding of the House or any approach to a Minister or servant of the Crown, except that:
— where the Member has a financial relationship with a company in the Member’s constituency the guidelines above relating to parliamentary proceedings shall apply;
— where the Member is an adviser to a trade association, or to a professional (or other representative) body, the Member should avoid using a constituency interest as the means by which to raise any matter which the Member would otherwise be unable to pursue.”
I would welcome your response to this complaint taking account of this summary of the relevant rules. In particular, it would be helpful to know:
1. whether, and if so when, you were aware of each of the six donations identified by the complainant;
2. how you came to be aware of the existence and particular interest of the two companies, which you referred to in the parliamentary proceedings identified by the complainant;
3. whether you consider that any of the five donations which you did not register were ‘linked’ to you in the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules, and if not why not;
4. why you registered the donation which your constituency party received on 26 February 2009 from one of the companies identified by the complainant but not any of the other donations from that company;
5. whether you considered that you had a relevant financial interest or benefit from either of the two companies you referred to in the parliamentary proceedings identified by the complainant, sufficient to require you to declare an interest, and, if not, your reasons;
6. whether the arrangements for a meeting with ward councillors and others in respect of a development proposal put forward by one of the donors were made by your staff at your request;
7. when the eventual meeting itself took place (if it did so) and whether either before or at the meeting you declared an interest and, if not, why not;
8. whether you considered if that meeting constituted lobbying for reward or consideration within the terms set out in the Guide, and if not why not;
9. whether you at any time consulted the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests about the registration or declaration of any of these donations.
Any other points you may wish to make to help me with this inquiry, together with any relevant documentary evidence, would be most welcome.
Simon Hughes written evidence 7
I enclose a note which sets out the procedure which I follow1. I am writing to the complainant to let him know that I have accepted his complaint. In due course I will publish on my parliamentary web pages that I am conducting this inquiry and the general category in which it comes. I will not be commenting further on its progress.
I would normally invite a Member to provide their initial response to a complaint within three weeks. I am, however, to be succeeded as Parliamentary Commissioner by Kathryn Hudson at the end of December so, unless there was a short answer to this letter which you could let me have within the next week, thus enabling me to progress the inquiry, I would propose to ask my successor to consider your response when she takes up her post in January.
I would be most grateful for your help on this matter.
26 November 2012
3. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 4 January 2013
Welcome to your new responsibilities. I am sorry you have to be troubled in your very first days with a complaint which concerns me.
Complaint inquiry
I write further to the letters from [the former Commissioner] of 26th November and 17th December 2012.
The complaint which your predecessor accepted for investigation was that, from December 2007:
I failed to register in the Register of Members' Interests (the Register) donations to my constituency party received from three 'named companies' despite links I had with the donors; failed to declare two of these financial interests in the House, and arranged a meeting which amounted to lobbying, contrary to the rules of the House.
I shall deal with the complaints in chronological order of the events complained about, but hope it is helpful first to set out the summary of my response and then the political context of this complaint by way of introduction before dealing with the detail of the complaint.
Summary of my response
In respect of the first two parts of the complaint, there is in essence one type of allegation. Although all relevant donations to my local political party were registered with the Electoral Commission, they should also have been registered by me in the Register and therefore declared where relevant in the House and in connection with a meeting.
The first donation complained about was a donation from my local party to me of money equivalent to that just before given to them by company A and properly registered by my local party with the Electoral Commission. This is the only donation of all those complained about which was given to me and not registered by me. I accept that I clearly should have registered this, referring both to my local party and to the company in the Register, and failed to do so. More than five years after the event, I cannot imagine why I did not register this, and I apologise unreservedly for this failure.
In relation to the other four more recent donations complained about — two from company A, one from company B and one from company C — I believed at the time that registration by my local party with the Electoral Commission was sufficient. Now that these matters have been raised with me, I accept that either I should also have registered these donations in the Register or that it would have been wise to do so, and that had I registered them I should have declared them in the House on the two occasions complained about. I apologise unreservedly for not doing so.
1 No included in the written evidence
8 Simon Hughes written evidence
I hope you will accept that because every donation complained about was properly registered with the Electoral Commission there was never any intention by me or my party to hide any relevant interest, or any intention not to register and declare all donations properly. Other entries in the Register are evidence I believe of my intention always to follow all the rules correctly. I hope too that you will accept that, with the exception of the 2007 donation by my local party to me, I have not benefited financially from any donation complained about. Although I cannot recall the exact circumstances, I am clear that this donation would have been to help pay staff costs at the time.
I apologise unreservedly for this one clear failure, and the other mistakes made or may have made and the unintended failures to declare that flowed from these.
I understand that there will need to be retrospective correction of the Register, and am of course willing also to apologise appropriately. I shall also always act on the side of caution in future: all donations to my local party which are registered with the Electoral Commission I shall also enter in the Register, and be sure to make not just any declarations which follow from these entries which it may be necessary to make but also those which it may be prudent to make as well.
The last allegation is different and I am very clear that I have not been guilty of improper lobbying. I hope very much that you are able to accept this.
The political background of this complaint
1. The complaint was made by the local Labour leader of the council. For the last 15 years and more, all elections across Southwark have been fiercely contested between Labour and Liberal Democrats.
2. I was first elected in February 1983 and have been re-elected at every general election since then for the constituency (several times slightly redrawn) covering the northern part of the borough of Southwark, always previously won by Labour. In recent years both other parliamentary seats in the borough have been held by Labour. The first Liberal councillor in my lifetime was elected in my constituency also in 1983 and my local party has been campaigning since then to become the party running the borough. This second goal (to take control of the council) has been always of similar importance to holding the parliamentary seat. In 2002 for the first time we overtook Labour to become the largest party in Southwark in seats and votes and, although without overall control, formed the first ever non-Labour administration of the borough. In 2006 again no single party won overall control in the borough; after this election we formed a majority coalition administration with the Conservatives, with Liberal Democrats as the larger party. From 2006 to 2010, as well as leading the administration of the borough, we were therefore also campaigning to win overall control of the borough for the first time in 2010. In fact, in the 2010 borough council election which was held on the same day as the general election, and although we held my constituency with our highest ever vote, Labour won back a small majority on the council and we returned to being the principal council opposition party.
3. During the period which is the subject of this complaint, therefore, party fundraising was always as much for council elections and by-elections, and London-wide elections, as it was for the next general election, and much of the money given to the local party was always spent on local party campaigning not directly related to me, or to parliamentary elections.
4. Although the five donations which are the subject of this complaint go back to 2007 and only one occurred in 2012, the complaint was dated only November 19th 2012. This was just ten days before polling day in a very hotly contested local by-election in the only ward in my constituency where there were no Liberal Democrat councillors, and where my colleagues were seeking to take the seat from Labour.
5. Clearly contrary to the suggestion in paragraph 15 of the Guidance for complainants, before making his complaint the Labour Council Leader had not at any time over the previous nearly five years since the first event complained or made his dissatisfaction known to me in relation to any matters which are the subject of his complaint. Had he done so, I could and would of course have taken advice from the Registrar or your predecessor and acted to correct any failings or mistakes. However the first I knew of the complaint was when a local journalist informed me that the complaint had been made. At this stage, neither the Commissioner nor I had received any notification of the complaint. Indeed I do not remember receiving any notification directly from the complainant at any time, or a copy of the complaint from him. The complaint was in any event the front page lead story in the weekly borough-wide newspaper in the same week, published one week to the day before the local election, effectively too late to deal with in the press before the election.
Simon Hughes written evidence 9
In the accompanying document I will now deal with each allegation and answer your predecessor's questions. If there is any further information which you need and which I can supply I am of course very willing to do this, as I am to come to answer any questions in person. I shall send this letter first electronically, and also put a hard copy in the post. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of my reply.
4 January 2013
4. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes’ MP’s letter of 4 January 2013
1. Company A - IPA Consulting Ltd
Non-registration of interest
Since 2006, IPA Consulting have made two donations which I registered in the Register of Members' Interests—one on 8th November 2006 and one on 21st April 2009. The first donation was given to me to support my campaign for leadership of my party, and the second to my local party for me ahead of my re- election campaign in 2010.
Since 2006, IPA Consulting have made four donations to Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, all registered with the Electoral Commission: one on 31st December 2007 (£11,000), and then three donations to the total value of £10,000 - on 31st March 2008 (£6000); 24th March 2009 (£2000), the donation also registered by me in the Register - and 4th August 2010 (£2000).
The donations given to my local party in March 2008 and August 2010 were not directly linked either to my candidacy at an election or to my membership of the House and were not a form of financial or material support for me as a Member of Parliament.
I accept that in December 2007, following the donation of £11,000 to Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, my local party made an £11,000 donation to me, and that this was not registered by me in the Register. This was a clear mistake on my part, for which I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.
I do not believe that, at the time, I understood that it was necessary or at least would have been wise, whatever the formal legal position, also to have registered this donation as originating with IPA Consulting. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly that the link to IPA Consulting was not registered at the same time.In relation to the other two donations from IPA Consulting to my local party, which I did not register in the Register, the first was made in 2008 when the 2005 Guide was applicable and before further guidance was added by the 2009 Guide. Although I do not remember that I invited or encouraged either donation directly, and certainly do not believe that they were linked directly to my candidacy at any election or my membership of the House and may have been forthcoming irrespective of my role as MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as a party and Liberal Democrat councillors in the borough of Southwark, nonetheless I accept with hindsight that I should have registered the second of these, and that it would have been wise also to have registered the first of these donations in the Register, in addition to the registrations made at all times by my local party with the Electoral Commission. For these mistakes I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.
The fact that all donations made by IPA Consulting were declared by me either on the Register or by my local party to the Electoral Commission or in both places, shows I believe that there was absolutely no intention by anybody to hide any financial link between IPA Consulting and Liberal Democrats in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I will nonetheless make sure that in future in every case when a donation is made to the local party and registered with the Electoral Commission, that it is also registered for the avoidance of doubt under my name in the Register.
2. Company B - City Cruises
Non-registration of interest
City Cruises has made only one political donation to Liberal Democrats in Southwark to my knowledge, and that was the donation of £3,300 received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats and properly registered on 31st December 2009 with the Electoral Commission. I do not believe this donation was linked directly to my
10 Simon Hughes written evidence
candidacy at the 2010 general election or my membership of the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of the Southwark Council in 2010.
Nonetheless I accept that under the guidance added in 2009 on whether any donation is 'linked' to a Member, I should have understood that it might have been linked to me under the terms of this guidance.
1 therefore accept with hindsight that I should have registered this donation also in the Register, in addition to the registration made at the time by my local party to the Electoral Commission. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly that the payment to my local party by City Cruises was not also registered by me in the Register at the same time.
The fact that this donation was registered with the Electoral Commission I believe shows that there was absolutely no intention by anybody to hide the financial link between City Cruises and Liberal Democrats in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I will, however, make sure that in future in every case when a registrable donation is made to the local party, that it is also registered for the avoidance of doubt under my name in the Register.
Non-declaration of interest in the House
When I mentioned City Cruises in the debate on 22nd October 2010 I accept that I did not declare an interest. I did not do so because I had not registered an interest for the reasons set out above. Given that I accept that the interest should have been registered by me in the Register, as well as by my local party with the Electoral Commission, it follows that 1 should also have declared the interest in the debate. The company had made a donation to my local party in the previous twelve months and this interest should have been declared. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission.
I shall certainly make doubly sure that I both register and declare any potential or actual interest at all times in the future.
Lobbying for reward or consideration
I am grateful that Mr Lyon did not accept the complaint that my actions and proceedings in the House in relation to this company amounted to lobbying for reward or consideration. I can assure you that the debate was initiated on the much wider subject of marine training and employment on the river Thames in which I have taken an interest in all my time as an MP and was not influenced by any past, present or future financial interest, either of mine, of my local party or of the company.
3. Company C - Southwark Metals
Non-registration of interest
Southwark Metals has made only one political donation to Liberal Democrats in Southwark, which was the donation of £10,000 made to my local party and registered with the Electoral Commission on 15th May 2012. I know that this donation was made ahead of the London elections of May 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign by two Liberal Democrat candidates who are both Southwark residents — Brian Paddick to be London Mayor and Caroline Pidgeon to be re-elected to the Greater London Assembly.
Nonetheless I accept that under the guidance added in 2009 on whether any donation is 'linked' to a Member, I should have understood that it might have been linked to me under the terms of this guidance.
I therefore accept with hindsight that I should have registered this donation also in the Register, in addition to the registration made at the time by my local party to the Electoral Commission. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly that the payment to my local party by Southwark Metals was not also registered by me in the Register at the same time.
The fact that this donation was declared to the Electoral Commission shows I believe that there was absolutely no intention by anybody to hide the financial link between Southwark Metals and Liberal Democrats in Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I will, however, make sure that in future in every case when a registrable donation is made to the local party, that it is also registered for the avoidance of doubt under my name in the Register.
Simon Hughes written evidence 11
Non-declaration of interest in committee
When I mentioned Southwark Metals in debate in committee on 11th September 2012, I accept that I did not declare an interest. I did not do so because I had not registered an interest for the reasons set out above. Given that I accept that the interest should have been registered by me in the Register, as well as by my local party with the Electoral Commission, it follows that I should also have declared the interest in the debate. The company had made a donation to my local party in the previous twelve months and therefore should have been declared. 1 apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission.
Non-declaration of interest in dealing with other members and servants of the Crown
More than a year before any donation to my local party was made by Southwark Metals, I was approached by [name] of Southwark Metals to ask for guidance in contacting and/or setting up a meeting with the local council in relation to development of some land in which I understood [name]or his company had an interest. I would do this for any business in my constituency. Some of his land was in the neighbouring constituency represented by Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP but directly affected my constituency across the road, and some was in my constituency.
As one of the developments [name] talked to me about is in the neighbouring constituency (although it had been in my constituency until the 2010 general election), I suggested that in addition to contacting local council officers, it might be helpful to talk at one and the same time to the ward councillors in the two wards affected (three Labour and three Liberal Democrat), the leader of the council (Labour)and the leader of the opposition (Liberal Democrat), and to the two MPs affected (Harriet Harman and me). I asked my diary manager to try to set up such a meeting. I did not know all the chronology or details of the ownership of the land in question, which are set out in the complainant's letter, other than the fact that [name] then had some interest in the land.
At no time was I seeking or did I seek to influence either Harriet Harman or the councillors to support any particular development connected with Southwark Metals or [name], but simply asked them to attend a meeting at which he or his company could put their case. In the event neither Harriet Harman or the Leader of Southwark Council, Peter John, attended the meeting. I had made it clear to [name] that I could not take sides on the merits of the development in the neighbouring constituency because it was outside my constituency, and that I could not seek to influence local councillors in my constituency either, because I had always taken the position that planning applications which were to be decided by the local council should be the responsibility of local councillors to judge and not the MP unless the application raised issues of regional or national significance, which these did not. I had also said to [name] that the incorporation in his plans of a new free school was not something which I was positive about as I have been and remain sceptical of the merits of new free schools.
I note also that the paragraphs on the Code of Conduct on the Declaration of Members' Interests do not appear to be intended to govern relations with local councillors or council officers, who are clearly not servants of the Crown.
Given that the donation by Southwark Metals to Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats had also been registered with the Electoral Commission at all material times, and that I did not believe at the time that I should also have registered the donation also in the Register, I did not declare it or ask my acting diary secretary to declare it in his communications connected with setting up a meeting, either with Harriet Harman's office or with the office of the Southwark councillors.
Even though it is clear with hindsight that I should also have registered the Southwark Metals donation in the Register, it is still not clear to me that I should also have made a declaration of interest to Harriet Harman or asked my member of staff to do so, and it is even less clear to me that I should have made a declaration of interest to local councillors or asked my member of staff to do this either.
If I was wrong in my judgement as to whether, in simply setting up a meeting, my interest should have been declared by me or my member of staff either to Harriet Harman or her office, I apologise sincerely and unreservedly.
12 Simon Hughes written evidence
The fact that the donation was by Southwark Metals was registered with the Electoral Commission shows I believe that there was absolutely no intention by anybody to hide the financial link between Southwark Metals and Liberal Democrats in Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Lobbying for reward or consideration
In relation to Southwark Metals, I did not at any time make any approach to any minister or servant of the Crown seeking to confer a benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament, from which I had received, was receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit.
Before any donation was given by Southwark Metals to my local party, I had been introduced to [name] by a mutual friend. [name] subsequently sought my advice about contacting the local council on development and planning matters, and 1 both gave advice and contacted the council on his behalf. Then in April 2012 a local architect who is a constituent of mine and whose practice is based in my constituency contacted me explaining his involvement in a new free school project and proposing a meeting between him and me, [name], the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive, and councillors and officers with responsibility for education. Later last year I sought to arrange this meeting with others concerned in addition to me, in the same way as I have done regularly in the past for other local businesses and groups which have an interest in my constituency and which have approached me, and for individuals and families likewise.
