House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges
Alison Seabeck
Twelfth Report of Session 2010–11
Report and Appendix, together with formal minutes
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 1 March 2011
HC 840 Published on 3 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00
The Committee on Standards and Privileges
The Committee on Standards and Privileges 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) Tom Blenkinsop MP (Labour, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test)
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/sandp.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mr Steve Priestley (Clerk), Miss Rhiannon Hollis (Second Clerk) and Ms Jane Cooper (Committee Assistant).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615.
Alison Seabeck 1
Contents
Report Page
Alison Seabeck 3 Introduction 3 The Commissioner’s findings 3 Conclusion and recommendation 6
Appendix: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 8
Formal Minutes 50
Alison Seabeck 3
Alison Seabeck
Introduction 1. In this Report we consider a memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, reporting on his consideration of a complaint made against Alison Seabeck, the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, that she failed to declare an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association when she took part in the debate in the House on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November 2010. The complaint was made by the Member for Hexham, Guy Opperman.
2. The rules of the House require Members to declare indirect interests, including those of a spouse or partner, when they are relevant to the proceeding in which they are taking part.1 Ms Seabeck’s partner is Nick Raynsford, the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. The Commissioner notes that Mr Raynsford had, in the 12 months preceding the debate, a registered financial interest as a non-executive board member of the Fire Protection Association and as Chair of its Advisory Council.2 In that period, Mr Raynsford had also registered financial interests as honorary vice-chairman of the Construction Industry Council and as chairman of the National House-Building Council (NHBC) Foundation.
3. The Commissioner’s memorandum is appended to this Report. In accordance with our established procedures, we supplied Ms Seabeck with a copy of the memorandum and asked if she wished to give evidence to the Committee, orally or in writing. Ms Seabeck did not give evidence.
The Commissioner’s findings 4. Ms Seabeck was appointed the official Opposition spokesperson on housing on 11 October 2010.3 Although she was not the shadow lead on fire issues, Ms Seabeck represented the official Opposition in the debate on 19 November 2010 on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill. Ms Seabeck told the Commissioner that she stood in at the last minute for her front-bench colleague.4
5. The Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill is a private Member’s bill. Its main provision requires landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation.5 Ms Seabeck spoke in the debate and intervened on three occasions. In one intervention, she asked the Minister representing the Government when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association. In another, she expressed her hope that
1 Appendix, paragraphs 7 to 13. The term ‘proceeding’ does not include the asking of a supplementary question. 2 Appendix, paragraph 66 3 Appendix, paragraph 62 4 Appendix, paragraph 63 5 The full text of the Bill is available at www.parliament.uk
4 Alison Seabeck
the Minister would meet the Fire Commission.6 Ms Seabeck did not declare any financial interest either during her speech or in her interventions.7
6. Ms Seabeck told the Commissioner that her reference to the Fire Protection Association and other organisations when first intervening on the Minister had been made on the spur of the moment.8 She judged that no declaration was necessary and she suggested that to have made one might have impeded the business of the House.
7. The Commissioner points out that the rules require Members to declare indirect as well as direct financial interests where the interest is relevant to a debate or other proceeding in the House and that indirect interests specifically include the interests of a spouse or partner.9 He concludes that the fact that Ms Seabeck’s partner is also a Member of Parliament, whose interests are set out in the Register, does not affect the requirement on Ms Seabeck to declare an indirect interest when it is relevant to the proceeding in which she is taking part.10
8. In respect of Mr Raynsford’s registered interests in the NHBC Foundation and the Construction Industry Council, Ms Seabeck told the Commissioner that, while both could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation, in her view the interests of those bodies and of the Fire Protection Association are “extremely peripheral” in relation to the Bill.11
9. It is the view of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests that Ms Seabeck should have declared Mr Raynsford’s financial interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate as an indirect interest at the beginning of her speech, or failing that when she intervened on the Minister. Ms Seabeck does not accept the Registrar’s view.12
10. Ms Seabeck told the Commissioner that she sought advice from the Registrar when she was appointed to her front-bench role.13 She accepts that the advice was that she should consider each debate on its merits and declare her indirect interest as appropriate. Ms Seabeck said that she had no intention of raising anything which she believed to be linked to Mr Raynsford’s registered interests, so the issue of considering whether to make a declaration of interest at the beginning of her speech on the Bill did not arise.
11. The Commissioner agrees with the Registrar that Ms Seabeck should have declared an indirect financial interest during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November.14 In his view, the obligation on Ms Seabeck to do this was “clear and unequivocal”:
6 Appendix, paragraph 64 7 Appendix, paragraph 65 8 Appendix, paragraph 70 9 Appendix, paragraph 75 10 Appendix, paragraph 76 11 Appendix, paragraph 71 12 Appendix, paragraph 68 13 Appendix, paragraph 69 14 Appendix, paragraph 80
Alison Seabeck 5
While every Member needs to make a judgement on whether they have a relevant interest, and whether they can declare it in appropriate terms without impeding proceedings, I do not believe that this was a particularly ‘grey area’, as suggested by Ms Seabeck. Ms Seabeck was aware of her partner’s paid role in the Fire Protection Association. Fire safety is at the core of the Fire Protection Association’s interests. Fire safety is the central purpose of smoke alarms. The Bill would require landlords to provide at least one hard-wired smoke alarm in rented residential accommodation. It is inconceivable that that is not of interest to the members of the Fire Protection Association.15
In the Commissioner’s judgment, Ms Seabeck should have recognised that the Fire Protection Association had a central interest in fire safety which was relevant to the debate on the Bill. He concludes that she was clearly in breach of the rules of the House in not declaring her indirect interest.16
12. On the question of when the interest should have been declared, the Commissioner’s view is that it would have been most appropriate for Ms Seabeck to have declared it at the beginning of the speech she gave from the front bench.17 Failing this, then in the Commissioner’s judgment the specific reference to the Fire Protection Association during her intervention should have prompted Ms Seabeck to make the declaration at that point. The Commissioner does not feel that the limited time available for the debate on 19 November was sufficient reason for her failure to do this.