I repeat, as I have said above, that at no time did I seek either to influence Harriet Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with Southwark Metals or[name], but simply sought to facilitate a meeting at which he or his company could put their case. I had made it clear earlier to [name] that I could not take sides on the merits of the development in the neighbouring constituency because it was outside my constituency, and that I could not seek to influence local councillors in my constituency either, because I had always taken the position that planning applications which were to be decided by the local council should be the responsibility of local councillors to judge and not the MP unless the application raised issues of regional or national significance, which these did not. I had also said to [name] previously that the incorporation in his plans of a new free school was not something which I was positive about as I have been and remain sceptical of the merits of new free schools. I also did not know the chronology or the details of the ownership of the land in question, which are set out in the complainant's letter, other than the fact that [name] then had some interest in the land.
At the one relevant meeting which did take place, I did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other. Expressly I did not speak in support of the plans put forward to the elected representatives.
The fact that a donation by Southwark Metals was registered with the Electoral Commission I hope shows that there was absolutely no intention by anybody to hide the link between Southwark Metals and Liberal Democrats in Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
I am also very clear that at no time in relation to [name] or Southwark Metals did I lobby for reward or consideration or at all.
Mr Lyon’s specific questions
Mr Lyon asked me in particular to answer nine questions. For the purposes of completeness and clarity, and even though some of these questions may have been dealt with elsewhere in my reply, I now set out my answers below.
1. I was certainly aware of the first IPA Consulting donation to my local party at the time it was given, as a similar sum was then given to me. I do not remember when I heard of any of the other four donations complained about, but local party officers would normally notify me of significant donations at most a short time after they were received, and I believe that this would have been the case on each occasion.
2.1 City Cruises plc is a firm which had been set up in 1996 and at all times has been based in my constituency. They run boats on the river. They do not carry out boat repairs. I have had dealings with the firm, its directors and staff on many occasions over my years as MP, and my local party and other organisations with which I am connected have hired boats from them, and I have on several occasions travelled on their vessels.
Simon Hughes written evidence 13
2.2 Southwark Metals was set up in 1980, and has to the best of my knowledge been based in Southwark since then. Since I have been aware of them they have been based just outside my constituency boundary. I have been aware of their existence as a result of their local advertising for several years. They deal in scrap and waste metal. I was first introduced to [name] of Southwark Metals by a mutual friend, [name] ... I believe this was in 2010 … I first met with [name], at his request, to discuss Southwark Council related issues in April 2011. The reason I took a particular interest in scrap metals in 2011 and 2012 and agreed to serve on the committee of the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill in 2012 was entirely unrelated to Southwark Metals or [name] but because on 18th November 2011 a much loved metal sculpture in my constituency of a much loved previous MP, Dr Alfred Salter, was stolen from the river walkway, causing great anger and concern. I made clear my concern about this in local meetings, the local press and in parliament, and also took up the issue with the police, ministers and colleagues to try to find the statue and improve legislation dealing with these issues. The complainant knew well of my interest and activity on this subject. This predated any meeting to discuss council business with [name], and predated any donation. In one conversation after the theft I asked[name], as the only local scrap metal dealer I knew, for his view on the best parliamentary or government response to thefts like the one in my constituency.
3. As I have set out above, the first Company A donation was clearly 'linked' to me, and I accept with hindsight and having now read carefully the 2005 and the more explicit 2009 Guide that each of the other four donations were or could have been regarded as 'linked' to me, even though each and every one of them were or may have been more specifically linked to council or London campaigning as opposed to the campaign for my re-election in 2010 or my role or work.
4. As I have set out above, I registered two donations from Company A in the Register, but not the other donations from Company A. The first was explicitly to me, to help with an internal party campaign of mine, and the 2009 donation which I also registered was intended to be used by me ahead of the 2010 general election in a way that the other two were not specifically intended. The first donation not registered in the Register was made just ahead of the London-wide elections of 2008, and I assume was principally to help with this campaign.
5. I did not at the time of my references in parliamentary proceedings to Company B and Company C consider that I had a relevant financial interest or benefit which I should have declared, but, as I have set out above, with hindsight I accept that I clearly should have registered these two interests, and had I done so I would also have declared them as a matter of course. At the time of both references the donations by the two relevant companies to my local party were recorded on the Electoral Commission register.
6. Yes, the arrangements for a meeting with councillors and others relating to a development proposal put forward by Company C or somebody or a company associated with Company C were made by members of my staff at my request.
7. The meeting asked about took place on 6th November 2012. For reasons set out above neither before nor at the meeting did I consider that I had an interest to declare, and had I done so I would have declared it. At the time of the arrangements for the meeting and of the meeting itself the donation by Company C to my local party was recorded on the Electoral Commission register.
8. As I have set out above, given the purpose of the meeting was to allow the relevant people to meet and hear each other's plans and views and was not for me to persuade anybody of the merit of any proposal, and given that I took an entirely neutral position at the meeting, I never considered that the meeting constituted lobbying for reward or consideration within the terms set out in the Guide. In addition and importantly neither Harriet Harman or any other MP attended this meeting, nor did the complainant, the Labour Leader of the Council; the two elected representatives other than me present at the meeting were one of the Labour ward councillors affected, and the Liberal Democrat opposition leader. Neither of the two councillors attending were members of the planning committee.
9. My staff and I have over the years consulted the Registrar occasionally in connection with financial interests, but to the best of my recollection did not do so in relation to the registration or declaration of any of the four donations complained about.
I hope the earlier letter and this document has dealt sufficiently with the request and questions from your office. Please let me know if I can help further.
14 Simon Hughes written evidence
4 January 2013
5. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 22 January 2013
Thank you for your letter of 4 January, responding to John Lyon’s letter of 26 November.
I was most grateful for this reply. Before seeking the guidance of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests on those parts of the complaint which relate to the registration and declaration of interests, I think it would be helpful if I summarised my understanding of the information you have given.
In respect of the donations from Company A, my understanding of your evidence is as follows:
1. since 2006, this company has made five donations to you or to your constituency party;
2. in that period, you registered two of these donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: one on 8 November 2006, which was given to you to support your campaign for leadership of your party; and one on 21 April 2009, which was given to your local party for you ahead of your re- election campaign in 2010;
3. you were aware of the donation by this company received by your local party on 11 December 2007 at the time it was given, but you do not remember when you heard of any of the other four donations; you believe, however, that you would have been informed by local party officers a short time after any such donations were received;
4. following the donation of £11,000 from this company received by your constituency party on 11 December 2007, your local party made an £11,000 donation to you on the same day;
5. you did not register this donation from Company A, and consider that this was a “clear mistake” on your part, for which you sincerely and unreservedly apologise;
6. in respect of the donations from this company received by your constituency party on 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010, you do not remember that you invited or encouraged either donation directly, and do not believe that these donations were linked directly to your candidacy at any election or your membership of the House; you believe that they might have been forthcoming irrespective of your role as an MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as a party and of Liberal Democrat councillors in the borough of Southwark;
7. you nevertheless accept that you should have registered the donation received on 5 July 2010, since it was made after further guidance was added to the 2009 Guide;
8. you consider that it would have been wise to have registered the donation received on 31 March 2008;
9. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for these mistakes;
10. you undertake, for the avoidance of doubt, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and registered with the Electoral Commission.
In respect of the donation from Company B, my understanding is as follows:
1. to your knowledge, this company has made one donation to your constituency party: a donation of £3,300 which was received on 2 December 2009;
2. you do not believe that this donation was linked directly to your candidacy at the 2010 general election or to your membership of the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of Southwark Council in 2010;
Simon Hughes written evidence 15
3. you nevertheless accept that, under the guidance added to the Guide to the Rules in 2009 on whether any donation is “linked” to a Member, you should have understood that the donation might have been linked to you under the terms of that guidance;
4. you therefore accept that you should have registered this donation in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and apologise sincerely and unreservedly that you did not do so;
5. you undertake, for the avoidance of doubt, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and registered with the Electoral Commission;
6. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 22 October 2010;
7. you did not do so because you had not registered an interest in this company;
8. since you now accept that you should have registered this interest, it follows that you should also have declared it in debate;
9. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission, and undertake to make “doubly sure” that you both register and declare any potential or actual interest at all times in the future.
In respect of the donation from Company C, my understanding is as follows:
1. you were first introduced to [a director] of this company by a mutual friend; you believe that this was in 2010;
2. this company has made one donation to your local party: a donation of £10,000 which was received on 16 April 2012;
3. this donation was made ahead of the London elections in May 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign by two Liberal Democrat candidates who are both Southwark residents—Brian Paddick, a candidate to be London Mayor, and Caroline Pidgeon, a candidate for re-election to the Greater London Assembly;
4. you nevertheless accept that, under the guidance added to the Guide to the Rules in 2009 on whether any donation is “linked” to a Member, you should have understood that the donation might have been linked to you under the terms of that guidance;
5. you therefore accept that your should have registered this donation in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and apologise sincerely and unreservedly for not having done so;
6. you undertake, for the avoidance of doubt, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and registered with the Electoral Commission;
7. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 11 September 2012;
8. you did not do so because you had not registered an interest in this company;
9. you now believe that the donation should have been declared in debate, and apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission.
In respect of the meeting which is the subject of part of this complaint, my understanding is as follows:
1. more than a year before the relevant company’s donation to your local party was made, you were approached by [the director] of this company, who asked for guidance in contacting or setting up a meeting with the local council, in relation to the development of some land in which you understood that he or his company had an interest;
2. you would provide such guidance to any business in your constituency;
16 Simon Hughes written evidence
3. some of this land was in the constituency neighbouring yours, but directly affected your constituency, and some was in your constituency;
4. you suggested to [the director] that, in addition to contacting local council officers, it might be helpful to talk to the ward councillors in the two wards affected, to the leader of the council and the leader of the opposition, and to the two MPs whose constituencies were affected; and you asked your diary manager to try to set up such a meeting;
5. you did not at this time know the chronology or details of the ownership of the land, other than the fact that [the director of this company] then had some interest in the land;
6. in April 2012 you were approached by a local architect, who is your constituent, who contacted you to propose a meeting between him, you, [the director of this company], the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive of the Council and councillors and officers with responsibility for education;
7. at no time were you seeking, nor did you seek, to influence either Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP or the local councillors to support any particular development connected with this company or with [its director], but simply asked them to attend a meeting; and you had made it clear to [the director] that you could not take sides on the merits of the development in the constituency neighbouring your own, and that you could not seek to influence local councillors in your constituency;
8. this meeting took place on 6 November 2012 and, in the event, neither Ms Harman nor Councillor Peter John attended;
9. you do not consider that the paragraphs in the Code of Conduct relating to the declaration of Members’ interests appear to be intended to govern relations with local councillors or council officers, who are not servants of the Crown;
10. since you did not believe at the time that this donation should have been registered, you did not declare it, or ask your acting diary secretary to declare it, in communications connected with setting up this meeting, either with the office of Ms Harman or with the office of the Southwark councillors;
11. even though you consider that it is clear that you should have registered this donation, it is not clear to you that you should also have made a declaration to Ms Harman or asked your staff to do so, and it is even less clear to you that you should have done so to local councillors; you nevertheless apologise sincerely and unreservedly if you were wrong in this judgement;
12. in relation to this company, you do not consider that you at any time made any approach to any Minister or servant of the Crown seeking to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament from which you had received, were receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit;
13. at no time did you seek to influence Ms Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with this company or [its director], but simply sought to facilitate a meeting at which he or his company could put their case;
14. at the one relevant meeting which did take place, you did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other; you expressly did not speak in support of the plans put forward to the elected representatives;
15. you are clear that you at no time lobbied for reward or consideration in relation to [name] or to this company.
It would also be helpful if you could let me know the following:
1. why you now believe that the donations from Company B and Company C and the donations from Company A received on 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010 were “linked” to you in a way which required registration in accordance with the Guide to the Rules;
Simon Hughes written evidence 17
2. whether you are able to provide any documentary evidence, such as a statement of accounts, to show how the local party used these donations;
3. whether I am right in understanding that the donation from Company A which you registered on 8 November 2006 was the donation to you of £15,000, received on 17 February 2006, shown on the enclosed Electoral Commission records, and not the donation of £5,000 to your local party, received on 30 September 2006—and, if so, why you did not register the donation received on 30 September 2006;
4. why the meeting which is the subject of part of this complaint did not take place until 6 November 2012, even though [name] first approached you for guidance in setting up such a meeting more than a year before Company C made the donation to your local party which was received on 16 April 2012;
5. what relationship there is, if any, between [name] and/or Company C and the architect who contacted you in April 2012 to propose a meeting;
6. the names of all those invited to the meeting on 6 November 2012, how you decided who to invite, and a list of those who attended;
7. the names of other businesses or organisations in your constituency for whom you have facilitated similar meetings with councillors, council officers or other public officials;
8. the position that [name] holds with Company C.
It would be very helpful if you could let me know, within the next two weeks (i.e. by 5 February), whether this summary of your evidence is accurate and, if not, revise it as necessary; and provide the further information I have asked for. I also enclose a summary of the donations from the relevant companies and the Electoral Commission records on which this summary is based; I would be grateful if you could let me know if any of this information is not correct. Subject to that response, I would hope then to be in a position to consult the Registrar to seek her advice on this matter.
I am most grateful for your help on this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
22 January 2013
6. Enclosures to the Commissioner’s letter of 22 January 2013: Summary of donations from Companies A, B and C since 2006
Company A (IPA Consulting Ltd)
Date of Date of Date Amount Date of registration in receipt of acceptance of reported Register of Members’ donation donation to the EC Financial Interests
17/02/06 07/03/06 01/04/06 £15,000 8/11/06 (?)
30/09/06 30/09/06 30/10/2006 £5,000 Not registered (?)
11/12/07 31/12/07 30/1/08 £11,000 Not registered
31/03/08 31/03/08 30/04/08 £6,000 Not registered
26/02/09 24/03/09 30/04/09 £2,000 21/04/09
05/07/10 04/08/10 29/03/11 £2,000 Not registered
18 Simon Hughes written evidence
Company B (City Cruises Plc)
Date of Date of Date Amount Date of Date of relevant receipt of acceptance of reported registration proceedings donation donation to the in Register of EC Members’ Financial Interests
2/12/09 31/12/09 30/01/10 £3,300 Not 22 October 2010 registered (adjournment debate)
Company C (Southwark Metals Ltd)
Date of Date of Date Amount Date of Date of relevant receipt of acceptance of reported registration proceedings donation donation to the in Register of EC Members’ Financial Interests
16/4/12 15/5/12 30/07/12 £10, Not 11 September 000 registered 2012
(Public Bill Committee debate)
22 January 2013
7. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 8 February 2013
Thank you for your letter of 22nd January and for your agreement that I could submit this reply by 8th February.
I will try to respond to all the points in your letter and the questions that you have asked.
A. Company A.
1. From 2006 Company A has made in total five donations to me or my constituency party.
2. From 2006 I have registered two of these five donations in the Register of Members' Financial Interests (ROMFI) — one in November 2006, which had been given earlier in the year to support my campaign for leadership of my party; and one in April 2009 which was given to my local party for me ahead of the general election of 2010. The second of these was also registered in the Electoral Commission register (EC register).
3. The three other donations were registered in the EC register but not in ROMFI.
4. I must have been aware of the donation received by my local party on 11 December 2007 because my local party immediately made a donation to me in a similar sum. I do not now remember when I heard of any of the other four donations, but believe that I would have been informed by local party officers at most within a few weeks after these donations were received.
Simon Hughes written evidence 19
5. I did not register the donation from my local party to me on 11 December 2007. This was a clear mistake on my part for which I sincerely and unreservedly apologise.
6. In respect to the donations received by my constituency party in March 2008 and July 2010 I do not remember that I invited or encouraged either donation directly, and do not believe that these donations were linked directly to my candidacy in any election or my membership to the House of Commons. They may have been forthcoming irrespective of my role as an MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as the party leading the administration of Southwark Council and seeking to remain in administration in Southwark. The donation received by my constituency party in March 2008 was shortly before the London Mayoral and Assembly elections.
7. I now consider that it would have been wise for me to register the donation received in March 2008 in ROMFI in addition to the entry in the EC register, because although the donation seems clearly linked to the London elections I cannot categorically say that the fact that I was the MP did not influence the donation.
8. Following the revision of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members [the Guide] in 2009 and the new further guidance contained in it, I also accept that I should have registered the donation received in 2010.
9. I now regret that I did not enter both donations in ROMFI and apologise sincerely and unreservedly for my failure to do so. Both these failings arose from my belief at the time that registration in the EC register was sufficient.
10. To avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, I undertake always also to register any registrable interest in ROMFI whenever such an interest is registered in the EC register.
B. Company B
1. Company B has made only one donation to my constituency party, a donation of £3,300 which was received in December 2009, and no donation to me.
2. I do not believe this donation was directly linked to my candidacy at the 2010 general election or to my membership to the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of Southwark Council in 2010.
3. I accept that, under the guidance added to the Guide in 2009, I should have treated the donation as 'linked' to me, and should have registered this donation in ROMFI. I apologise sincerely for not doing so.
4. To avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, I repeat my undertaking always also to register any registrable interest in ROMFI whenever such an interest is registered in the EC register.
5. I accept that I did not declare an interest when I mentioned Company B in debate in October 2010. I had not registered any interest for the reason that I knew the donation had been registered in the EC register and did not believe that I should have additionally registered it in ROMFI, and because it was not registered in ROMFI did not believe I needed to declare it.
6. Obviously now that I realise that under the further guidance I should have registered the interest in ROMFI, it follows that I should have declared it in debate.
7. As I intend to 'double register' always in the future, I will make sure that this sort of omission does not happen again.
C. Company C
Donation, registration and declaration
I was first introduced to [name] of Southwark Metals by a mutual friend, [name] …. Our first meeting was either in 2010 or early 2011.
20 Simon Hughes written evidence
Southwark Metals has made one donation to my local party, of £10,000, which was received in 2012, and no donation to me.
This donation was made ahead of the London elections in 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign for Liberal Democrat Mayoral and Assembly candidates, two of whom lived in Southwark.
This donation was registered in the EC register in July 2012, but not in ROMFI.
I accept that, under the guidance added to the Guide in 2009, I should have treated the donation as 'linked' to me, and should have registered this donation in ROMFI. I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for not doing so.
To avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings arising in the future, I undertake always also to register any registrable interest in ROMFI whenever such an interest is registered in the EC register.
Because I had not registered this interest in ROMFI and because the donation was registered in the EC register, I did not believe that I had a duty to declare this interest when I mentioned Southwark Metals in debate in September 2012, and therefore I did not do so.
I accept that as the donation should have been registered in ROMFI under the guidance added to the Guide, I should have also declared my interest in the debate. I apologise sincerely for this omission.
The meeting with Southwark Metals
More than a year before the donation to my local party, [the director of Southwark Metals] came to see me and asked for guidance in contacting the local council in relation to the development of some land in which I understood that his company had an interest. At no time did I know the chronology or details of the acquisition, ownership, disposal or value of the land.
It is my normal practice to meet business people or other organisations who ask to meet me to discuss developments in or affecting my constituency.
The initial meeting revealed that the land which [name] first wanted to talk about was land which had been in my constituency until boundary changes in 2010, was now on the constituency boundary between my seat and that of Harriet Harman MP but directly overlooking my constituency and significant numbers of homes in my constituency, and was a site which had been the subject of previous complaints by my constituents since the general election, which I had taken up with the council. I later learnt that [name] also had an interest in a nearby second site which was and remains in my constituency.
[The director of Southwark Metals] and I agreed initially that I would make enquiries of council officers and meet again once we had obtained their initial advice. I made written enquiries in May 2011; I was chased by Company C in August 2011 because I had had no replies; a councillor colleague and I then chased for replies, and replies were received from the two council departments to which I had written in September and November 2011.
In April 2012 a local architect, working with [the director of Southwark Metals] and his company, contacted me and proposed that his client and I and the architect met with the council leader and chief executive, councillors and other officers to discuss the company's plans.
In September 2012 my acting diary manager at my request started trying to set up a meeting between the two MPs affected (Ms. Harman and me), the six councillors directly affected (three in my constituency and three in the constituency across the road) and the Southwark Council leader and opposition leader.
At no time did I seek to influence either Harriet Harman or local councillors in relation to any particular development in which [name] or any company associated with him had an interest. I was simply trying to gather all the relevant politicians together at the same time so that there could be one common presentation to us all, so that we could all equally see what was proposed and ask questions. I made it clear to [name] that I could not and would not take sides on the merits of the development, both because it was to take place in the constituency next door and because the decision on a local development such as this has to be made by local councillors not by MPs. It is very usual in my experience for organizations, in the private, public or voluntary sectors, to seek to arrange meetings with one or more of the borough's MPs. These meetings are sometimes together with and sometimes separate from local councillors and/all council officers and they are for developers to
Simon Hughes written evidence 21
present their plans, and without any expectation that any of the elected representatives would at the meeting express a view either for or against the proposals.
The meeting took place on 6th November 2012. Neither Ms. Harman nor the leader of the council attended, but two of the other invited councillors attended— one councillor from one of the affected wards, and the leader of the opposition.
9. As I did not believe at the time that the donation should have been registered in ROMFI but was aware it had been registered in the EC register, I did not declare or ask my diary secretary to declare it in communications connected with setting up this meeting, either with the office of Ms. Harman or the office of the local councillors.
10. I now accept that I should have registered this donation on ROMFI in addition to the registration in the EC register. It is still not clear to me that I should also have made a declaration to Ms. Harman or her staff or asked my staff to do so, and it is even less clear to me that I should have made a declaration to local councillors or to their office or asked a member of staff to do that.
11. 1n relation to Company C, at no time did I make any approach to any minister or any servant of the crown which sought 'to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament from which' I had received, was receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit. I do not consider that facilitating a meeting for one company or individual or organisation to present its case to me, to parliamentary colleagues in my borough or to local councillors or council officers facilitates any benefit that is exclusive to that company, individual or organisation something available to any company, individual or organisation.
12. At no time did I seek to influence Ms. Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with Company C or [name], but simply sought to make life easier for my political colleagues and a local business by facilitating one meeting with locally elected politicians at which [name] could put his case.
13. At the only relevant meeting that took place I did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other and invite presentation and questioning, and I expressly did not speak in support of the plans put forward.
14. 1 am clear that at no time did I lobby for reward or consideration in relation to Company C or [its director].
D. Additional final matters raised in your last letter.
1. I have always been clear of the obligations in the Code of Conduct which dates back to 1995, and have never acted as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House; never accepted any bribe to influence my conduct as a member, and in all activities with any organisation with which I have or have had a relevant financial relationship have borne in mind the need to be open and frank with ministers, members and officials. All financial donations which have been the subject of this complaint have been made public either in ROMFI or the EC register. There has been no intention to hide anything, and no donation has been hidden.
2. I have equally been clear that donations given to me or to my local party which are linked either to my candidacy at an election or to membership of the House or other financial or material support to me above the registrable threshold should be registered in ROMFI, and that such donations are 'linked' to me when they are linked to my candidacy or membership of the House if they are expressly tied to me by name, for example if they are contributions to my fighting fund or donations which have been solicited or encouraged by me. The 2006 Code of Conduct and Guide made clear that 'financial contributions to constituency associations which are not linked to a member's candidacy or membership of the House do not have to be registered'. At all material times I believed that donations to my local party which fell outside the definition above were required to be registered in the EC register but not in ROMFI.
3. In the Code of Conduct and revised Guide approved in 2009 an additional section was added in paragraph 30, which states that 'financial contributions to constituency associations... which are not linked to a member's candidacy or membership to the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or member, and the candidate or member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered in ROMFI'. It is my view that from this time every donation to my local party which was entered in the EC register should also have been registered by me in ROMFI, because I
22 Simon Hughes written evidence
cannot with certainty say that any donations to my local party would have been forthcoming if I had not been the MP and that nothing I had done had played any personal part in securing them, even if I had not expressly invited or encouraged them myself. I had not fully taken into account this additional guidance which should have led me at the latest from this time on to register any donation to my local party above the registrable threshold also on ROMFI, and possibly to register retrospectively on ROMFI donations previously given to my local party and registered in the EC register.
4, I cannot say that the donations from Company A received in March 2008 and July 2010 would not have been forthcoming if I had not been the MP and that nothing I had done played any personal part in securing them, and therefore with hindsight believe that they were 'linked' to me in a way that required registration.
5. I believe that the same applies to the donations from Company B and Company C.
6. I have asked my local party officers to see whether there is any documentary evidence to show how the local party used these donations, and will supply any relevant statements of accounts as soon as possible. I hope this will be possible in no more than two weeks.
7. You are correct in your understanding that there was a donation from Company A which was registered by me in ROMFI in November 2006, although this was not the subject of the complaint or referred to by the complainant. This was the donation to me of £15,000 registered in the EC register in April 2006, and given to me to assist in my campaign for leadership of my party. There was also a second donation given by Company A in 2006, of £5,000, and registered in the EC register in October 2006. This too was not the subject of the complaint or referred to by the complainant. I did not register this second donation in ROMFI. I cannot honestly now remember being told of this donation or having any direct involvement with it or benefit from it. Under the guidance at the time, it was not obvious to me that it should have been registered in ROMFI but as I have said above once the guidance was changed in 2009, I accept that for reasons set out above, donations such as this should be registered in ROMFI.
8. The reason why the meeting which is the subject of part of the complaint did not take place until November 2012, even though [the director of Company C] first approached me in late 2010 or early 2011 is because the more specific request for me to make enquiries to the council was only made in April 2011; I was only asked to set up a meeting rather than pursue matters by correspondence in April 2012, and was only able to prioritise this once life became a little less hectic after parliament broke for the summer recess in 2012. It then took about a couple of months for the meeting to be set up.
9. I do not know any more about the relationships between [the director of Company C] and Company C and the architect who contacted me in April 2012 other than [name] that was a director of Southwark Metals and that the architect must have been engaged by [the director] or Southwark Metals. I was not at any time aware of the creation, existence or history of SCCD Developments or the involvement of [the director of Southwark Metals] with this company. As far as I know, [name] has at all times been a director of Southwark Metals, and this is the only relevant link I have been clear about.
10. Those invited to the meeting were Harriet Harman or her representative — as the other MP affected; the six councillors in the two wards affected; the leader of the council and the leader of the opposition and [name] and whichever people he brought with him.
11 You ask for the names of other businesses or organisations in my constituency for whom I have facilitated similar meetings with councillors, council officers or other public officials. From recollection and an initial check through our records, this list includes; [names of organisations].
Conclusion
I hope I have adequately answered all of your questions. I would like finally to make clear again one simple explanation which relates to all the complaints with the exception of the one single occasion when I failed to register a donation from my local party to me which had clearly come from Company A.
When I had failed otherwise to register or declare any donation in ROMFI, it is because I believed that the registration in the EC register was sufficient. I now understand that clearly this is not the case. I hope that the
Simon Hughes written evidence 23
register can be corrected retrospectively and apologise again for the mistakes arising from this misunderstanding. I am clear that I will not make this mistake again.
8 February 2013
8. Letter to the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 14 February 2013
Thank you for your letter of 8 February, responding to my letter of 22 January.
I was grateful for your response. I have amended the statement of your evidence to take account of the additional information you have provided.
In respect of the donations from Company A, my understanding of your evidence is as follows:
1. from 2006, this company has made six donations, as shown in the enclosed schedule, to you or to your constituency party, of which four were identified by the complainant;
2. in that period, you registered two of these donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: one on 8 November 2006, which was given to you to support your campaign for leadership of your party; and one on 21 April 2009, which was given to your local party for you ahead of your re-election campaign in 2010;
3. you were aware of the donation by this company received by your local party on 11 December 2007 at the time it was given, but you do not remember when you heard of any of the other donations identified by the complainant; you believe, however, that you would have been informed by local party officers a short time—at most within a few weeks—after any such donations were received;
4. following the donation of £11,000 from this company received by your constituency party on 11 December 2007, your local party immediately made an £11,000 donation to you;
5. you did not register this donation from Company A, and consider that this was a “clear mistake” on your part, for which you sincerely and unreservedly apologise;
6. in respect of the donations from this company received by your constituency party on 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010, you do not remember that you invited or encouraged either donation directly, and do not believe that these donations were linked directly to your candidacy at any election or your membership of the House; you believe that they might have been forthcoming irrespective of your role as an MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as a party and of Liberal Democrat councillors in the borough of Southwark;
7. you consider that it would have been wise to have registered the donation received on 31 March 2008, because although it was received shortly before the London Mayoral and Assembly elections and seems to have been linked to those elections, you cannot categorically say that the fact that you were the MP did not influence the donation;
8. you accept that you should have registered the donation received on 5 July 2010, made after further guidance was added to the 2009 Guide, because you cannot say that this donation would not have been forthcoming if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it;
9. with hindsight, you believe that both donations were “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
10. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for your failure to register these two donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; this arose from your belief at the time that reporting the donations to the Electoral Commission was sufficient;
24 Simon Hughes written evidence
11. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any registrable interest whenever such an interest is registered with the Electoral Commission.
In respect of the donation from Company B, my understanding is as follows:
1. this company has made one donation to your constituency party: a donation of £3,300 which was received on 2 December 2009; this company has made no donations to you;
2. you do not believe that this donation was linked directly to your candidacy at the 2010 general election or to your membership of the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of Southwark Council in 2010;
3. you cannot say that this donation would not have been forthcoming if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it;
4. with hindsight, you believe that this donation was “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
5. you therefore believe that you should have treated this donation as being “linked” to you and should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and you apologise sincerely for not having done so;
6. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
7. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 22 October 2010;
8. you did not do so because you had not registered an interest in this company. You knew that the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission and you did not believe that you should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Because the donation was not registered, you did not believe that you needed to declare it;
9. since you now believe that you should have registered this interest, it follows that you should also have declared it in debate;
10. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission; as you intend to “double register” in future, you will make sure that it does not happen again.
In respect of the donation from Company C, my understanding is as follows:
1. you were first introduced to a director of this company by a mutual friend; you met this director for the first time in either 2010 or early 2011;
2. this company has made one donation to your local party: a donation of £10,000 which was received on 16 April 2012; this company has made no donations to you;
3. this donation was made ahead of the London elections in May 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign by two Liberal Democrat candidates who are both Southwark residents, Brian Paddick, a candidate to be London Mayor, and Caroline Pidgeon, a candidate for re-election to the Greater London Assembly;
4. you cannot say that this donation would not have been forthcoming if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it;
5. with hindsight, you believe that this donation was “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
Simon Hughes written evidence 25
6. you therefore accept that you should have treated this donation as being “linked” to you and should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and you apologise sincerely for not having done so;
7. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
8. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any registrable interest whenever such an interest is registered with the Electoral Commission;
9. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 11 September 2012;
10. because you had not registered an interest in this company in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and because the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission, you did not believe that you had a duty to declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate and therefore you did not do so;
11. you now accept that, as the donation should have been registered, you should have declared your interest in the debate, and apologise sincerely for this omission.
In respect of the meeting which is the subject of part of this complaint, my understanding is as follows:
1. more than a year before the relevant company’s donation to your local party was made, a director of this company came to see you and asked for guidance in contacting the local council in relation to the development of some land in which you understood that his company had an interest; at no time did you know the chronology or details of the acquisition, ownership, disposal or value of the land;
2. it is your normal practice to meet business people or other organisations who ask to meet you to discuss developments in or affecting your constituency;
3. your initial meeting with the director of this company revealed that the land which the director of this company wanted to discuss was land which had been in your constituency until boundary changes in 2010. It was now on the constituency boundary between your seat and that of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP but directly overlooked your constituency and significant numbers of homes in your constituency. It was a site which had been the subject of previous complaints by your constituents since the general election, which you had taken up with the council. You later learnt that the director also had an interest in a nearby second site, which was and remains in your constituency;
4. you made written enquiries about this development to the council in May 2011 and received replies to these in September and November 2011;
5. in April 2012 a local architect, who was working with the director and his company, contacted you and proposed that his client, the architect himself, and you should meet the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive of the council, councillors and other officers to discuss the company’s plans;
6. in September 2012, at your request, your acting diary manager started to try to set up a meeting between you, Ms Harman, the six councillors directly affected and the Leader of the council and the Leader of the opposition;
7. at no time did you seek to influence either Ms Harman or the local councillors to support any particular development in which the director or any company associated with him had an interest; you were simply trying to gather all the relevant politicians together at the same time so
26 Simon Hughes written evidence
that there could be one common presentation to all of you; you had made it clear to the director that you could not and would not take sides on the merits of the development;
8. the meeting took place on 6 November 2012 and, in the event, neither Ms Harman nor Councillor Peter John attended; two other invited councillors did attend: a councillor from one of the affected wards, and the Leader of the opposition;
9. you do not consider that the paragraphs in the Code of Conduct relating to the declaration of Members’ interests appear to be intended to govern relations with local councillors or council officers, who are not servants of the Crown;
10. since you did not believe at the time that this donation should have been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests although you were aware that it had been reported to the Electoral Commission, you did not declare it, or ask your acting diary secretary to declare it, in communications connected with setting up this meeting, either with the office of Ms Harman or with the office of the local councillors;
11. you now consider you should have registered this donation, but it is not clear to you that you should also have made a declaration to Ms Harman or her staff or asked your staff to do so. You consider that it is even less clear to you that you should have done so to local councillors or to their office or that you should have asked your staff to do so;
12. in relation to this company, you assure me that you did not at any time make any approach to any Minister or servant of the Crown which sought to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament from which you had received, were receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit; you do not consider that facilitating a meeting for one company or organisation to present its case to you, to parliamentary colleagues in your borough or to local councillors or council officers facilitates any benefit that is exclusive to that company, individual or organisation;
13. at no time did you seek to influence Ms Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with this company or its director, but simply sought to make life easier for your political colleagues and a local business by facilitating one meeting with locally elected politicians at which a director of this company could put his case;
14. at the only relevant meeting which did take place, you did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other and invite presentation and questioning; you expressly did not speak in support of the plans put forward;
15. you are clear that you at no time lobbied for reward or consideration in relation to the director or to this company.