13. The Commissioner further concludes that Ms Seabeck was also in breach of the rules because she failed on the same occasion to declare her indirect interest in the Construction Industry Council, the members of which might benefit from the Bill.18 But he finds that it was not necessary for Ms Seabeck to declare her indirect interest in the NHBC Foundation, because its interests were not affected by the Bill. Neither of these interests was the subject of the original complaint.
14. In upholding the complaint, and in finding that the further breach of the rules occurred, the Commissioner notes that Ms Seabeck’s breaches “were not at the most serious end of the spectrum.” Nonetheless:
... a Member’s failure to declare a relevant interest is a serious matter, since openness about such matters is important in ensuring that Members are seen to be acting in the public interest.19
The Commissioner gives Ms Seabeck credit for seeking advice from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, but he considers that Ms Seabeck misinterpreted the advice which she accepts that the Registrar gave her. He regards it as equally unfortunate that Ms Seabeck took what he describes as “a narrow view of her obligations to declare indirect interests,” both during the debate last November and during the course of his inquiry.
15 Appendix, paragraph 81 16 Appendix, paragraph 82 17 Appendix, paragraph 83 18 Appendix, paragraph 84 19 Appendix, paragraph 88
6 Alison Seabeck
15. The Commissioner has considered a suggestion made by Ms Seabeck that she should be able to insert cross references to Mr Raynsford’s registered interests in her own Register entry.20 The rules relating to registration are in the form of requirements, which apply equally to all Members. The Commissioner believes that to require Members whose partners also happen to be Members of Parliament to insert cross references to their interests would put an unnecessary obligation on those Members, which would not apply to other Members. And requiring all Members to register the interests of their partners would represent an unjustifiable intrusion into the private life of Members’ partners. The requirement to declare an interest, when it is relevant, would in any case remain.
16. The Commissioner hopes that his inquiry into this complaint will serve as a reminder of the importance of the rule that requires Members to declare any direct or indirect interest which others might reasonably think could influence them in their conduct of their Parliamentary duties.21 He does not see this as an onerous requirement, either on Ms Seabeck or on Members generally.22 Nor does he accept that it should impede unduly the business of the House.
Conclusion and recommendation 17. We agree with the Commissioner’s findings. Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interests in the subject matter of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill when she took part in the debate on the Bill on 19 November 2010. By failing to do so, she was in breach of the rules.
18. Ms Seabeck told the Commissioner that she did not agree with the Registrar’s interpretation of the rules as they apply to this case. She considered her indirect interests in the matter under debate to be “extremely peripheral.” We disagree; Ms Seabeck’s indirect financial interests through her partner’s holding of remunerated office in industry bodies were clearly relevant to the matter before the House.
19. Ms Seabeck was also concerned that to have declared her interests would have unduly impeded the progress of business in the Chamber. We accept that the time available for proceedings on a private Member’s bill can be very limited and that Members may be sensitive to accusations that they are holding up progress on a bill, but we would be gravely concerned were Members to use this as a reason not to declare a relevant interest. Provided that a declaration is sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s financial interest, it may be made swiftly and succinctly. In the case of an indirect interest, it is not usually necessary to name one’s partner or relative. Such a declaration would not, in our judgment, have unduly impeded the business of the House on 19 November 2010.
20. Although we agree with the Commissioner that Ms Seabeck’s failure to declare her indirect interests was not at the most serious end of the spectrum, like him we take seriously any breach of the rules relating to declaration. Those rules are intended to ensure
20 Appendix, paragraph 78 21 Appendix, paragraph 88 22 Appendix, paragraph 86
Alison Seabeck 7
that other Members of the House and the public are provided with full information relevant to Members’ participation in proceedings. As the Commissioner has pointed out, such openness is important in ensuring that Members are seen to be acting in the public interest. Failure to observe the rules risks bringing the House and its Members generally into disrepute.
21. We recommend that Alison Seabeck apologise to the House in writing through this Committee for failing to declare relevant interests when she took part in a debate in the House on 19 November 2010.
8 Alison Seabeck
Appendix: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Contents
Report Page
Ms Alison Seabeck MP 10 Introduction 10 Background 10 The Complaint 11 Relevant Rules of the House 11 My Inquiries 13 Findings of Fact 26 Conclusions 28
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 32 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Guy Opperman MP, 26 November 2010 32 2. Extract from the Official Report, 19 November 2010, cols 1236-7 32 3. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 30 November 2010 33 4. Extract from entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP, as at 22 November 2010 35 5. Extract from Sunday Times article, 28 November 2010 35 6. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 1 December 2010 35 7. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 2 December 2010 36 8. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 6 December 2010 37 9. Correction printed by the Sunday Times, 5 December 2010 37 10. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 2 December 2010 37 11. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 15 December 2010 38 12. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 15 December 2010 40 13. Extract from the website of the Fire Protection Association, downloaded 15 December 2010 41 14. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 21 December 2010 41 15. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 4 January 2011 42 16. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 11 January 2011 43 17. Further extract from entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP, as at 22 November 2010 44 18. Extract from the website of the National House-Building Council Foundation, downloaded 2 February 2011 44 19. Extract from the website of the Construction Industry Council, downloaded 2 February 2011 45
Alison Seabeck 9
20. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 13 January 2011 45 21. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 13 January 2011 45 22. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 14 January 2011 46 23. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 18 January 2011 46 24. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 25 January 2011 47 25. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 31 January 2011 47 26. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 2 February 2011 48 27. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 8 February 2011 48 28. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 9 February 2011 49 29. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 14 February 2011 49
10 Alison Seabeck
Ms Alison Seabeck MP
Introduction 1. This memorandum reports on my inquiry into a complaint from Mr Guy Opperman, the Member for Hexham, that Ms Alison Seabeck, the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, failed to declare an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association when she took part in the debate in the House on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November 2010.