Thank you for providing a list of organisations in your constituency for whom you have facilitated meetings with councillors, council officers or public officials. I would also be grateful if you could let me know the following:
1. whether you can explain further why you believe that the donations which you did not register were “linked” to you;
2. whether you encouraged any of the donations which you did not register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, whether you yourself received a cheque for any of these donations and whether you thanked the donor in each case;
3. whether you or your constituency party have any relevant correspondence relating to these donations;
4. whether any record was made of the meeting on 6 November 2012;
Simon Hughes written evidence 27
5. the names of the two councillors who attended the meeting with Company C. I would not expect to identify the individuals by name when publishing the relevant evidence at the end of this inquiry, but it would be helpful for me to have the full details of the meeting.
It would be very helpful if you could let me know, within the next two weeks (i.e. by 19 February), whether the amended summary of your evidence is accurate and, if not, revise it as necessary. I also enclose an amended schedule of the donations from the relevant companies; I would be grateful if you could let me know if any of this information is not correct.
I am grateful for your undertaking to supply any relevant statements of accounts from your local party as soon as possible. Once I have that information and your response to this letter, I would hope to be in a position to consult the Registrar to seek her advice on this matter.
I am most grateful for your help on this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
14 February 2013
9. Letter to the Commissioner from the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 7 March 2013
Thank you very much for your letter of 14 February. I apologise that this reply has been delayed by 72 hours. I am also putting a hard copy in the post.
Introduction
May I start by drawing your attention again to the summary of my response and the political background of this complaint. both of which I set out in my first substantive reply dated 4th January.
May I also reiterate the two central points which I made in the conclusion of my second letter of 8 February.
These are that:
1. On one occasion referred to in the complaint and on this one occasion only, in 2007. I failed to register a donation, which was given to me by my local party and which clearly followed an identical donation to my local party from Company A. This was clearly a failure of mine at the time, and I apologise sincerely for this failure.
2. On all other occasions complained about when I failed to register donations in the, Register of Members' Financial Interests (ROMFI), or subsequently to declare a donation, it is because I believed that the registration with the Electoral Commission (EC) of these donations, all of which were made to my local party and not to me, was sufficient. I now understand that clearly this was not the case. Even though none of these donations were hidden from the public, they should have been registered on both registers and not just one I apologise sincerely for this misunderstanding.
3. I hope therefore that ROMFI may be corrected retrospectively. I am clear that I will not make this mistake again.
Company A
In relation to the donations of Company A, I agree with the summary of my evidence which you set out in points 1-11 on pages 1 and 2 of your letter of 14 February, subject to one correction and one small clarification. The correction is to point 8. I believe that to be accurate this should read as follows: you accept that you should have registered the donation received on 5 July 2010, and made after further guidance was added to the 2009 Guide, because you cannot say with certainty that this donation would have been forthcoming if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing
28 Simon Hughes written evidence
it;' the clarification is that I must have been aware of the donation by Company A and received by my local party either at the time it was given or immediately afterwards, because my local party immediately made a donation to me in a similar sum.
Company B
I agree with the summary of my evidence which you set out in points 1-10 on pages 2 and 3 of your letter of 14 February, subject to one correction. The correction is to point 3. I believe that to be accurate this should read as follows: you cannot say with certainty that this donation would have been forthcoming even if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done had played any personal part in securing it;'
Company C
I agree with the summary of my evidence which you set out in point 1 and points 6-11 on pages 3 and 4 of your letter of 14 February. I have revised points 2-5, following further investigations, to be more accurate, and believe that the following would be a more accurate statement of the position:
'2. this company has made a donation of £10,000 (by way of two cheques of £5,000 each) which were received in April 2012; this company has made no donation to you:
3. this donation was made ahead of the London elections in 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign by Caroline Pidgeon, a Liberal Democrat candidate living in Southwark who was seeking re-election for the Greater London Assembly.
4. you cannot say that this donation would have been forthcoming even if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it, given that the donation followed a request by you for help with the London election campaign for [name] and for help to fund one or two interns;
5. you believe that this donation was therefore clearly 'linked' to you that required registration;'
The meeting of 6 November 2012
I agree with the summary of my evidence which you set out in points 1-15 on pages 4 to 6 of your letter of 14 February.
May I add one additional point about this meeting. This meeting was different from some but not all other meetings which I had previously organised between one or more businesses or organisations within my constituency, or connected with my constituency, with councillors, council officers or other public officials. The difference was that on this occasion a Member of Parliament from a neighbouring constituency and councillors from a ward adjacent to but not in my constituency were invited. Over my 30 years as a MP, I have regularly however attended or organised other meetings with ministers and others where I and parliamentary neighbours have met with members of the Greater London Assembly, councillors from my constituency or nearby, and others. These would make up a long list and I do not propose to try and compile this list, unless you need more information.
Your further questions
1. a) I hoped that I had explained adequately in earlier correspondence why at the time I received the donations I did not .believe that the donations, which I did not register, were 'linked' with me, but why I now accept that they were 'linked' with me in the sense now made clear in the original or expanded guide to the rules. In The Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members which was in existence at the time of the earlier donations and before it was updated in 2009/10, Paragraph 26 states: "Category 4(a) deals with financial contributions (constituency associations). Support should be regarded as 'linked' directly to a Members' candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member, e.g. if it is a contribution to the Members' fighting fund or a donation which has been solicited or encouraged by the Member. Financial
Simon Hughes written evidence 29
contributions to constituency associations which are not linked to a Members' candidacy or membership of the House do not have to be registered." b) The Code of Conduct together with the revised Guide to the Rules dated 2009 and updated in May 2010 expands the explanation as to when contributions to constituency parties or associations should be registered. Paragraph 30 adds the following words, making expressly clear that "reporting to ROMFI is additional to the statutory reporting requirements of local political party accounting units to the Electoral Commission under PPRA". An additional last sentence is also now added to this paragraph: "Financial contributions to constituency associations, parties or area associations, etc, which are not linked to a Member's candidacy or membership of the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or Member, and the candidate or Member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered on the Register of Members' Financial Interests." c) It is because I cannot say that any of the donations complained about would not have been forthcoming if I had not been the MP or candidate at a future election, and that I cannot say that I played no personal direct or indirect part in securing them or any of them that I cannot say that the donations were not 'linked' with me. I should therefore have accepted that these donations were or might have been 'linked' to me.
2) On reflection, I believe that I indirectly encouraged at least one of the donations from Company A, but that at least one other local party member would have encouraged the others. I encouraged the (single) donation from Company B, though not only, principally or specifically in connection with my candidacy at an election or my membership of the House of Commons. I also encouraged the donation from Company C, but equally also unconnected with any candidacy by me. All donations complained about, apart from the November 2007 donation to my local party, would have been as much or more for local councillors and council election campaigning or for campaigning for the GLA elections (when I was not a candidate) or for general local party campaigning as for any campaigning of mine. I do not believe that any of these donations were by way of any cheque or other payment given to me, apart from the December 2007 one from my local party. I am sure that once I had been alerted to each of these donations — all made to my local party — I thanked each donor, in one form or another, by phone in the first instance, and subsequently by card or note, but I have no record of any of these.
3) I do not believe that I or my local party have copies of any correspondence relevant to the donations from Company A, though I am sure that at least a thank you note or letter would have been written by me, although without a copy being taken, and very probably written also by our local party chair or treasurer, but again with no copy being kept. The same applies to the one and only donation from Company B; my 'encouragement' was oral and not in writing as I recollect it, but the donation would have been followed by a written 'thank you' from me as well as from someone on behalf of my local party. There is one copy letter soliciting financial support from the owner of Company C, which I enclose.2 This clearly made two financial requests — one to help the London election campaign for [name] and the second to help fund one or two interns for me. In the event, all the donation of £10,000 was paid to the local party and none paid to me for interns. My local party and I agreed that at a later date the local party would contribute £5,000 towards interns in my office in recognition of the second £5,000 given on behalf of Southwark Metals, but no such money has yet been paid to me. When it is I shall declare it appropriately. Again, there would have been a telephone thank you and a handwritten thank you note from me to the owner of Company C, but without a copy being kept. I believe somebody from my local party will have also written to say thank you.
4) I am seeking to track down any record or records of the meeting of 6 November 2012. I shall forward any record (s) separately as soon as possible.
5) The names of the two councillors who attended at my invitation the meeting with Company C are [name] and [name].
6) The amended schedule of donations appears to be correct. I am grateful that the schedule makes clear that all relevant donations were registered with the Electoral Commission and therefore were at all material times in the public domain.
2 WE10
30 Simon Hughes written evidence
7) The leader of the Liberal Democrat council group in Southwark in conjunction with the local party treasurer, national party headquarters staff and others as necessary are assembling relevant statements of accounts as requested, and assure me that they will be available for me and for you this month. Although this will have taken a little longer than I had hoped, I trust that this will be helpful. My colleagues will assist as much as possible.
Conclusion
I hope I have dealt with all immediate matters. Please let me know if and when I can help further, and I shall send on any remaining documents referred to above at the earliest practical opportunity.
7 March 2013
10. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter to the Commissioner of 7 March 2013: Letter from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP to a director of Southwark Metals, 5 April 2012
You very kindly said I could write to you to follow up my requests.
London Election Campaign for Caroline Pidgeon
The first was for help to support Caroline Pidgeon, from Walworth and Camberwell, to be re-elected to the Greater London Assembly in City Hall.
Caroline was a great Southwark councillor in my team, and has done a great job in the last four years in City Hall.
She now leads our team of candidates for the Assembly for the next four years.
I am asking local business supporters if they can make a £5000 donation to our campaign in Southwark to maximise our support in this borough for the London elections in May, and to make sure Caroline and the maximum number of her colleagues are elected. I can send any extra information you may need of course. Just ask. But I know that another £5000 will make a huge difference in the amount of campaign materials we can put out and people we can phone and canvass.
Apprenticeship and internships
Secondly, I told you that I have announced that, for the first time, I am going to take on an apprentice in my office, almost certainly in conjunction with [name of organisation]. I am very keen to encourage local firms which do not yet have apprentices to consider if they too can this year start to take on one or more, and to work with other local firms which already have apprenticeship schemes so that between us we can encourage those who don't. Please can you remind me what your experience is in practice of taking on apprentices both in Southwark Metals and Westminster Waste? May I confirm that you are happy to be involved with me and others in another initiative locally to raise the number of apprenticeships in our borough?
In addition to an apprenticeship paid according to the recommended national rate, we have also decided in the office that we want to take on some interns who will be paid according to the scheme now recommended by government for interns in government, parliament and the political parties. The workload in my two offices – in Bermondsey and Westminster – is so high that we cannot possibly cope simply on the allowance we are given for full-time contracted paid staff and therefore always need a bigger team. We take on these new interns normally for about three months each. We always seek to give preference within the law to those who live in the borough or who have attended local schools or colleges.
As we discussed on Tuesday, it would be hugely appreciated if you would be able to help me fund one or two of these interns. The cost over a year for one intern is £5,000; two would therefore cost £10,000! If you are able to help in this very practical way to give relevant work experience to young people in the front line of the decision- making processes of local, London and national government, it is obvious how much benefit and career
Simon Hughes written evidence 31
advantage this can give. If there is any more information that you need, then of course I am very happy to give it. We have just advertised for the first round of these interns and plan to interview next week — so you can see that this too is an immediate ask if you are able to respond. Obviously we would keep you posted on who we take on and any other information about them that you need. And I guess that any week that you are a bit short-staffed you would be entitled to shout first in our direction!!
I hope these ideas and proposals are clear. It would be hugely appreciated if you can help. And hopefully the results would be visible very soon.
5 April 2012
11. Letter to the Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 12 March 2013
Thank you for your letter of 7 March, responding to my letter of 14 February and for your further help on this matter. I have amended the statement of your evidence to take account of the clarification and additional information you have provided and hope that a full and accurate summary of your evidence is now set out below.
Company A
In respect of the donations from Company A, my understanding is as follows:
1. from 2006, this company has made six donations, as shown in the schedule we have agreed (attached as Appendix A), to you or to your constituency party, of which four were identified by the complainant;
2. in that period, you registered two of these donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: one on 8 November 2006, which was given to you to support your campaign for leadership of your party; and one on 21 April 2009, which was given to your local party for you ahead of your re-election campaign in 2010;
3. you were aware of the donation by this company received by your local party on 11 December 2007 at the time it was given or immediately afterwards, but you do not remember when you heard of any of the other donations identified by the complainant; you believe, however, that you would have been informed by local party officers a short time—at most within a few weeks—after any such donations were received;
4. following the donation of £11,000 from this company received by your constituency party on 11 December 2007, your local party immediately made an £11,000 donation to you;
5. you did not register this donation from Company A, and consider that this was a “clear mistake” on your part, for which you sincerely and unreservedly apologise;
6. in respect of the donations from this company received by your constituency party on 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010, you do not remember that you invited or encouraged either donation directly, and do not believe that these donations were linked directly to your candidacy at any election or your membership of the House. You believe that they might have been forthcoming irrespective of your role as an MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as a party and of Liberal Democrat councillors in the borough of Southwark;
7. you consider that it would have been wise to have registered the donation received on 31 March 2008, because although it was received shortly before the London Mayoral and Assembly elections and seems to have been linked to those elections, you cannot categorically say that the fact that you were the MP did not influence the donation;
8. you accept that you should have registered the donation received on 5 July 2010, and made after further guidance was added to the 2009 Guide, because you cannot say with certainty that this
32 Simon Hughes written evidence
donation would have been forthcoming if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it;
9. you believe that you indirectly encouraged at least one of the donations from this company, but that at least one other local party member would have encouraged the others;
10. with hindsight, you believe that both donations were “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
11. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for your failure to register these two donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; this arose from your belief at the time that reporting the donations to the Electoral Commission was sufficient;
12. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any registrable interest whenever such an interest is registered with the Electoral Commission.
Company B
In respect of the donation from Company B, my understanding is as follows:
1. this company has made one donation to your constituency party: a donation of £3,300 which was received on 2 December 2009; this company has made no donations to you;
2. you do not believe that this donation was linked directly to your candidacy at the 2010 general election or to your membership of the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of Southwark Council in 2010;
3. you cannot say with certainty that this donation would have been forthcoming even if you had not been the MP and that nothing you had done played any personal part in securing it;
4. you believe that you encouraged this donation, though not only, principally or specifically in connection with your candidacy at an election or your membership of the House. As far as you can recollect, this encouragement was oral and not in writing;
5. with hindsight, you therefore believe that this donation was “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
6. you therefore believe that you should have treated this donation as being “linked” to you and should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and you apologise sincerely for not having done so;
7. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
8. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 22 October 2010;
9. you did not do so because you had not registered an interest in this company. You knew that the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission and you did not believe that you should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Because the donation was not registered, you did not believe that you needed to declare it;
10. since you now believe that you should have registered this interest, you also consider that you should have declared it in debate;
11. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission; as you intend to “double register” in future, you will make sure that it does not happen again.
Simon Hughes written evidence 33
Company C
In respect of the donation from Company C, my understanding is as follows:
1. you were first introduced to a director of this company by a mutual friend; you met this director for the first time in either 2010 or early 2011;
2. this company has made one donation to your local party: a donation of £10,000 by way of two cheques of £5,000 each which were received on 16 April 2012; this company has made no donations to you;
3. this donation was made ahead of the London elections in May 2012 and specifically in support of the campaign by Caroline Pidgeon, a Liberal Democrat candidate living in Southwark who was seeking re-election to the Greater London Assembly;
4. this donation followed a written request by you for help with the London election campaign for Ms Pidgeon and for help to fund one or two interns in your office;
5. you believe that this donation was therefore clearly “linked” to you in a way that required registration;
6. you therefore accept that you should have treated this donation as being “linked” to you and should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and you apologise sincerely for not having done so;
7. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to your local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
8. you undertake, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any registrable interest whenever such an interest is registered with the Electoral Commission;
9. you accept that you did not declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate on 11 September 2012;
10. because you had not registered an interest in this company in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and because the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission, you did not believe that you had a duty to declare an interest when you mentioned this company in debate and therefore you did not do so;
11. you now accept that, as the donation should have been registered, you should have declared your interest in the debate, and apologise sincerely for this omission.
In respect of the meeting which is the subject of part of this complaint, my understanding of your evidence is as follows:
1. more than a year before the relevant company’s donation to your local party was made, a director of this company came to see you and asked for guidance in contacting the local council in relation to the development of some land in which you understood that his company had an interest; at no time did you know the chronology or details of the acquisition, ownership, disposal or value of the land;
2. it is your normal practice to meet business people or other organisations who ask to meet you to discuss developments in or affecting your constituency;
3. your initial meeting with the director of this company revealed that the land which the director of this company wanted to discuss was land which had been in your constituency until boundary changes in 2010. It was now on the constituency boundary between your seat and that of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP but directly overlooked your constituency and significant numbers of homes in your constituency. It was a site which had been the subject of complaints by your constituents since
34 Simon Hughes written evidence
the general election, which you had taken up with the council. You later learnt that the director also had an interest in a nearby second site, which was and remains in your constituency;
4. you made written enquiries about this development to the council in May 2011 and received replies to these in September and November 2011;
5. in April 2012 a local architect, who was working with the director and his company, contacted you and proposed that his client, the architect himself, and you should meet the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive of the council, councillors and other officers to discuss the company’s plans;
6. in September 2012, at your request, your acting diary manager started to try to set up a meeting between you, Ms Harman, the six councillors directly affected and the Leader of the council and the Leader of the opposition;
7. at no time did you seek to influence either Ms Harman or the local councillors to support any particular development in which the director or any company associated with him had an interest; you were simply trying to gather all the relevant politicians together at the same time so that there could be one common presentation to all of you; you had made it clear to the director that you could not and would not take sides on the merits of the development;
8. the meeting took place on 6 November 2012 and, in the event, neither Ms Harman nor Councillor Peter John attended; two other invited councillors did attend: a councillor from one of the affected wards, and the Leader of the opposition;
9. you do not consider that the paragraphs in the Code of Conduct relating to the declaration of Members’ interests appear to be intended to govern relations with local councillors or council officers, who are not servants of the Crown;
10. since you did not believe at the time that the donation received by your constituency party on 16 April 2012 from this company should have been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests although you were aware that it had been reported to the Electoral Commission, you did not declare it, or ask your acting diary secretary to declare it, in communications connected with setting up this meeting, either with the office of Ms Harman or with the office of the local councillors;
11. you now consider you should have registered this donation, but it is not clear to you that you should also have made a declaration to Ms Harman or her staff or asked your staff to do so. You consider that it is even less clear to you that you should have done so to local councillors or to their office or that you should have asked your staff to do so;
12. in relation to this company, you assure me that you did not at any time make any approach to any Minister or servant of the Crown which sought to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament from which you had received, were receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit; you do not consider that facilitating a meeting for one company or organisation to present its case to you, to parliamentary colleagues in your borough or to local councillors or council officers facilitates any benefit that is exclusive to that company, individual or organisation;
13. at no time did you seek to influence Ms Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with this company or its director, but simply sought to make life easier for your political colleagues and a local business by facilitating one meeting with locally elected politicians at which a director of this company could put his case;
14. at the only relevant meeting which did take place, you did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other and invite presentation and questioning; you expressly did not speak in support of the plans put forward;
15. you are clear that you at no time lobbied for reward or consideration in relation to the director or to this company.
Simon Hughes written evidence 35
While I believe I have now reached a full summary of your evidence, I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you are able to say which of the donations to Company A you believe you encouraged, and what form that encouragement took.
If you would like to make any further points or to discuss any of the issues further, I would be happy for us to meet and agree any additional clarification needed.
Thank you for your undertaking to supply any written record of the meeting on 6 November. I am also grateful that your colleagues are in the process of assembling relevant statements of accounts. Once I have that information, I expect to be in a position to consult the Registrar to seek her advice on the elements of this complaint which relate to the registration and declaration of interests.
Once again, thank you for your help on this matter. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible, ideally within the next two weeks.
12 March 2013
12. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 8 May 2013
Thank you for your further letters of 12 March and 7 May3. I apologise sincerely for the delay in replying to your 12 March letter.
I will now deal with the small number of issues which remain.
Company A
Subject to the small changes below, I agree the statement of my evidence about donations from Company A.
After paragraph 3 I believe it would be accurate to add a new paragraph 4 as follows and then renumber the subsequent paragraphs 5 to 10, with the changes to new paragraphs 6 and 10, as set out below:
4. you believe that you directly or indirectly orally encouraged the donation of December 2007 from Company A to your local party as a result of a conversation with a representative of the company during one meeting sometime before the donation was made.'
5. following the donation... 'etc
6. you did not register this donation from Company A to your local party, and consider that this was... 'etc
7. in respect of the donations... ’etc
8. you consider that it would... 'etc
9. you accept that you should.... 'etc
10. you believe that you did not directly or indirectly encourage the 2008 and 2010 donations, and that at least one other party member would have encouraged them, but that with hindsight and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 above both donations were 'linked' to you in a way that required registration;'
11. you apologise sincerely... 'etc
12. you undertake, .... 'etc
3 WE11. The letter of 7 May is not included in the written evidence.
36 Simon Hughes written evidence
Company B
Subject to two small matters, I agree the statement of my evidence about donations from Company B.
As a result of discussions with my party's Head of Compliance in connection with your previous inquiries, and a check back into the records of the Electoral Commission, I am reminded that there was one much earlier donation to my party from the same company, as well as the donation in 2009. This company has therefore made two donations to my constituency party: a donation of £3,804 which was received on 10 March 2001 and reported on 30 April 2001, and the second donation of £3,300 received on 2 December 2009 and reported on 30 January 2010. Given that the first donation was not referred to by the complainant, and predates by several years the period in relation to which the complaints had been made, may I ask you to consider whether paragraph 1 should be amended to read as follows: From 2006, this company has made ...'.
It would also be more accurate for paragraphs 3 and 4 to be drafted as follows:
‘3. you believe that you directly or indirectly and orally encouraged this donation from this company as a result of a conversation with representatives of the company during one meeting sometime before the donation was made.'
‘4. you believe that this donation was not only, principally or specifically ....the House.'
Company C
Subject to two small changes suggested below, I agree the statement.
The first small change that ought to be made is to paragraph 3 for clarification. I suggest this is done by the insertion of a few words at the beginning of the second sentence, so that the sentence reads: 'The land in question was just on the Peckham and Camberwell side of the constituency boundary between your seat and that of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP but directly overlooked your constituency and significant numbers of homes in your constituency.'
The second change is to correct one matter which has come to light as a result of enquiries precipitated by this complaint. Company C in fact made only one donation of £5000 to my local party, on 16th April 2012, and the other cheque paid to my local party on the same day was from another company called Westminster Waste. A correction to amend the relevant Electoral Commission entry is being lodged by my party.
Additional matters
1. You ask at the end of page 6 of your most recent letter if I can say which of the donations to Company A I believe I encouraged, and what form that encouragement took. To the best of my recollection, and as I have set out above, I only encouraged directly or indirectly one of the donations from this company referred to by the complainant, and that was in a conversation with a representative of the company at one meeting sometime before the donation received in December 2007.
2. I have attached a typed summary of my written note of the meeting of 6 November 2012 (appendix B).
3. As I said I would, I pursued the question of assembling relevant statements of accounts — both with my local party and with our federal party headquarters. The advice that I have received from our federal party is that, after checking accounting guidance from the Electoral Commission, it would not assist you to see old versions of my local party's accounts as there is no requirement to link donations to expenditure made with that money either in the accounts themselves or the notes to the accounts.
4. I have also been advised that there appears to be no requirement in the rules for me to declare donations from my local party to me. Donations to each of us separately are declared and I am
Simon Hughes written evidence 37
advised that should be sufficient to meet the requirements for transparency which the Electoral Commission and our Register seek to achieve.
I hope this is everything, but please let me know if I can help further.
8 May 2013
13. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 8 May 2013: Meeting Note: Appendix B
Meeting regarding [address] development. Westminster Hall. 6 November 2012.
I enclose a copy of the calling notice for the meeting dated 17th October 2012. (appendix B1)4 The following is a summary of my own handwritten notes from the meeting on the [address] development.
The notes cover approximately one page in total. The developers described the consultation meetings they had held to date and their current plans.
I then noted comments by [name], local councillor and executive member of Southwark council, and briefly by [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], by [name], leader of the opposition on Southwark Council and by [name], Principal of City of London Academy.
I noted no action points from the meeting.
14. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 8 May 2013: Appendix B1: E-mail of 17 October 2012 from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s diary manager
Re: [address] development meeting
Dear all,
My apologies for the big mailing list in this e-mail, but that's the shortest way of getting everyone on board.
As many of you know, I was asked by Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP to organise a meeting with Livesey and South Bermondsey councillors, stakeholders, representative from Harriet Harman MP's office and Simon to discuss the development of the [address] site.
I appreciate that it's hard to coordinate all diaries but I kindly request that councillors make priority for this meeting.
The proposed date for this is Tuesday 6th November at 10.00am. The meeting would take place on the site [address].
Please confirm your attendance and I will get back to you with the details of the venue.
Many thanks and hope to hear from you soon.
4 WE 14
38 Simon Hughes written evidence
17 October 2012
15. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 20 May 2013
Thank you for your letter of 8 May, in which you responded to my letter of 12 March. I have amended the statement of your evidence to take account of the points you make, and enclose a revised version as appendix A. I also enclose a revised summary of the donations which are relevant to this inquiry, which I have amended to take account of the new information you have provided. I enclose this as appendix B.
However, the additional information you have provided raises some further questions. As I said in my letter of 7 May, I am concerned at the length of time it is taking to resolve this matter. It is now almost five months since my predecessor accepted this complaint for inquiry. In view of this, I think it would be helpful to resolve the outstanding questions and agree the summary of your evidence at a meeting. I would then be in a position to seek the advice of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests and then, subject to that advice, to move towards concluding my inquiry—which may involve us meeting a second time.
I hope it will be helpful if I set out the main questions on which I will need to reach a conclusion. They are as follows:
Whether you were required under the rules of the House to register four donations from Company A, one donation from Company B, one donation from Company C and one donation from Company D, because these donations were linked to you as set out in paragraphs 29 to 32 of the Guide to the Rules;
Whether you were required under the rules of the House to declare two of these donations in debate; and
Whether a meeting you arranged amounted to lobbying, contrary to the rules of the House.
I am minded to prepare a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards at the conclusion of this inquiry. You should, however, draw no conclusions from this. Under the procedures I follow, I would send the factual sections of this memorandum to you so that you could confirm its accuracy before I prepared my conclusions and submitted it to the Committee on Standards. The Committee Clerk would send you a final copy of the memorandum, with my conclusions, before the Committee considered it. I will be able to explain the process in detail to you when we meet.
Once I have received your reply to this letter—which I would hope would be within the next two weeks, by 3 June—I will ask my office to arrange a convenient time for this meeting. We will need to allow at least two hours, so that we can resolve all of the outstanding questions without any undue time pressure. You are welcome to bring a friend or adviser with you if you would like to do so, although I know you will want to respond to the questions yourself.
I will ask one of my colleagues to act as note-taker. She will produce a note of our conversation and will show it to you so that you can satisfy yourself about its factual accuracy. The note will provide a full summary of the questions and answers, but it will not be a verbatim transcript. Whatever the outcome of my inquiry, the note will be published alongside the other relevant evidence.
At our meeting, having confirmed with you the summary of your evidence, I would like to resolve the following specific questions, which I hope will allow us to establish a full summary of the facts. If you would like to prepare a written answer to these questions and send it to me in advance of our meeting, please feel free to do so.
Companies A and B
1. I would be grateful if you could expand on your statement that you believe that you “directly or indirectly” encouraged the donations received by your constituency party from Company A on 11
Simon Hughes written evidence 39
December 2007 and from Company B on 2 December 2009. In particular, it would be helpful to have your best recollection of the encouragement you believe you gave in each case.
2. In both cases, you refer to “one meeting sometime before the donation was made”. Are these references to specific meetings of which you have either a recollection or a record? If so, it would be helpful to have further details of these meetings, including the dates and who attended.
3. It would also be helpful to know how this information has come to light—for example, is it based on your own recollection, on discussions with others in your party, or on documentary evidence which you have not sent me?
Company C
1. You enclosed with your letter of 7 March a letter you had sent to [the director] of Southwark Metals on 5 April 2012. That letter contained two requests for donations: one for £5,000 to support Caroline Pidgeon in her campaign for re-election to the GLA, and another for £5,000 for an intern in your office. In making his donation of £5,000, did [the director of Southwark Metals] indicate whether he wished it to be used for Ms Pidgeon’s campaign, for your office, or divided between the two?
Company D
1. I note that your constituency party received a donation of £5,000 from a different company, Westminster Waste, on 16 April 2012. This company is now listed as company D in Appendix A. This donation was not registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I note that you mentioned Company D in your letter of 5 April 2012 to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]. It would be helpful to know if you were then aware of any link between the two companies, and in particular:
What is [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]’s relationship with Company D?
To the best of your knowledge, did the two companies have directors in common, or did the directors of one have an interest in the other?
As far as you are aware, was there any link between Company D and the development which was the subject of the meeting which took place on 6 November 2012?
2. It would also be helpful to know whether the donation from Company D was given in response to a letter similar to the one you sent to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] on 5 April 2012, and if not the circumstances which led to this donation. Could you also let me know whether you consider that you should have registered this donation in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and your reasons?
Meeting with local councillors, Company C and others
1. Your summary of this meeting refers to comments made by [name], Principal of the City of London Academy. [The Principal] does not appear on the list of recipients of the calling notice and you have not previously mentioned his attendance in your evidence. Please can you explain how [the Principal] came to be at the meeting?
2. Did a representative of Company D attend this meeting?
Other matters may arise in the course of our discussion.
Documentation
I would be grateful if you could let me have, in advance of our meeting, the following documents:
40 Simon Hughes written evidence
1. A list of the recipients of the “calling notice” you enclosed with your letter. I would be grateful if you could identify the recipients of the e-mail, including their job titles, and for those who are not elected representatives, the organisation for which they work (and, if it is not obvious, a brief description of the organisation) and the reason why each of them was invited to the meeting.
2. You enclosed with your letter of 8 May a brief description of your handwritten notes of the meeting of 6 November 2012. I would be grateful if you could send me a photocopy of your handwritten notes.
3. A copy of any other notes of the meeting compiled by anyone else, if these are available to you.
4. A full list of those who attended the meeting on 6 November 2012.
5. Any further documentation which is relevant to this inquiry.
In the meantime, I will be writing to the Chair of your local party to ask questions which are a matter for your local party. I will of course send you copies of the correspondence in due course, so that you will have an opportunity to comment on them.
I look forward to meeting you soon. Please do let me know if you have any questions about this process.
20 May 2013
16. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 3 June 2013
Thank you for your letter of 20th May, and the enclosed revised summary of evidence which you had entitled appendix B and revised summary of donations which you had entitled appendix A (A and B had clearly been unintentionally changed around).
I am very happy to accept your proposal that we can resolve the outstanding questions and agree the summary of my evidence at a meeting. If you think it necessary, after taking the advice of the Registrar, that we meet a second time, of course I am willing to do that.
I agree the main questions on which you will need to reach a conclusion are the ones set out in the three bullet points at the bottom of page one and the top of page two.
I note your intention to prepare a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards and that you would send the factual sections of the memorandum to me so that I can confirm their accuracy before you prepare your conclusions and submit it to the Committee.
I am today alerting [the Acting Head of my office], to make sure that [my diary manager] fixes a convenient time for our meeting, which will allow at least two hours in order to resolve all outstanding questions without undue time pressure. I doubt my diary will permit this this week, but hope that from next week I can be available at a time which is mutually convenient. I shall reflect on whether I will bring somebody with me; I expect I will do so and, if so, will reflect on who would be best to accompany me. I am happy that one of your colleagues will take notes, which we can agree for accuracy, and that the note will be published as a record.
I was away out of the country on official business last week, and so have not yet finalised my written answer to your questions, but will do so this week and send to you in advance of our meeting. I will also let you have in advance of our meeting all of the documents which you seek in as far as they exist. Certainly the people invited to the meeting of 6th November 2012 can be supplied as can my handwritten notes.
I note that you are to write to the chair of my local party to ask questions which are a matter for it. I have not yet seen any copies of that correspondence, but will look out for it and speak to my local party chair within the next 48 hours to alert him.
I too look forward to meeting soon. At the moment I do not have any further questions about the process. I will send to you this week any changes I want to suggest to the revised summary of evidence or in the revised summary of donations. I certainly have not seen anything significant that I would wish to change.
Simon Hughes written evidence 41
3 June 2013
17. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 18 June 2013
Further to my letter of 3rd June, I gather from [staff] in my office that you would like to see any further documentary material before agreeing to the date for our meeting. I write therefore to give you as much of this material as exists.
I also undertook to let you have any changes I want to suggest to the revised summary of evidence or the revised summary of donations.
In this letter, I also seek to answer as many of your remaining questions as I can.
[name], former chair of my local party, has now shown me the letter which you wrote to him and I know that he has passed this on to [name], our current chair. [The chair] has now replied and I have seen a copy of his reply.
A. Revised summary of evidence
a) aCompany A page 1.6
My suggested amended wording for 6. would be as follows:
'6, you did not register this donation from company A to your local party. Although you have been advised that there appears to be no requirement in the rule for you to declare donations from your local party to you, you did not register this donation from Company A to your local party, and consider that was a "clear mistake' on your part, for which you sincerely and unreservedly apologise.
b) Company A page 1.7
My suggested amended wording for 7. would be as follows:
'7. in respect of the donations from this company received by your constituency party on 30 September 2006, 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010, you do not remember that you invited or encouraged any of these donations directly, ...'
c) Company A page 2.10 a) My suggested amended wording for 10. and 11. would be as follows:
'10. you believe that you did not directly encourage the donations received by your local party on 30 September 2006, 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010 from this company, and that at least one other local party member would have encouraged them, but that with hindsight and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 above, you believe that the three donations were 'linked' to you in a way that required registration;
11. you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for your failure to register these three donations in the Register of Members' Financial Interests; this arose from your belief at the time that reporting the donations to the Electoral Commission was sufficient;'
d) Company B page 2.3
My suggested amended wording for 3. would be as follows:
'3. you believe that you directly and orally encouraged this donation as a result of a conversation with two representatives of the company during one meeting sometime before the donation was made;'
e) Company B page 2.5
My suggested amended wording for 5. and 6. would be as follows:
42 Simon Hughes written evidence
'5. with hindsight, you however believe that this donation was "linked" to you in a way that required registration, should have been treated by you as being "linked" to you and that you should have registered it Register of Members Financial Interests, and you apologised sincerely for not doing so.'