Background 2. The Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill is a Private Member’s Bill. One of its principal provisions would require landlords of residential accommodation to ensure that, before a contract of tenancy was agreed, a “system of smoke detection” was in place in the relevant premises.23
3. A debate on the Bill’s Second Reading took place in the House on 19 November, beginning shortly after 1.30 pm. Mr Adrian Sanders, the Member for Torbay, the Bill’s sponsor, opened the debate by declaring an interest as part-owner of two properties, one of which was rented out. In the course of his speech, he described the importance of smoke alarms in preventing deaths in residential fires. Ms Seabeck intervened to ask about any conversations he had had with Government Ministers.24 Ms Seabeck was then called to speak as Opposition spokesperson.25 She made no declaration of interest in her speech, in which she indicated her party’s support for the Bill and urged the Government to allow it to proceed. Following further brief speeches from two other Members,26 Mr Robert Neill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, responded for the Government.27
4. Mr Neill opened his speech by declaring an interest as owner of a rented property. While he was speaking of a long-term downward trend in deaths through fire and his wish to reduce these further, Ms Seabeck intervened and asked, “Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association to discuss how we reach those ends?” Mr Neill replied that he had had “a raft of meetings with organisations across the fire sector”. He gave three examples of those with whom he met regularly, including “the fire prevention industries”. Shortly afterwards, Ms Seabeck sought to intervene once more, and Mr Neill said, “If the hon. Lady [Ms Seabeck]
23 The Bill, if enacted as introduced, would require the provision of at least one mains-powered smoke alarm with an integral battery stand-by supply (a ‘system of smoke detection’) to be in place before a contract of tenancy was agreed for a property occupied (whether exclusively or not) for residential purposes in consideration of money or money’s worth. Failure by the landlord to do so would be a criminal offence. It would also require contracts of tenancy agreed after the legislation had come into effect to contain an undertaking by the tenant to test all smoke alarms on the premises at least once a month and to notify the landlord of any defect in any smoke alarm, and an undertaking by the landlord to rectify all such defects notified by the tenant. 24 HC Deb, 19 November 2010, col 1230 25 Ibid, cols 1233–4. Ms Seabeck was appointed Opposition spokesperson on Housing on 11 October 2010. 26 Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Member for Totnes, and Mr Jim Fitzpatrick, the Member for Poplar and Limehouse 27 Ibid, cols 1236–7
Alison Seabeck 11
wants to suggest more people whom it will be useful for me to meet, I am happy for her to do so.” Ms Seabeck responded, “I am aware that the Fire Commission, which is part of the Local Government Association, has requested a meeting with the Minister. I hope that it will get a positive response.” Mr Neill said in response that he had in fact “met the Local Government Association’s fire forum on more than one occasion ... I am sure that if the Fire Commission wishes to raise a specific issue, it will ask for a further meeting and I will happily oblige, as I hope I have always tried to do.” In the course of his speech, Mr Neill explained why the Government did not support the Bill. He was still speaking when the debate was adjourned at 2.30 pm.28
The Complaint 5. On 26 November, Mr Opperman wrote to me regarding “questions asked in the House of Commons by Shadow Housing Minister Alison Seabeck, concerning a company in which her partner, Nick Raynsford MP, has a registered interest, without declaring an interest herself”.29 Mr Opperman said that the registered interest of Mr Raynsford which he considered relevant was his position as non executive Board Member and Chair of the Fire Protection Association Council. He said that according to the Official Report, on 19 November 2010 Ms Seabeck had asked Mr Robert Neill, the Local Government and Planning Minister, when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association.30 He drew my attention to the provisions in Section IV of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament regarding integrity, honesty, and selflessness, and to the requirement set out in paragraph 9 of the Code that Members base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest. He asked me to “investigate if Ms Seabeck and Mr Raynsford’s conduct is contrary to these principles”.
6. I replied to Mr Opperman on 30 November.31 I said that, in respect of the information he had provided, I could see no evidence to suggest that Mr Raynsford had breached the rules of the House. I had, however, decided to accept his complaint against Ms Seabeck, the essence of which was that she had failed to declare an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association when she took part in the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November.
Relevant Rules of the House 7. While the complainant sought to identify parts of the Code which he believed to have been breached, the rules of the House make specific provision for the declaration of
28 The time specified in the Standing Orders for the interruption of Public Business on a Friday. To date, there has been no opportunity for the debate to be resumed. 29 WE 1 30 HC Deb,19 November 2010, col 1236. The relevant extract is reproduced at WE 2. 31 This letter is not included in the written evidence.
12 Alison Seabeck
Members’ interests. Section VI (paragraph 16) of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament refers to the registration and declaration of interests in the following terms: 32
“Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Interests and shall always draw attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, or in any communication acting in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 149 and 150 respectively.”