I would renumber 7. as 6. and the rest of the paragraphs accordingly. The last paragraph in this section would therefore be Company B 10.
f) Company C page 4.12 b) My suggested amended wording for 12. would be as follows:
'12. you now accept that as the donation should have been registered, you should have declared your interest in the debate; you apologise sincerely and unreservedly for this omission, and as you intend to "double register" in full in future, you will make sure it does not happen again.'
I have no more proposed amendments to the summary of evidence.
B. Revised summary of donations
Entries for donations from Companies A and B are correct.
Entry for Company C should be amended so that the amount is amended to £5000 (corrected amount)'.
I would ask that Company D be removed from this summary as this company was not the subject of the complaint. (As [my Constituency Chair] has said in his letter to you, my party is now reporting this donation to the Electoral Commission, and I am reporting it to the Registrar).
C. Answers to questions
Companies A and B
When I have said that I 'directly or indirectly' encouraged donations received by my constituency party from Company A and Company B on the dates in 2007 and 2009, I was using the language of the rules.
I met [name], the director of Company A, regularly over the years, and he offered to support my local party from time to time, and explicitly to support me in my campaign for the leadership of my party, and in the run up to the 2010 election. I honestly cannot specifically remember the exact `encouragement' I gave in 2007,except that we met in the autumn of that year, as we met both before and afterwards. There was never any formal request by me in writing and there would have been no written records of our meetings. We met from time to time, I was asked about local issues, local party activities and plans, and we would discuss local progress and our funding needs. [The director of Company A] also met at least one local party colleague of mine from time to time. As a result of these meetings, very generously, donations were given.
I do not have a specific recollection of any specific meeting before the donations were made from Company A, and I do not believe there is any documentary record of the meetings or their dates. The conversations which I had with [the director] were on all occasions simply between [the director] and me.
By contrast, I remember well the one meeting sometime before the donation was made by Company B. This was at my request with [the directors of City Cruises], in Bermondsey and on one of their vessels. We discussed many matters of mutual interest, and I asked them whether they would be willing to advertise in and sponsor the local Christmas card from me and local Liberal Democrats. After the meeting, they came back to me and said that they would, to the extent of the sum agreed and which comprised the donation of 2 December 2009. I do not believe that there is documentary evidence of this agreement, as I recall that the arrangements were made by telephone.
Simon Hughes written evidence 43
Company C
In making his donation of £5000, [the director of Company C] did not to my knowledge indicate whether he wished it to be used for [name]'s campaign, for my office or divided between the two.
Company D
I was not aware in April 2012 or before of any relationship between [name] and Company D, or any link between Company D and the development which was the subject of the November 6th meeting, except that Company D occupied some of the site which [the director] wished to develop. I did not know whether Companies C and D had directors in common, or whether the directors of one had an interest in the other.
I have now made enquiries and been told that [the director] was a joint owner and shareholder in Company D, but that there have been no directorships in common between Companies C and D, nor any other interest of the directors of the one in the other. Company D, however, has occupied some of the site which [the director] wished to develop and which I understand was owned by SCCD Developments, in which [the director] had an interest.
The donation from Company D was not given in response to any letter from me or my local party or on our behalf, but apparently at the request of [the director of Company C]. Before this donation was given I had met the other owner of Company D, [name], on at most two occasions, once when I met [name], and once when I visited the development site which I attended at the invitation of [name].
Meeting with local councillors, Company C and others
[The Principal of City of London Academy] was invited by my Acting Diary Secretary to 6th November meeting at the request of [name] of SCCD Developments, the company developing the relevant site. [The director of Company D], attended the meeting at the request of [the director of Company C], and as a tenant of the company which owned the development site.
D. Documents
1. There were two calling notices for the meeting of 6th November, the first dated 17th October (Appendix B1)5, and the second dated 1st November (Appendix B2)6. I enclose copies of each of these. The recipients of the first calling notice, with job titles, organisations and the reason for their invitation, is as follows:
[name], Office of Harriet Harman MP
Councillor [name], Leader of Opposition Southwark Council
Councillor [name], South Bermondsey
Councillor [name], South Bermondsey
Councillor [name], South Bermondsey
Councillor [name], Livesey
Councillor [name], Livesey
Councillor [name], Livesey
[name], Southwark Metals*
5 WE 14 6 WE 18
44 Simon Hughes written evidence
[name], SCCD Developments*
[name], Westminster Waste (Weighbridge)*
[name], [firm of planning consultants]*
[name], [firm of property advisers]*
[name], [firm of planning consultants]*
*Invited at the request of [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]
2. The recipients of the second calling notice (Appendix B2), with job titles, organisations and the reason for their invitation, is as follows:
Councillor [name], South Bermondsey
Councillor [name], Leader of Opposition Southwark Council
Councillor [name], South Bermondsey
Councillor [name], Livesey
Councillor [name], Livesey
[name], Southwark Metals*
[e-mail address] - for [name], Principal City of London Academy
[name], Office of Harriet Harman MP
[name], SCCD Developments*
[name], [firm of planning consultants]
[name], [a firm of architects]*
[name], [a firm of architects]*
[name], [a firm of property advisers]*
[name], [a firm of planning consultants]*
*Invited at the request of [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]
3. I enclose a typed summary of my own handwritten notes of the meeting of 6th November (Appendix B) and of my own handwritten notes (Appendix B3)7.
4. I do not have other notes of the meeting.
5. The full list of those attending the meeting, to the best of my recollection, was:
[name], Southwark Metals*
[name], SCCD Developments*
[name], [a firm of architects]*
[name], [a firm of architects]*
7 Appendix B is included at WE 13. Appendix B3 is not included in the written evidence.
Simon Hughes written evidence 45
[name], [firm of property advisers]*
[name], [a firm of planning consultants]
[name], [a firm of planning consultants]*
[name], Westminster Waste (Weighbridge)*
[name], Leader of Opposition Southwark
[name], Livesey
[name], Principal City of London Academy
Representative of the office of Harriet Harman MP
Simon Hughes MP
6. I am not aware that there is any further relevant documentation.
Conclusion
I hope this deals with your outstanding questions, and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
18 June 2013
18. Enclosure to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s letter of 18 June 2013: Appendix B2: E-mail of 1 November 2012 from Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP’s diary manager:
Thank you for all those who responded and are planning to attend the meeting next Tuesday about the development around [address]. For the sake of convenience of all parties involved, the meeting will now take place in Parliament.
Attached are the boards used in public exhibition8 for you to get familiar as well as some bullet-point facts for info before the meeting.
A new Free School providing 450 pupil places (including 30 place nursery)
A new Sixth Form Academy providing expanded teaching space for CoLA and easing pressure on existing facilities at [address]
The formation of links with [organisation], extending their work with youth groups and vulnerable/disadvantaged individuals towards the south of the Borough
Increased employment— ie circa 60 full-time jobs as part of all of the above versus no more than ten were the land to retain its 'Industrial' use class
The creation of 160 new homes, mostly 2 & 3 bed units, responding to the need for family homes
The creation of new community facilities, especially the Multi-Use Games Area which can be made available to local residents and community groups
Attached is also map of parliamentary estate. The meeting will take place in room W4 just off Westminster Hall. Please come through the Cromwell Green entrance (visitors entrance), number 6 at the attached map. Go down the ramp and you will be directed into the Westminster Hall. The W4 room is on the right side of the hall. Visitors’ services will direct you.
8 Not included in the written evidence
46 Simon Hughes written evidence
Please allow about 15 minutes to go through security and do let me know if there are any problems.
1 November 2012
19. Letter to Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats from the Commissioner, 21 May 2013
I am writing to ask for any help you can give me on an inquiry I am conducting into the possible failure by Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP to register and declare certain donations to his constituency party.
In essence, the complaint into which I am inquiring is: that Mr Hughes failed to register, in accordance with the rules of the House, donations made to his constituency party by four named companies; that he failed to declare these financial interests in the House and in meetings with other public office holders contrary to the rules of the House; and that he arranged a meeting with public office holders that amounted to lobbying. I am seeking your help in your capacity as Chair of the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, to whom these donations were made.
I attach a note which sets out the procedure I follow. I will make your response to this letter available to Mr Hughes during the course of my inquiry, and, in due course, it will either be published on my web pages or as part of the evidence submitted to the Committee on Standards along with its report. In any published document I will refer to your role as Chair of the local party, but I will not publish your name and address.
The first question I have to consider is whether six donations made to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats were “linked” to Mr Hughes and therefore required him to record them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Guide to the Rules provides the following guidance on whether a donation should be regarded as “linked” to a Member in this way:
“ 30. … For the purposes of the Register of Members' Financial Interests, support should be regarded as "linked" directly to a Member's candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member by name, eg if it is a contribution to the Member's fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate. Financial contributions to constituency associations, parties or area associations, etc, which are not linked to a Member's candidacy or membership of the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or Member, and the candidate or Member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered on the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
...
32. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of what might be considered 'linked' to an individual, and, as always, Members who are in any doubt should consult the Registrar.12 They are also reminded that the requirement to register covers only donations of which they are aware or might reasonably be expected to be aware. Registration by the Member is additional to any registration required of the local organisation.
[footnote] 12 Members might, in this context, ask themselves such questions as 'Did I write to or meet the donor asking for a contribution?' 'Was a letter sent out headed 'Campaign to [Re-] Elect [name]', 'Was I the guest of honour at a dinner where donations were sought?' and 'Have I a particular relationship to the donor which would not be the case in respect of another candidate?'. If the answer to any of these is 'Yes', then the presumption should be in favour of registration.”
The donations in question are as follows:
Donations from IPA consulting
£11,000 received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 11 December 2007, on the same day as the local party made a donation of the same amount to Mr Hughes;
£6,000 received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 31 March 2008;
Simon Hughes written evidence 47
£2,000 received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 5 July 2010.
Donation from City Cruises
£3,300, in the form of advertising, received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 2 December 2009.
Donation from Southwark Metals
£5,000 received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 16 April 2012.
Donation from Westminster Waste
£5,000 presumably received by Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats in April 2012, but not reported at the time.
Information required
I would be most grateful for any evidence which you or the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats might have which is relevant to whether these donations were “linked” to Mr Hughes as set out in the Guide to the Rules above. In particular, it would be helpful to know the following:
1. Do you have any recollection or record of Mr Hughes’ having encouraged any of the above donations in any way, or of any other “link” between him and the donations within the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules? If so it would be helpful if you could let me know what you recall and if you could also provide copies of any relevant documents such as emails, letters or memos.
2. The Electoral Commission’s records (copy attached) show that the £3,300 donation from City Cruises in December 2009 was received in the form of advertising. Could you please let me know what the advertising was for? Was it for example to support the re-election of a particular candidate, and if so whom?
3. I understand from Mr Hughes that the £10,000 reported as received from Southwark Metals was in fact a mistake. The party should have reported £5,000 from Southwark Metals and £5,000 from Westminster Waste. If so, this error by the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but since it is relevant to whether Mr Hughes should himself have registered the two donations of £5,000, I would be grateful if you would send me copies of your correspondence with the Electoral Commission about the error. It would also be useful to know, if not explained in this correspondence:
a) The date on which the donation from Westminster Waste was received (if it was not 16 April 2012); the date on which it was accepted, and the date on which it was reported to the Electoral Commission;
b) How this error occurred and how it was identified;
c) Whether either donor indicated the use to which they wished their donation to be put, and how the two donations were in fact used.
d) I would be grateful if you would supply copies of those annual accounts for the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats (or its predecessor organisation) which are not available on the Electoral Commission’s website: that is, the accounts for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012. I understand that they do not give details of expenditure, but they would nevertheless provide me with useful background information.
48 Simon Hughes written evidence
Finally, I would be grateful if you would regard this letter as confidential. You should not disclose it to anyone else, except so far as is needed in order to obtain the information requested.
It would be very helpful indeed if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks— that is, by 4 June. If you need a little longer, or would like to discuss the process, please contact me at the House.
21 May 2013
20. Letter to the Commissioner from Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, 21 June 2013
Thank you for your letter of 21st May addressed to [name of former Party Chair]. I apologise for the delay in responding but the letter had to be passed to me and I have had to make some enquiries. All local party officers work in a voluntary capacity. With reference to your point about showing your letter to other people we have had to consult our Party’s Compliance Department as they are the ones who actually deal with the Electoral Commission on these matters not individual Local Parties.
In answer to your questions:
Q 1 Do you have any recollection or record of Mr Hughes having encouraged any of the above donations in any way, or of any other “link” between him and the donations within the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules? If so it would be helpful if you could let me know what you recall and if you could also provide copies of any relevant documents such as emails, letters or memos.
I became Chair of the local party at the end of 2011 so would not have recollection of most of the donations which you refer to. However, we have always operated as a team and donations come into the local party because donors support the work of Simon, local councillors and local campaigners. It is generally impossible to distinguish specific “links” as we all work together and our party political campaigns reflect this. The local MP is normally the figurehead for a local constituency party. We do now see that Simon should have declared the donations on his register of interests as well as the local party declarations which we did do. We were not seeking to hide any of these donations, as the local party did declare them, but in hindsight we realise that these should have been declared in two places.
Q 2 The Electoral Commission’s records (copy attached) show that the £3,300 donation from City Cruises was received in the form of advertising. Could you please let me know what the advertising was for? Was it for example to support the re-election of a particular candidate, and if so whom?
The donation was in the form of Christmas cards and had the City Cruises logo on the back with a 2 for 1 offer if customers took the card with them when going for a cruise. The Christmas card was from Simon and the Southwark Liberal Democrats.
Q 3 I understand from Mr Hughes that the £10,000 reported as received from Southwark Metals was in fact a mistake. The party should have reported £5,000 from Southwark Metals and £5,000 from Westminster Waste. If so, this error by the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but since it is relevant to whether Mr Hughes should himself have registered the two donations of £5,000, I would be grateful if you would send me copies of your correspondence with the Electoral Commission about the error.
Local Parties do not communicate directly with the Electoral Commission as this is a matter for the Registered Treasurer of the Federal Party. However, I am told that the Electoral Commission is aware there is an error, but that this hasn’t been formally reported yet as reports from the Federal Party to the Electoral Commission are done every three months and the next one is not due until July.
3a) It would also be useful to know the date on which the donation was received (if this was not 16 April 2012); the date on which is was accepted, and the date on which it was reported to the Electoral Commission;
Simon Hughes written evidence 49
The two cheques were received and accepted a few days before the 16th April. A £10,000 donation was reported to the Liberal Democrats on 6th June 2012 on the form for April and May donation declarations. The Federal Party would have reported it on their July return last year.
3b) How this error occurred and how it was identified;
The two cheques came from the same person within a couple of days of each other and so were accidentally entered incorrectly into the local party’s records as a single £10,000 from Southwark Metals. The error was noticed when looking again at the paying in slips.
3c) Whether either donor indicated the use to which they wished their donation to be put, and how the two donations were in fact used.
My understanding was that Simon had suggested the money should be used for interns and towards the London elections campaign in Southwark. However, once funds are in the local party account they are not ring-fenced and go towards whatever the next budget priority may be. There are many outgoings from the local party account so it is impossible to say what a specific donation is used for unless it directly pays a specific bill (such as directly to a printer of Christmas cards).
3d) I would be grateful if you would supply copies of those annual accounts for the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats which are not available on the Electoral Commission’s website (2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012).
Our annual accounts are produced according to the Guidance laid down by the Electoral Commission. This guidance does not require any specific detail to be set out about any particular donations or how they are used. Therefore I do not see what help supplying these documents would be in assisting you with enquiries relevant to the Members Register of Interests. Our Federal Party Compliance Department have never encountered such a request before and do not understand what use the documents would be to you in looking to this matter either.
I hope that these responses are helpful. I appreciate that we have made an error in not ensuring Simon also reported the donations as well an error with the Westminster Waste donation. However, I assure you that we do try very hard to declare everything properly. We will, in future, make sure that we declare all donations to the local party on Simon’s register of interests as well.
21 June 2013
21. Agreed Note of Interview with Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP, 15 July 2013
Present:
Kathryn Hudson (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) (KH) Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP (SH) Former Head of Office to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP (HoO) Notetaker
KH Thank you for coming in, and thank you also for your correspondence. This is [name]. She will take a note of our discussion and show it to you, so that you can you can comment on it.
There are two things I would like to cover in this meeting. I’d like us to agree your evidence about the registration and declaration of these donations, so that I can seek the advice of the Registrar. And I would like to discuss with you further the meeting that forms part of this complaint.
50 Simon Hughes written evidence
Company A
KH The first question is: are you content with this summary? In particular, are you happy with new paragraph 3?
SH Yes, that’s fine.
KH The next question is: why were we not aware earlier in this inquiry that you had had regular meetings with the director of this company?
SH I was seeking to use the wording of the rules, whatever the phraseology is—“directly or indirectly encouraged”—rather than giving you all the details of who these individuals were. When you asked me for more information, I answered the specific questions you asked.
There are two themes in this inquiry. One is that everything was declared on the Electoral Commission website, and I believed that that was sufficient, although I understand now that it wasn’t. The second is that I had been the MP for a long time, the Liberal Democrats ran the council, there’s the GLA as well. Many of the dealings we had with donors were not about me, they were as much about the council, in fact the council may have mattered more to them. But I accept that the fact that I was the MP may have influenced them. In this case, the director of the company saw another local party officer more often, often about council business. I’d like to make clear that we’re talking about a series of meetings, I wasn’t at a lot of them. There was no attempt at all not to be specific.
KH So you would have met this director at a variety of meetings and events, and at some of them you might have discussed donations?
SH The meetings weren’t set up for us to ask for money, and they weren’t set up by him in order to give us money. It wasn’t always me at the meetings—sometimes it was councillors or local party officers. He was a businessman operating locally. Sometimes he would say that he wanted to help, which was very generous. I wouldn’t always know when the donations came in, I would be told later. He did offer to help with my leadership campaign, and before the 2010 general election he said “we’d like to help”.
KH Can I just check that you’re happy with paragraph 3?
SH Yes, that’s fine. On paragraph 7: my understanding is that a donation that my local party makes to me isn’t registrable. I said earlier that I took a broad view, that I should have thought that donations to my local party might always be linked to me. I believe that it was in my original letter to you I “put my hands up” to not declaring the donation I had received from my party. But the declaration I should have made was the donation from this company to my party.
KH The Registrar will give a view on that question in due course.
SH Just to be clear, it absolutely wasn’t a set of formal meetings where I would go along and ask for money.
KH Is there anything that you would like to add to this summary of your evidence about Company A?
SH There are two things I’d like to raise. The first is that the original complaint was about four donations, starting in 2007. I’ve already raised in correspondence the question of how far back you want to go. The earlier donations weren’t matters complained about. Of course, at the end of the day it is for your judgment, but they weren’t complained about. I would have hoped that you would say that it was your job just to look at the complaint.
KH I’m happy to look at that again.
SH The second thing is that all of this began without any approach from the complainant.
KH There is an expectation that Members will tell other Members if they complain about them, but not other complainants—and it doesn’t always happen.
Simon Hughes written evidence 51
SH This is clearly as much a political complaint as it is a personal one. There was a previous occasion on which the press was notified that a complaint had been made against me, and I heard about it from the press—and then nothing more happened.
This complaint came in the context of a hotly contested local election—in fact it was on the front page of the local paper the week before the election took place.
HoO In fact the paper was told that the complaint had been made before its print deadline, but the complaint wasn’t actually received by your office until after the print deadline.
KH I note the timing. In relation to Company A, are you happy that this summary is now ready for me to consult the Registrar?
SH I hope you will take away the question of whether to look at the two earlier donations.
KH I have said that I will look at that again.
Company B
KH Are you content with this summary of your evidence, with the amendments?
SH Yes, that’s fine.
KH Can you explain to me why there has been a significant change in your evidence in the course of this inquiry? You originally said that the donation wasn’t linked to you, but your evidence now is that you did directly solicit the donation. Is that correct?
SH No, there doesn’t appear to be anything contradictory...There’s been one donation since 2006, that’s in paragraph 1. We led the council at the time, we were looking to retain control, the donation was linked to that. But I should have understood that, under the general premise, it could have been linked to me because I was the MP. So that’s the 22 January statement, the donation was not to me, that’s correct.
KH But you move from “might have been linked” to “directly or indirectly” to “directly encouraged”.
SH Well, that’s because the issue wasn’t that I didn’t speak to the people from the firm—I did—my understanding was that it was a question of whether the donations were linked to me. Their interest was in the council elections. The link was me as the senior Liberal Democrat locally, that’s why I was there. I was using the phrases in the rules.
KH In fact, you had a meeting in which you asked if they would fund the Christmas cards.
SH Yes, we did have a meeting, and one of the things that came up, among others, was the Christmas cards.
KH And this was the result of a direct request from you?
SH Yes, it came from a direct request from me. I mean, that was unarguably the case—but it wasn’t a request for me personally.
KH Why wasn’t this in your evidence at an earlier stage?
SH I was, in all cases, trying to use the wording from the rules. I think I’ve done it in relation to all the other companies as well. I’m clear that, from the beginning, there was a meeting, at the meeting the subject of them placing an advert in the cards came up, and as a result, directly or indirectly, they gave my local party some money.
KH Do we now have a final summary of your evidence about Company B?
SH Yes.
52 Simon Hughes written evidence
Company C
KH Now we come to Company C. There seems to have been a bit of confusion here: we started out thinking there had been a donation of £10,000, but actually it turns out to have been £5,000.
SH I was told it was £10,000. But as a result of some checks that were done because of this inquiry, we found that it was two donations of £5,000.
KH How did this mistake happen?
SH My understanding is that the cheques came in on the same day, they were both sent from Southwark Metals.
KH Were they both Southwark Metals cheques?
SH No, they weren’t. I mean, I haven’t seen the cheques. But apparently there was one cheque from Southwark Metals and one from Westminster Waste. My understanding was that there was a call from Southwark Metals, who said that they had something for us to collect, or that they would drop it off, and in the end what arrived from them was two cheques. I assume they came in the same envelope, I don’t know, but it was only later when people went over this again that they realised what had happened.
KH Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this account seem to contradict each other. Which is correct?
SH I don’t think they do—I sent you the letter. It was written after [the director of Southwark Metals] indicated he would like to make a donation. I said, “Look, we’ve got the London elections coming up”. Separately, we had been talking in the office about having an intern—except we’re moving away from calling them interns now, aren’t we? I put both in the letter. It was left open to the party to how they wished to use it—it wasn’t specified. There was no letter with the cheques or anything.
KH So paragraph 4 is not correct?
SH Yes, we could merge the paragraphs [see amended evidence].
KH Apart from that, are you happy with this summary?
SH Yes.
KH Why did you not tell me at an early stage that this donation came in response to a letter you had written?
SH I didn’t realise you needed that level of detail. I wasn’t suggesting that the donation wouldn’t have been made if I hadn’t been the MP—but when you asked me the question, I went through the files.
KH Thank you – that helps me to understand.
SH I had imagined this inquiry would be brief. I put my hands up and said “I’m really sorry”. All these cases are similar, in all the cases the local party had made the declaration to the Electoral Commission. I thought that would be sufficient, I should have realised that I needed to register them. I’ve never denied that I should have registered.
KH The question now is, do I have all the evidence?
SH I realise now that double-registering would have been the right thing to do. That’s now being done routinely, by [the new Head of Office].
KH Are you content with this summary of the evidence?
SH Yes, I am.
Simon Hughes written evidence 53
Company D
KH Now we come to Company D, Westminster Waste...
SH ...which wasn’t part of the original inquiry.
KH But that was only because it was hidden in with the £10,000 donation. There are a few things I need to ask about this. Could you tell me what you mean when you say that the donation was given “apparently at the request of [name]”?
SH I don’t know what the process was between Westminster Waste and Southwark Metals—I don’t know who signed the cheques.
KH Might your local party have kept a copy of the cheque? If they came from the same person, it would make the mistake understandable. Could we check?
SH Yes—the evidence from my constituency party Chair says that they came from the same person.
KH We will write back to your local party Chair and ask for that information. We do need to go back and find out who signed the cheques.
SH Just to clarify, this is the donation I have registered with the Registrar. As soon as I became aware of this, I wrote to register it.
One point on paragraph 6: when I gave you the list of people who were at the meeting, one of the people on that list was [the director of Westminster Waste]. [see amended evidence]
KH So you weren’t aware...?
SH I wasn’t aware they were linked. At the meeting I had with [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], he brought him along. He said that he was a business neighbour. So I had met him at that meeting before I wrote the letter to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]. But I wasn’t aware of any link, other than that they were in the same business and were based next to each other. The initial contact was with [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd].
KH But in your letter to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], you ask about his experience with apprentices at Westminster Waste.
SH It had come up at the meeting with [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] at which [the director of Westminster Waste] was present. They were both at the meeting.
KH And the letter followed the meeting?
SH Yes, we had the meeting, and then I wrote. I assumed they were entirely separate companies. It was only when this inquiry prompted me to ask that I discovered that [the director of Southwark Metals] was the joint owner—I didn’t know that before. We’ve never had any dealings with Westminster Waste, have we … ]?
HoO No.
KH According to the Annual Return to Companies House, neither [the director of Southwark Metals] nor [the director of Westminster Waste] is a shareholder in Westminster Waste. That’s as at December 2012. When did he tell you that he was the joint owner?
SH Just recently when I rang him to ask!
KH So perhaps he has become the joint owner since the Annual Return?
SH Yes, perhaps.
KH Why did this donation only come to light so late in my inquiry?
54 Simon Hughes written evidence
SH The donation—that is, the sum—was registered with the Electoral Commission. It happened, unbeknown to me, that it was registered as a single donation from Southwark Metals, when in fact it was two donations.
KH But the connection was [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], and we don’t know what he did.
SH My dealings were with him—I never wrote to [the director of Westminster Waste Ltd]. When I heard that we’d had the donation I rang to thank [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], I would have said “I gather you’ve made a contribution”, he didn’t say there had also been a donation from Westminster Waste. I had no knowledge of that earlier.
KH We will amend this summary of the evidence. Is there anything you’d like to add?
SH Only to say that Company D is very much tangential to all of this.
Meeting of 6 November 2012
KH Turning to the meeting: it’s taken us quite some time to get to where we are with this evidence.
SH I’ve always sought to give the least involved answers I could, and only responded in more detail when you asked specific questions. If it appears otherwise, it’s only because, at the beginning, I thought my “mea culpa” would suffice. I’m very happy to answer questions.
KH Could you tell me the story of this meeting? How did it come about?
SH Let me put it in context. I’ve been an MP for a long time, thirty years—I’ve sent you a list of some people I’ve set up meetings for. I have regular meetings with local businesses at their request. I facilitate meetings with councillors, MPs, both. It’s completely routine MP’s business, in my book. In all the other cases, there were no financial issues. It’s an absolutely common process. When the request came in this case, it came from Southwark Metals initially, and then from the architect I mentioned.
KH Did the architect approach you on behalf of Southwark Metals?
SH No, he came of his own accord. I’ve known him for years, he works locally, he’s done a lot of work for the local authority. It was [another contact] who originally said to me “Please will you meet [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]?”. He said he wanted some advice and guidance, and I advised him that we should make some inquiries of the council.
KH So there’s a connection with [personal information]?
SH No, [the contact] is a friend of mine—he wouldn’t have known about constituency boundaries. He just said that he knew a local businessman who wanted to have a word with me, he wanted to find out about planning conditions. I said to him, “Let me write some letters, and we’ll take it from there”. So I wrote for information about planning conditions to the relevant council officers—as I do every week. The only unusual thing in this case was that the site wasn’t in my constituency. The other side of the road is in my constituency, and the site was in my constituency from 1983 until 2010, then it moved into the Camberwell and Peckham constituency, but I continued to be involved with it. One of the buildings has been occupied without planning permission since the election, and my constituents have complained about it. It’s been occupied without planning permission by a church, and I’ve been taking up the noise issues on behalf of my constituents.
KH How big is the site? What’s on it?
SH It’d stretch from here to the Palace of Westminster. It’s about the size of Victoria Tower Gardens. It’s not quite rectangular—it’s sort of coffin-shaped, I suppose. It has a variety of activities on it: there’s a building, the one that’s been occupied without planning permission by the church. There’s a Westminster Waste use, that’s [names]’s company—they’re tenants or licensees or something. And there’s a Southwark Metals site there. This is just my recollection—I’ve only been there once, I think.
KH So it wasn’t in your constituency, but you had a bit of an interest in it.
Simon Hughes written evidence 55
SH It was until 2010, and yes, I had an ongoing interest, and I kept an interest in it because of the concerns of its neighbours, who are my constituents. And I took an interest in May 2011, when I wrote to ask about the planning conditions. The council officer was dilatory in replying, which was unusual, and in the meantime I had a note from [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] saying that he’d made a planning application. My head of office asked the leader of the Liberal Democrat group to chase the reply, but we’d still had no response by November. So I wrote again on 2 November, and at last we got a reply, from a different council officer. And eventually that led to a prosecution.
KH How did [the director of Southwark Metals] come to make a planning application—was he the owner of the land?
SH I don’t know. You can make a planning application even if you don’t own the land. I had no continuing involvement with his application, but because he’d come to see me I knew he had an interest in the land, either prospective or actual. To be honest, I never asked those questions.
KH So you wrote to the council in May, and chased them for a response in November, and that was that?
SH Yes. When it came up to April 2012, we were thinking about who we could ask for help with our funds ahead of the Mayoral elections and the GLA elections. The person at the top of the Liberal Democrat list—as you may know, it’s a proportional representation system—was Caroline Pidgeon, who’s been a friend and a Southwark councillor for a number of years, and of course Brian Paddick was standing as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor. As it happens, we’d had a conversation about funding, and that precipitated the letter [to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]. There was no meeting after that. Within a week of my sending that letter, and entirely unrelatedly, the architect, [name], e-mailed me to propose a general meeting to move this forward. [The architect] and I know each other very well, and he has regularly asked me to help to get everyone together on an issue, to get everyone round the table. I then said I was happy to facilitate the meeting—the only unusual thing about it was that it was cross-boundary. And then there was the political divide: one Liberal Democrat MP and three Lib Dem councillors on one side of the road, and on the other side a Labour MP and three Labour councillors. At all times everything was done equally, there was no differentiation.
As it happened, I had made clear to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] that this wasn’t a development of which I was instinctively supportive. It involved a free school, and I’ve made my views about those quite clear. I think there are other ways of expanding school provision in the borough...I made clear that my agreement to facilitating a meeting should not be taken as support for the project.
KH So what was the idea behind the meeting?
SH Well, [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] had asked me, “What’s the best way of presenting this?”, because the issues weren’t just about planning, it was wider than that. So I said that we might as well get everyone round the table. There had already been a community consultation...
KH And had you been involved in that?
SH I went along to half of one of the meetings. I go to that sort of thing regularly, local consultation meetings.
HoO Simon had no role in organising these meetings. He went along as a citizen resident, if you like.
SH The only thing I did was to see if we could convene a meeting for the relevant politicians.
KH And you held the meeting in Westminster Hall?
SH Yes, in one of the W rooms—it was convenient, because the House was sitting. It would have been convenient for Harriet, if she was going to come. The Southwark MPs meet regularly—Harriet and Tessa and me—and we always meet here in Westminster. Sometimes we go to meetings together. It was logical to have it here, when the House was sitting. [My acting diary secretary] invited the MPs, the two party leaders on the council, and the local councillors. In the end, the people who came were the people who were concerned with the development.
56 Simon Hughes written evidence
KH It was quite a big group.
SH Bigger than I had expected, yes.
KH But it was your meeting?
SH I facilitated it. [The director of Southwark Metals] and Southwark Metals had asked for the meeting, and he brought with him whoever he thought fit. My job was to get the local politicians there, although in the end Harriet didn’t come. Someone from her office came, and one Labour councillor, and one Lib Dem councillor. Perhaps the location was more convenient for the MPs than it was for the councillors.
KH But Harriet Harman didn’t come. Did you discuss it with her at all?
SH No, I never discussed it with her. After this complaint was made, she approached me—in fact, she’d seen it in the paper. She said that she was sorry that this meeting had turned into this issue—and I believe she said she hadn’t known about the complaint.
I convened the meeting. I literally introduced people for a minute or two, and explained that we were simply there so that people could present the project. I’ve always been clear that I don’t get involved with planning issues, unless they’re to do with listed buildings or conservation areas or on appeal. That’s for councillors, and not for me as an MP—they’ve been elected to do that job.
KH Were any of the councillors on the planning committee?
SH I don’t think so, but I would have to check that formally for you. I made clear that the site wasn’t in my constituency, but my constituency was affected by it. So I had two reasons of principle for not supporting the development. I made all that clear before the meeting. I introduced the meeting, it lasted for an hour— maybe less than that. I don’t think I said anything other than to get people to introduce themselves and then to close the meeting. I never thought that there was anything different from any other meeting I’m asked to facilitate—I’d just been asked to break the log jam.
KH Did you think that this meeting might be different, because of the donation you had received?