8. On 22 May 1974, the House resolved:33
“In any debate or proceeding of the House or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.”
9. The rules relating to the declaration of Members’ interests are set out in paragraphs 72 to 88 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.34 Paragraph 73 provides, among other things:
“The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests ... As well as current interests, Members are required to declare ... relevant past interests ... In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those current within the previous twelve months, need normally be considered for declaration.”
...
“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).”
10. The rules on relevance are set out in paragraph 74 to 77. Paragraph 74 provides:
“It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. 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.”
11. Paragraph 76 provides:
32 The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members 2009, HC (2008–09) 735 33 This Resolution is reproduced in the Guide to the Rules above paragraph 72 34 The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, published in HC (2008–09) 735
Alison Seabeck 13
“The House has endorsed the following advice on the occasions when such a declaration of interest should be made: ‘no difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the House or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak’ ...
‘On all such occasions the Member will declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks ... it will be a matter of judgement, if his interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure.’ Any declaration ‘should be sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s financial interest ...’,35 and Members are advised to be specific if there is any doubt as to which interest is involved.”
12. Paragraph 77 provides:
“In a debate in the House the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of his or her speech ...”
13. The requirement to declare an interest is qualified by paragraph 87 of the Guide to the Rules. This states:
“In its application of the 1974 Resolution the House has always recognised that there are certain proceedings where declaration of interest is impracticable; e.g. during oral Questions or when asking a question in response to ministerial statement on a matter of public policy or supplementary to an Urgent Question ...
However, Members are advised to declare any relevant interest when such a declaration does not unduly impede the business of the House, for example in relation to a request for a debate made in response to a Business Question or statement.”
My Inquiries 14. I wrote to Ms Seabeck about this complaint on 30 November.36 I asked her in particular whether she considered at the time or subsequently whether she should have declared an interest when she intervened in Mr Neill’s speech, whether she accepted that she had an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association by virtue of Mr Raynsford’s role as Chair of the Association’s Council; and whether she had at any time sought advice from my office about the registration or declaration of indirect interests. Besides the relevant extract from the Official Report, I also sent her a copy of an entry from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP in respect of his position with the Fire Protection Association Council37 and a copy of an article in the Sunday Times of 28 November referring to this complaint and quoting her response.38
15. The extract from the Register39 showed that Mr Raynsford had registered his position as a non-executive Board Member and Chair of the Fire Protection Association Council
35 Select Committee on Members’ Interests, First Report, Session 1991–92, paragraph 80 36 WE 3 37 WE 4 38 WE 5 39 WE 4
14 Alison Seabeck
under Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc. He said in the Register entry that the work involved “advising on the development of the FPA’s work and mission to promote fire safety, including attendance at board meetings.” The Register also included two entries for payments of £3,500 which he had received for this work, which covered the periods May to October 2009, and November 2009 to April 2010.
16. The article from the Sunday Times of 28 November40 alleged that Ms Seabeck had “used a Commons debate on smoke alarms” to suggest the Government should meet the Fire Protection Association (FPA), which promoted the fire safety industry, to discuss ways of reducing fire deaths. It said that she had been accused of a conflict of interest because her partner was “a non-executive member of the FPA Board”. The article said that the complaint had been triggered by comments Ms Seabeck had made from the Opposition Dispatch Box on 19 November,41 when she had told Members that her party supported a Private Member’s Bill requiring landlords “to fit fire alarms in all rental properties”, which the article described as “a proposal backed by the FPA”. It also said that she then suggested the Government “should hold meetings with the FPA”. As regards the complaint, the Sunday Times reported Ms Seabeck as saying, “I checked with the Parliamentary Standards office to ask if I would need to declare anything ... If this MP has a concern then it’s perfectly proper that it’s looked at.”
17. Ms Seabeck replied to my letter of 30 November on 1 December.42 She said, “I accept that, as my partner, Mr Raynsford’s outside interests are, potentially, of interest given my role as my party’s spokeswoman for Housing.” Ms Seabeck said that, on taking up this role she had for this reason spoken “at length” with the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests “to clarify my responsibilities and to ensure that I acted in compliance with the Code of Conduct”.
18. Ms Seabeck said that, in her conversations with the Registrar, she had specifically asked whether she ought to put a note in her Register entry, to draw attention to the interests registered by Mr Raynsford. She said that she was told that this was not necessary and that there was also no need to direct Members to Mr Raynsford's interests when she spoke in the House. She added that, in light of the complaint, she would welcome written confirmation that the advice that was provided to her by my office was correct. Ms Seabeck continued, “Due to my desire to be very clear about any potential conflict, I have also sought written advice from [the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests] on registering or declaring interests with regard to two specific APPGs43 on 8th June and the 19th November and I followed the advice that I was given by your office.”44
19. Ms Seabeck said that she had made two interventions in the debate on 19 November. She commented, “I was aware that the Fire Commission had not been able to secure a meeting with the Minister. In my first intervention I listed organisations, as you will see from
40 WE 5. For a correction printed by the Sunday Times on 5 December 2010, see WE 9, summarised at paragraph 21 below. 41 In the debate on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill 42 WE 6 43 All-Party Parliamentary Groups 44 The Registrar’s evidence responded to this. See WE 11 and paragraphs 24 and 25.
Alison Seabeck 15
Hansard,45 in a very general way.” Ms Seabeck said that her second intervention “was specific only to the Fire Commission. I was aware that to mention the FPA at this juncture and in this context could be wrong.” 46 She commented, “As Hansard shows, and contrary to the allegations made in the Sunday Times, at no time did I ask the Minister whether he would meet with the FPA.” Ms Seabeck also said that it was her understanding that using general lists would not constitute a conflict of interest “but I would welcome your advice on this”. She commented, “I have always sought to act fully in line with the Members' Code of Conduct and have both sought and followed advice given to me by members of your office when fulfilling my duties in the House.”
20. In the light of what Ms Seabeck had said about her interventions in the debate, I wrote to her again on 2 December.47 I said that I had identified four contributions she had made to the debate: an intervention on Mr Adrian Sanders;48 her own speech;49 and two interventions on Mr Neill,50 and that I assumed that the two interventions to which she had referred were the last two of these. I also noted that Mr Sanders and Mr Neill had each declared an interest during the debate.51
21. Ms Seabeck replied on 6 December.52 She confirmed that the interventions to which she had referred were the two that she had made on Mr Neill. She commented, “When I began the debate my pre-written speech contained no reference to any organisation with which Rt Hon Nick Raynsford had a link. During Mr Neill’s contribution I made an intervention, on the spur of the moment, regarding the Fire Commission and included in the list the Fire Protection Association, although not with regard to the question of a meeting.” She also enclosed a copy of a correction printed by the Sunday Times on 5 December.53 This related to the statement in the article on 28 November54 that Ms Seabeck had “sought to obtain a meeting with the Minister for the Fire Protection Association, an organisation in which her partner has an interest”. The correction continued, “The parliamentary record shows that this was not the case. We apologise for any misunderstanding that this has caused.”55
22. On 2 December, I had also written to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests.56 I enclosed a copy of my original exchange of correspondence on this matter with Ms Seabeck.57 I asked the Registrar to confirm or otherwise modify Ms Seabeck’s account of her conversations with her in respect of the registration and declaration of Mr Raynsford’s
45 HC Deb, 19 November 2010, col 1236 46 HC Deb, 19 November 2010, col 1237 47 WE 7 48 HC Deb, 19 November 2010, col 1230 49 Ibid, cols 1233 to 1234 50 Ibid, cols 1236, 1237 51 Ibid, cols 1229 and 1235 52 WE 8 53 WE 9 54 WE 5 55 Ms Seabeck had e-mailed the editor of the Sunday Times on 29 November seeking a correction. (E-mail not included in the written evidence.) 56 WE 10 57 WE 3, WE 6 and attachments
16 Alison Seabeck
interests, and to give me an indication of how many such conversations took place and the dates. I also asked her for copies of the written advice which the office had given Ms Seabeck in relation to the two specific APPGs to which she had referred, together with any comments she might wish to make on the circumstances and substance of that advice. Finally, I asked for her considered advice in the light of the circumstances of this complaint whether, under the rules of the House in relation to the declaration of indirect relevant interests, she considered that Ms Seabeck should have declared such an interest during the debate on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November. On 7 December, I wrote again to the Registrar with a copy of my second exchange of correspondence with Ms Seabeck,58 and invited her to take account of this also in preparing her advice.59
23. The Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests replied on 15 December.60 As regards Ms Seabeck’s conversations with herself and the office, the Registrar said that she was frequently asked whether Members should register or declare the interests of their spouses or partners. She commented, “The usual advice is that the employment interests of a partner should not be registered but should be declared in parliamentary proceedings where appropriate. Indeed, I cannot recollect any circumstances in which the advice has been different.” The Registrar said that it was her habit to keep brief manuscript notes of conversations with Members: the more standard the advice, the briefer the note. She said that she had a brief manuscript note of a telephone conversation with Ms Seabeck on 11 October, the day Ms Seabeck was appointed to her Shadow position, about her position as Shadow Housing Minister and her partner’s housing interests. The Registrar said her note read, “Alison Seabeck—Shadow Minister for Housing—husband has housing interests ...” The Registrar commented, “The very brevity of the note suggests to me that I gave the standard advice in respect of queries of this nature, which I give regularly and which I had, indeed already given Ms Seabeck in another context. I believe I would have made a specific record had the advice been out of the ordinary.” She did not have a note of how long the conversation had lasted. The Registrar said that she had no record of any other conversation with Ms Seabeck on the subject.
24. As to the two e-mail exchanges relating to two specific All-Party Groups to which Ms Seabeck had referred, the Registrar said that she had found two e-mails with the dates Ms Seabeck had given, one of which referred to an All-Party Group and the other to her appointment as a parliamentary patron of Planning Aid England. In the first, dated 8 June 2010,61 the Registrar said that Ms Seabeck asked whether she should declare her partner's interest in the Construction Industry Council to the All-Party Group on Building Excellence, which had asked her to be its secretary.62 The Registrar commented that she responded that “there is no requirement to register a spouse or partner’s employment. If you were taking part in parliamentary proceedings or approaching MPs, civil servants or
58 WE 7, WE 8 59 The letter of 7 December is not included in the written evidence. 60 WE 11 61 Not included in the written evidence 62 In her e-mail to the Registrar, Ms Seabeck said that the All-Party Group was “supported by the Construction Industry Council—this is not a lobbying company. My partner Nick Raynsford MP undertakes some work for them which is paid. Do I have to declare this interest?”
Alison Seabeck 17
Ministers on a matter relating to the Construction Industry Council I would suggest that you declare it. I would therefore suggest that you remind the APG of this if/when you accept the nomination.”