SH I’ll be honest: because I had seen it as a routine process, one that had started 19 months earlier and a year before the donation, it never crossed my mind that it was anything other than routine. That bell did not ring. Because I’ve never, in the 30 years since I came to Parliament, I’ve never promoted something I’ve been asked to promote, or lobbied, on behalf of anyone by whom I’d been paid. The only reason this wasn’t routine was because it wasn’t in my constituency, although it affected my constituency
There is a subsidiary point here about influencing Ministers or servants of the Crown. Harriet is an MP, of course, but I never talked to her, or wrote to her, or tried to influence her about this. There was no request through her office for any action before or after the meeting. The others were not Ministers or servants of the Crown: they were councillors. [name], a Labour councillor, had been at the previous community consultation meeting—he was the Labour cabinet member. Councillor [name] was already aware of the issue, she looks after this across the borough, so issues to do with local schools are coming across her agenda all the time.
Any thought of lobbying was a million miles from my mind. And no one who was watching, who was a fly on the wall of the meeting, would have seen anything untoward.
KH Have you had any discussions with [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] since that meeting?
SH No.9
KH Do you know what happened to the planning application?
SH It’s just recently been turned down!
9 In commenting on this note, Mr Hughes added the following clarification: “No, other than to alert him to the complaint, and then to ask him about his involvement with Westminster Waste, following your enquiry. Other than that, I have talked to him only twice after the meeting, on both occasions about entirely unrelated matters.”
Simon Hughes written evidence 57
The whole purpose of the meeting was to get this issue off my desk and over to councillors—it was for them to look at it. [The director of Southwark Metals] had come to me, through [a contact], and I explained I couldn’t get involved, because MPs don’t as a rule get involved in planning applications, and I certainly do not. I’d only be involved if there was an appeal to the national inspector, and then I might take it up—but in this case, that would be for Harriet Harman, anyway. So I took no further interest in it, I didn’t talk to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] about it. Entirely separately, he came to see me about another site, this time in my constituency. He came to ask me “What would the neighbours think about this?”. We had one further meeting, but it didn’t go any further.
KH Is there anything you’d like to add at this point?
SH I hope I’ve conveyed the fact that I am shocked and horrified that anyone might have thought I might be guilty of lobbying. After it appeared in the local paper, I had lots of unsolicited comments, people saying to me, “Of all the people who might be accused of lobbying, I would never have thought of you.” I’m shocked and appalled. I can only conclude that my political opponent upgraded his complaint as much as he could. I was pleased that some of his allegations were dismissed. It’s a complete invention: the evidence is clear that there wasn’t a scintilla of lobbying. All I did was facilitate a meeting. I played a very small role.
KH What did you know about the relationships between the companies who were represented at the meeting?
SH I take a very simple view: I had an approach from an individual who runs a local business. At the request of a friend I gave him some advice. I never inquired further—I assumed it was his business. Later I came to discover that he operated more than one site.
I knew nothing about Westminster Waste until I was introduced to them and they explained they were on the same site.
KH What about SCCD Developments?
SH I knew nothing about them, other than that they appeared at the meeting. It hadn’t crossed my mind that there was a separate development company. I saw it as a Southwark Metals initiative. [name] just came to the meeting with his people.
I only asked questions when you asked me the questions—I hadn’t spoken to [name] about it before. I said I’d been asked, and he gave me the answer I gave you.
KH I will send you a note of this meeting, and the evidence we have agreed, so that you can check it. Then we will have your full and final evidence. Is there anything else?
SH Only to say that we certainly never had calls from [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] pressing us to do things. [Head of Office], you would have known about that, wouldn’t you? You’d’ve taken the calls.
HoO We never had anything like that, no.
The only point I’d like to make is that, in the years I spent working for Simon, the thing that he does that perhaps other politicians don’t always do is that he always tries to get everyone round the table—he’s a very inclusive politician. So this was very much in character.
KH It was in keeping?
HoO Yes, yes. It may seem a bit informal at times, but that’s his style of doing things.
SH People go to their MP for everything, but we have MEPs, local councillors, it’s their job to do things too. So we spend a lot of our time pointing people in the right direction, to get things dealt with by the right people. We attempt to get people to understand that some things are issues for the council.
Just to be clear, although you haven’t raised this, I accept that there were two occasions of non-declaration. On the first, City Cruises, I said what a good firm they were. But it was in a debate about development along the river—that’s not a business they do. I was simply praying them in aid to endorse the idea that it would be good
58 Simon Hughes written evidence
if there were somewhere on the river where people could go to have repairs done, and it would create apprenticeships, give opportunities for people to acquire skills. They were interested in this as much because [one of the company’s directors] used to chair one of the London business groups, so the company has always had a wider interest—it’s not self-interest. There was no direct link with their firm.
In relation to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] reference, I simply reported what he had said to me on the issue of scrap metal theft. This issue came across my desk because a statue of one of my predecessors was stolen, and it was a big issue for my constituents, not because of [the director]. It seemed sensible to take the view of someone who was in the business, although as it turned out his view was not my view.
HoO In fact it was my view—I’d been putting that view to Simon before I even knew who [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd] was. I was arguing that case to Simon, because I didn’t think that an industry should be banned from using a form of legal tender. So Simon was speaking against the advice he’d had.
SH I bring this up just to make the point: far from lobbying to promote his views, I actually said that this was his view, but that it was not my view.
HoO We went to meet the Minister about this, and you did not argue that view.
KH Is there anything else?
SH The reason I haven’t sought to late register these donations is that I thought that it was inappropriate to do so once your inquiry was underway. Had there been no inquiry, and this had been brought to my attention, I would have registered them. I accept that I should have registered them. But they were already in the public domain, through the Electoral Commission.
KH Yes, and we also have your apologies.
SH We now have a really strict system: everything that comes in to the local party, we assume that it might be indirectly linked to me, and we register it.
15 July 2013
22. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 18 July 2013
I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received concerning Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP and the registration and declaration of his financial interests.
In essence, the complaints on which I am seeking your advice are that Mr Hughes failed to register donations to his constituency party received from four named companies despite the links he had with the donors and that he failed to declare two of these financial interests in the House.
I enclose the relevant correspondence, together with two appendices. Appendix A lists the donations which are relevant to my inquiry. Appendix B is a summary of the evidence Mr Hughes has provided.
I would welcome your advice on this matter. In particular, please could you let me know:
1. whether, under the rules of the House in relation to the registration of Members’ financial interests, you consider that Mr Hughes should have registered the four donations from IPA Consulting (Company A) and the donations from City Cruises (Company B), Southwark Metals (Company C), and Westminster Waste (Company D);
2. whether, under the rules of the House in relation to the declaration of interests, you consider that Mr Hughes should have declared in debate on 22 October 2009 the donation his local party had received from City Cruises; whether he should have declared in debate on 11 September 2012 the donation his local party had received from Southwark Metals and whether he should have declared the donation from Southwark Metals when inviting Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP to a meeting which took place on 6 November 2012;
Simon Hughes written evidence 59
3. what advice, if any, you have given to Mr Hughes about the registration and/or declaration of any of these donations.
Any other comments you may wish to make would be most welcome.
It would be very helpful to have your response to this letter by 5 August. Thank you for your assistance.
18 July 2013
23. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 18 July 2013
I enclose a copy of the note of our meeting and copies of the amended summary of your evidence which we agreed. Please let me know if you have any comments to make on any of this material.
I said that I would write to you again about the scope of my inquiry. As far as the donation of £5,000 from Company D is concerned, I consider that this forms part of the £10,000 donation which was included in the original complaint. It is therefore part of the complaint which my predecessor accepted.
You also asked about the donation of £5,000 from Company A which was received by your local party on 30 September 2006. In your letter to me of 4 January, you told me about the donations that this company had made to you and to your local party from 2006 onwards and about the donations you had registered in that time. In reconciling this information with the records published by the Electoral Commission, it was not clear to me which of the two donations received in 2006 was the donation you had registered on 8 November 2006. Having become aware in this way that one of these donations had not been registered, I consider that I do need to inquire into whether you should have registered it. I do not believe that I should leave this matter unresolved.
I have written to the Chair of your local party to ask for some more information about the cheques received from Company C and Company D, as we discussed. I will now write to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests to seek her advice on this complaint. You will of course have a chance to comment on the responses I receive.
It would be very helpful if you could respond to this letter by 5 August, but please let me know if this will be difficult for you.
18 July 2013
24. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 5 August 2013
Thank you for your letter of 18 July. I shall respond to your questions in the order in which they are listed.
1. Under the rules of the House, should Mr Hughes have registered the following:
a) the four donations from IPA Consulting (Company A) b) the donation from City Cruises (Company B) c) the donation from Southwark Metals (Company C), and d) the donation from Westminster Waste (Company D)?
I think this question is best answered by telling you what advice I believe we would have given Mr Hughes at the time, if we had been consulted.
a) Mr Hughes says he believes that he “directly or indirectly orally encouraged” a £11,000 donation of 11 December 2007 from IPA Consulting to his local party. Following this donation his party immediately made a donation to him of £11,000.
Mr Hughes considers that it was a “clear mistake” not to have registered this donation to his party, for which he has apologized.
60 Simon Hughes written evidence
I agree with Mr Hughes that this donation required registration. If we had had the above information in 2007, I would have advised that this donation to Mr Hughes’ local party appeared to be “linked” to him in the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules, and that he should therefore have registered it under Category 4(a) of the Register. (Category 4(a) is defined as follows: "Any donation received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations, which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House.)
We would not have advised Mr Hughes to register the donation from the party organization to him. As I explain below, we advised Mr Hughes in early 2008 that donations which a Member receives from his or her own party are not registrable.
Given the time that has elapsed, it is understandable that Mr Hughes’ recollections of the circumstances surrounding the remaining three donations from IPA Consulting are unclear. On the basis of the information he has given, I am unable to say what would have been our advice. It is for the Member concerned to decide whether a particular donation to a local party organization is “linked” to him or her and therefore requires registration. Had Mr Hughes approached us for advice at the time and on the basis of the information attached to your letter, it is likely that we would have probed further in order to help him to reach a decision.
b) Mr Hughes has said that he believes that he “directly and orally encouraged” the donation to his local party from City Cruises (Company B) at one meeting which took place at his request some time before the donation was made. The donation took the form of sponsorship of local Christmas cards from himself and his local party organization. Mr Hughes also says that he believes that the donation was “linked” to him and should have been registered, and he has apologized for the omission. I agree; if we had had the above information at the time when the donation was made, we would have advised that it appeared to be “linked” to Mr Hughes in the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules, and should therefore have been registered under Category 4(a) of the Register.
c) Mr Hughes has said that he believes that the donation which his local party received on 16 April 2012 from Southwark Metals (Company C) was “clearly ‘linked’ to him in a way which required registration”. It followed a written request for support which he had made to [name], the director of Southwark Metals. That request was for support to help the LibDem candidate in the campaign for elections to the GLA, and to help fund one or two interns in Mr Hughes’ office. I agree that since Mr Hughes had encouraged this support, the donation appears to be “linked” to him. It would have been further linked to Mr Hughes if it had been used to fund interns in his office. For these reasons I would have advised registering this support under Category 4(a) of the Register.
d) Mr Hughes has said that he does not believe that the donation which his local party received shortly before 16 April 2012 from Westminster Waste (Company D) was given in response to any letter from him, from his local party, or on behalf of him or his party. But he says that he understands that it followed the request he had made to [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd], who is both a joint owner and shareholder of the company (as well as Director of Company C). On that basis it appears that Mr Hughes encouraged the donation, and it is likely that we would have advised him to register it under Category 4(a) of the Register.
4. Under the rules of the House, should Mr Hughes have declared the following financial interests:
a) the donation his local party had received from City Cruises, in debate on 22 October 2010; b) the donation his local party had received from Southwark Metals, in debate on 11 September 2012;
Simon Hughes written evidence 61
c) the donation from Southwark Metals, when inviting Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP to a meeting which took place on 6 November 2012?
a) Mr Hughes has said that he believes that he should have declared this donation from City Cruises in the debate on 22 October 2010. I agree with this judgement, on the grounds that another person might reasonably have considered the donation to have influenced Mr Hughes’ actions or words when he mentioned in the House the proposal from the owners of City Cruises and invited the Minister to consider it.10
b) Mr Hughes has said that he believes that he should have declared the donation from Southwark Metals in the debate on 11 September 2012. I agree with this judgement, on the grounds that another person might reasonably have considered the donation to have influenced Mr Hughes’ actions or words when he raised in the House [name]’s arguments against requiring cashless payments in the scrap metal industry. This applies even though Mr Hughes said that he himself had a different view.
c) Mr Hughes says that it is not clear to him that he should have declared an interest arising from the Southwark Metals donation when inviting Ms Harman and her staff and councillors to a meeting about the [address] redevelopment, or at that meeting. If asked for advice at the time, however, I would have drawn to his attention paragraph 86 of the Guide to the Rules, which says …
“The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member's parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important. In 1975 the House agreed to the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) which contained these words: “it should be a matter of honour that a financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the House and its Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his fellow Members, whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion, with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation.’”
In view of this it is likely that we would have advised Mr Hughes to declare before and during any discussions about the redevelopment proposals that he had an interest arising from the Southwark Metals donation. I consider also that, if he had known about the Westminster Waste donation at the time, it is likely that we would have given similar advice in relation to the interest arising from that donation.
3. What advice, if any, you have given to Mr Hughes about the registration and/or declaration of any of these donations
I see from our files that on 20 February 2008 Mr Hughes tried to register a donation of £11,000 received on 11 December 2007 from Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats “as a contribution to staff costs”. He was advised, correctly, that there is no requirement to register a donation towards staff costs made by a Member’s own constituency party.
On 26 June 2013 Mr Hughes registered, under Category 4(a), a £5,000 donation to his local party from Westminster Waste. This was the donation which was received shortly before 16 April 2012 and which was by mistake reported to the Electoral Commission as being part of a £10,000 donation from Southwark Metals. When accepting this Register entry, we reminded Mr Hughes of the assumption that if he was registering the donation under Category 4(a), it was “linked” to him as set out in the Guide to the Rules.
I have found no record of any other relevant advice on registering or declaring these interests.
10 The proposal was not in fact from City Cruises but the firm had commented upon it.
62 Simon Hughes written evidence
Mr Hughes has told you that he believes the donation from IPA Consulting which was received on 17 February 2006 was given to support his campaign for leadership of his party. I can confirm that this was the description given in the relevant Register entry, dated 8 November 2006.
There is a slight discrepancy in the details recorded by us and by the Electoral Commission in relation to the donation received by Mr Hughes’ constituency party on 26 February 2009. While the Electoral Commission lists the donor as IPA Consulting, the Register records the donor as Jonathan Fletcher, of IPA Consulting, rather than the company itself. Both of these donations were registered outside the 28 day time limit set by the House.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
5 August 2013
25. Letter to Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats from the Commissioner, 16 July 2013
Thank you very much for your letter of 21 June, in which you responded to my letter of 21 May.
Having carefully considered your response and Mr Hughes’s evidence, I have a few further questions. I would be very pleased if you could tell me:
1. In your letter, you say that both cheques came “from the same person”. Please could you let me know who that person was?
2. Could you also tell me who signed each cheque, and the name of the person or organisation given on the cheque itself?
3. You say that both donations were received and accepted a few days before 16 April 2012. However, the records published by the Electoral Commission, which I enclose, state that the donation from Southwark Metals was received on 16 April 2012 and accepted on 15 May 2012. I would be grateful if you could clarify this for me.
It would be very helpful indeed if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks— that is, by 30 July. Thank you again for your help.
16 July 2013
26. E-mail to the Commissioner from Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, 4 September 2013
Thank you for your further enquiries. I apologise for the delay in replying to you as I have been [personal information].
I am very sorry to say that our local party treasurer so far has been unable to gather the answers to questions 1 and 2. I have double checked and we no longer have the cheques and didn't keep copies. We regularly receive cheques addressed to both Simon Hughes and to Bermondsey & Old Southwark Liberal Democrats. I hope this is sufficient.
With regards to Question 3, having now checked with our Federal Party Compliance Office I must also apologise that I did not realise that the words 'received' and 'accepted' were used in your last enquiry in the way they are defined in the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA). Our Compliance Office has confirmed that the dates given to the Electoral Commission are correct according to the guidance given by the Electoral Commission and that the correction to include Westminster Waste has now been accepted on the latest return as well. It is my understanding that under PPERA, we are accountable to the Electoral Commission via our Registered Federal Party Treasurer for such reporting. Given the Electoral Commission is now satisfied with the explanation given to it of the genuine error that was made by our local Treasurer, in these circumstances I hope this can be an end to the matter.
Simon Hughes written evidence 63
I hope this is acceptable and I apologise again for the delay in responding. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
4 September 2013
27. Letter to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP from the Commissioner, 19 September 2013
When we last spoke, I said that I would send you the factual sections of my draft memorandum to the Committee on Standards on this complaint. I now attach a copy of these. While the content of the memorandum is, of course, a matter for me, I would be grateful to know whether you are content with its actual accuracy.
Subject to your response, I will then prepare my conclusions before submitting the full memorandum to the Committee on Standards. I will let you and the complainant know in confidence when I do so. The Clerk of the Committee will let you have a copy of the full memorandum before the Committee meets and give you an opportunity to respond, and to ask to give oral evidence to the Committee if you so wish.
I look forward to hearing from you. It would be most helpful to have any comments you wish to make within the next two weeks. If there is any difficulty about this or if you would like a word about the process, do please contact me at the House.
19 September 2013