25. The Registrar said that the second e-mail from Ms Seabeck was timed about an hour after the debate in question on 19 November.63 It related to Ms Seabeck’s own interests in respect of “her position as patron of Planning Aid England in relation to her appointment as Shadow Housing spokesperson”.64 The Registrar said that in her reply she had “suggested that this interest was not registrable but should be declared when relevant to parliamentary proceedings.”65 The Registrar commented that this exchange was “less relevant, though it does show that Ms Seabeck was alive to standards questions”. She added, “You will see that in both cases my advice went wider than the specific question put to me and that I recommended declaration in the House.”
26. The Registrar said that she could find no other record of any relevant conversation with Ms Seabeck.
27. As to whether Ms Seabeck should have declared an interest during the debate of 19 November, the Registrar noted that the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill would require landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation. She commented, “An interest in an organisation which is concerned with fire protection might therefore reasonably be regarded as relevant to parliamentary proceedings on the Bill.” She drew attention to the requirements of the Resolution of the House of 22 May 1974 regarding the scope of the required disclosure of interests,66 and the provisions of paragraph 73 of the Guide to the Rules,67 which make clear that Members are also required to declare relevant indirect interests, for instance those of a spouse or partner.
28. The Registrar said that she had considered whether Ms Seabeck’s intervention was covered by the exception from the requirement to declare set out in paragraph 87 of the Guide to the Rules.68 She commented, “That must be a matter of judgement, but given that the second reading of the Bill was on the Order Paper I would have expected Ms Seabeck to have been aware of the possible need for a declaration, and to be in a position to make one without slowing debate. Indeed, it might have been appropriate, for the avoidance of doubt, for her to mention the interest in her original speech, since she was an experienced Member, leading for her party, and would have known that she would be called to speak.”
29. The Registrar noted that, in her letter to me of 6 December,69 Ms Seabeck had pointed out that her pre-written speech contained no reference to any organisation with which Mr
63 Not included in the written evidence 64 In her e-mail to the Registrar, Ms Seabeck said that she “had agreed to be a parliamentary patron of Planning Aid England before I took on the role as a CLG Shadow Planning and Housing Minister. Could you let me know if this is within the rules? ... There is not payment of salary involved.” 65 In her e-mail responding to Ms Seabeck, the Registrar had also recommended that Ms Seabeck declare her interest if relevant to “approaches to other MPs, Ministers or civil servants. The House has made no rules about Shadow spokespeople.” 66 The relevant part of this Resolution is set out at paragraph 8 above. 67 The relevant part of this paragraph is set out at paragraph 9 above. 68 The relevant part of the paragraph is set out at paragraph 13 above. 69 WE 85
18 Alison Seabeck
Raynsford had an interest, and had said that she made an intervention on the spur of the moment, regarding the Fire Commission, and had included in the list the Fire Protection Association, “although not with regard to the question of a meeting”. The Registrar commented, “It is true that Ms Seabeck did not, as originally reported in the media, ask for the Minister to meet the Fire Protection Association but rather when he had last done so, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest a distinction, in terms of the requirement to declare, between a request that a meeting be held and a request as to whether one has been held.”
30. The Registrar also noted that Ms Seabeck had said that she understood that using general lists would not constitute a conflict of interest, and commented, “I do not know on what part of the Rules Ms Seabeck bases this understanding, but I would not in any case regard a list of two organisations as a general list.” The Registrar continued, “I do not believe that the requirement to declare an interest, whether direct or indirect, in the House, is restricted to occasions on which the Member names an organisation in which he or she has an interest, but consider that it applies when a matter for debate or other proceeding relates to the aims and interests of that organisation. It is my considered view that Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate of 19 November, at the least during her intervention and preferably earlier.”
31. I sent Ms Seabeck the Registrar’s advice on 15 December.70 I invited her views on that advice, and in particular whether she accepted that the Registrar would not have given her the advice she recalled receiving in her telephone conversation on 11 October.71 I also asked if Ms Seabeck accepted the Registrar’s view that, in any event, her indirect interest should have been declared during the debate.
32. I told Ms Seabeck that there were two issues I would need to consider. The first was whether she had a relevant indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association through Mr Raynsford’s registered interest as a Board Member and Chair of its Council. I said that I took it from her letter of 1 December72 that Ms Seabeck accepted that she did have an indirect interest because Mr Raynsford was her partner. The second was whether that interest was relevant to the debate on 19 November in respect of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill. I said in relation to this that I would need to take account of the Registrar’s advice and Ms Seabeck’s response to that advice. I enclosed an extract from the website of the Fire Protection Association which set out its aims and purposes,73 and a copy of the Long Title of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill which I said I would take into account when coming to my conclusions.74
33. In the extract from its website which I sent to Ms Seabeck, the Fire Protection Association describes itself as “the UK’s national fire safety organisation, promoting fire safety within industry, commerce and the wider public”. Its agreed aims and objectives include protecting people and property and the environment by advancing fire prevention
70 WE 12 71 See WE 6 and paragraph 18 of this memorandum 72 WE 6 73 WE 13 74 The Long Title of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill is: A Bill to require landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation; and for connected purposes.
Alison Seabeck 19
and protection techniques, and collaborating with central Government, the Fire Service and other agencies in this work.
34. Ms Seabeck replied on 21 December.75 She said that she was not a patron of Planning Aid. Following advice from the Registrar, she had taken the view that this could create difficulties and therefore did not accept the position. She added that the Registrar was correct to say that she was “alive to standards questions”, and that both as a Member and when on a Member’s staff she had been scrupulously careful to remain within the guidelines. For that reason she found the complaint particularly unsettling.
35. Ms Seabeck told me that the Bill was a Private Member’s Bill which should have been taken by a colleague who was the lead on fire within the Shadow Front-Bench team. He was unable to do this and so at the last minute she was asked to deputise in case the debate happened, which “you can never be sure of ... on a Friday with Private Members’ business and therefore it is not right to say that I would have known that I would be called to speak”. While she had prepared a draft speech in the event of the business being reached and her being called, she said that this made no reference to the Fire Protection Association or to any other body in which her partner had an interest. She said that she therefore found it “strange” that the Registrar concluded that she should preferably have made a declaration earlier than the time of the intervention. She said that although the Registrar had been correct to say that the Bill was on the Order Paper, “it was not a Bill I was seeking to either speak in or lead on”.
36. Ms Seabeck told me that in their conversation after she was offered the Shadow Housing role, the Registrar had said that she would not need to register her partner’s interests. The Registrar had advised that Ms Seabeck should consider each debate on its merit and declare as appropriate. Ms Seabeck recalled the Registrar saying that this could mean her having to declare every time she spoke, though such declarations should not unduly impede the business of the House. The Registrar had said that it was a matter for her judgement and that she should perhaps speak to her party’s Whips.
37. Ms Seabeck said that with regard to her intervention mentioning the Fire Protection Association, it would have been difficult to have made a declaration at that point without unduly delaying the business of the House, which she described as “time limited”. As she was only quoting the Fire Protection Association for illustrative purposes and was not specifically asking the Minister to meet them, she did not believe that a declaration was necessary. This was a matter of judgement. Ms Seabeck said that as her judgement had been called into question she was now concerned that in other debates in which she had participated and where housing and construction issues were mentioned, she should have made declarations when she had not felt them necessary. She said that Mr Nick Raynsford MP had links, particularly through the Construction Industry Council (CIC), an umbrella organisation, to just about every area of the brief she had been given. She said that she would welcome clarification of the Registrar’s earlier advice on “where appropriate” as there were “some horribly grey areas and I would include the fire debate”.
75 WE 14
20 Alison Seabeck
38. Ms Seabeck told me that she would much rather have had to put an entry in her register of interests which linked to Mr Raynsford’s. She commented, “The whole area would then be so much clearer.” She said that, as things stood, she felt she had no option, to avoid the risk of further, perhaps politically motivated complaints, but to make at the outset of “any and every debate” in which she participated, a declaration of her partner’s entry in the Register. She said that would mean that she would also always have to name him because the wider public would not know who he was, and most Members did not know that he was her partner, “whereas if the entry was mine and a reference within it was to Mr Raynsford then all would be clear to anyone who wanted to check”. She added that it would also shorten the time taken to make the declaration. Ms Seabeck commented that in the Localism Bill Committee in 2011 she and Mr Raynsford were probably going to be in the “very odd situation” where she would have to make a declaration of Mr Raynsford’s interests and then he would have to declare his own interests a couple of minutes later. She said that she “really would” welcome some help on this and clarity because she did not want to fall foul of the guidelines.
39. I replied to Ms Seabeck on 4 January.76 I said that as she had raised a number of matters about the procedure for declaring her interests in the future, I had passed her letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests so that she could consider what advice to give Ms Seabeck on these matters. I said that in the meantime, I did need to resolve the complaint against her, and the question I had to resolve was whether she should have declared her indirect interest during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, when she intervened by referring to the Fire Protection Association.
40. I said that the Registrar’s view was that Ms Seabeck should have declared this interest, and that it would have been preferable if she had done so earlier in the debate. I said that if I was right in interpreting Ms Seabeck’s letter as accepting this advice, then I took it that she accepted the basis of the complaint, namely that she was in breach of the rules in relation to the declaration of interests in not declaring her indirect interest during this debate.
41. I said that Ms Seabeck had argued that the decision about declaring an indirect interest was a matter of judgement, and that she had indeed considered the general question of the declaration of her partner’s interests, including when she had been appointed Shadow Housing spokesman in October 2010. I said that I thought it would be helpful, however, to be clear whether Ms Seabeck had considered specifically whether to declare her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association for the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November—in which case any error was not inadvertent but, in her view, was an error of judgement—or whether she did not specifically consider this matter at that time.
42. Finally, I noted that Ms Seabeck’s summary of her conversation with the Registrar, following the recollection of the conversation which the Registrar had sent me on 15 December,77 differed from her initial recollection which she had sent me on 1 December,78
76 WE 15 77 WE 11 78 WE 6
Alison Seabeck 21
when Ms Seabeck had suggested that the Registrar’s advice was that there was no need to direct Members to her partner’s interests when she spoke in the House. In conclusion I asked Ms Seabeck to confirm that she accepted the Registrar’s advice on the declaration of her indirect interests; whether, as a consequence, she accepted that she was in breach of the rules in relation to declaration when she made no declaration of her partner’s interests in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November; and whether or not she considered making such a declaration at the time.
43. Ms Seabeck replied on 11 January.79 She said that she had thought that she had made clear in her letter of 21 December80 that she found it “difficult to agree” with the Registrar’s conclusions about the declaration of her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate on 19 November. Ms Seabeck emphasised that, while the Fire Protection Association had as its objective the promotion of fire safety and protection, “it had no involvement in the preparation or promotion of the Private Member’s Bill under debate on 19th November”. She said that other organisations with an interest in promoting fire safety and the protection of tenants in rented accommodation, one of which she had mentioned in the intervention, were more directly involved.
44. Ms Seabeck commented, “I did therefore not see any reasons for declaring an indirect interest in the FPA any more than I felt it necessary to declare an interest in at least two other organisations in which Mr Raynsford has a registered interest—National House–Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council—both of which could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation. 81 In all three instances the linkage between the organisation with which Mr Raynsford has an interest and the debate on 19 November did not appear sufficiently direct for me to consider that I should make a declaration of interest.” Ms Seabeck continued, “This illustrates my area of concern and the dilemma which I highlighted in my letter of 21 December. The range of Mr Raynsford’s interest in the fields of policy for which I have Front-Bench responsibility might suggest that I should as a matter of course declare an interest in each and every debate in which I participate. However, that was not the advice I received from [the Registrar] on 11 October, when she advised that it was a matter of judgement. She did not say I must declare in advance of each and every debate. Had she done so then I would not be in the position I find myself in now.”
45. Ms Seabeck enclosed with her letter a copy of the draft speaking note she worked from on the day.82 She said that she had not intended to raise the Fire Protection Association at all in the course of her remarks, and had done so only on an intervention. She commented, “As you will see my original speaking note was amended heavily on the hoof because this was my first speech on the floor of the House of Commons from the Dispatch Box and my intervention was, as is the nature of the House of Commons, only considered immediately before I jumped up to make it.” She continued, “[the Registrar’s] view that I should have
79 WE 16 80 WE 14 81 Mr Raynsford has registered financial interests under Category 1 (Remunerated Directorships) as Hon vice-chairman of the Construction Industry Council and as Chairman of the NHBC Foundation. The relevant extracts from his published Register entry as at 22 November 2010 are at WE 17. 82 Not included in the written evidence.
22 Alison Seabeck
made a declaration ‘at the least during her intervention’ implies that it was the reference to the FPA in that intervention that led her to the conclusion that a declaration should have been made. As you know, it would in my view, have been difficult to make such a declaration at that point without unduly impeding time limited business. As I referred to the FPA by way of illustration only and did not seek any action from the Minister in respect of the FPA, my judgement was that a declaration was not necessary. You may not agree with this judgement but it was made in good faith and, I believe, in keeping with the advice I had received in October.”
46. The draft speaking note which Ms Seabeck enclosed made a number of general points in support of the Bill. The typed text had been extensively altered in manuscript. Neither the typed text nor any of the manuscript alterations mentioned any organisation by name.
47. In view of Ms Seabeck’s references to Mr Raynsford’s registered financial interests in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council, I consulted their respective websites to see how each described its remit. According to the National House-Building Council Foundation website,83 the Foundation’s remit is “to provide the necessary data and intelligence to develop long-term solutions to industry challenges which lie ahead and lead debate and thinking among industry experts. The NHBC Foundation facilitates research and development, and shares pragmatic and relevant guidance and good practice to the homebuilding industry.” According to the Construction Industry Council website,84 the Council is “the representative forum for the professional bodies, research organisations and specialist business associations in the construction industry. It provides a single voice for professionals in all sectors of the built environment through its collective membership of 500,000 individual professionals and 25,000 firms of construction consultants.”
48. I replied to Ms Seabeck on 13 January.85 I said that I took it from her response that she did not accept the Registrar’s advice and did not, therefore, accept that she had been in breach of the rules in relation to the declaration of interests in not declaring her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the Second Reading debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November. I asked her again86 whether she had specifically considered whether she should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November in advance of that debate, and judged that a declaration was not necessary, or whether she had not specifically considered the matter at that time. I told Ms Seabeck that, if she had not so considered the matter, it would be helpful to know her reasons. I also told Ms Seabeck that, meanwhile, I was copying the correspondence to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests for any further comments she might wish to make, in particular on the suggestion in Ms Seabeck’s letter of 11 January87 that her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in respect of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill was no greater than any such interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council.
83 www.nhbcfoundation.org. See WE 18 84 www.cic.org.uk. See WE 19 85 WE 20 86 I had previously put this point to Ms Seabeck in my letter of 4 January (WE 15). 87 WE 16
Alison Seabeck 23
49. Accordingly, on the same day, 13 January, I wrote to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests.88 I asked her for any further comments she wished to make on Ms Seabeck’s response to her advice, and in particular for her advice on Ms Seabeck’s suggestion in her letter of 11 January that her interest in the Fire Protection Association was no more relevant (or direct) in respect of the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill than her indirect interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council.
50. The Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests replied on 14 January.89 Commenting generally on Ms Seabeck’s response, the Registrar said, “I do not think I have anything to add to what I have previously written on the generality of the requirement to declare. I maintain the advice I gave you in my earlier letter.” On the question of whether Ms Seabeck’s interest in the Fire Protection Association was any more relevant (or direct) than her interest in respect of the National House-Building Council Foundation or the Construction Industry Council in respect of the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill, the Registrar commented, “While the question of whether or not to declare is indeed one for the Member to decide on, this judgement should be exercised in the light of paragraphs 72 to 77 in the Guide to the Rules.90 I have already advised you of my opinion that Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in respect of Fire Protection Association. Ms Seabeck says that two other organisations in which Mr Raynsford has a registered interest—the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council—could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation. If Ms Seabeck’s judgement is that these interests are as relevant to the Bill as that in the Fire Protection Association, then, without imposing my own judgement on the matter, I would have to conclude that she should have declared these interests also.”
51. I copied the Registrar’s response to Ms Seabeck on 18 January, and invited her comments.91 I asked her in particular whether she considered that the extent of the relevance of the interests of the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council to the purposes of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill was similar to those of the Fire Protection Association, and the reasons for her view. I suggested that the relevant question might be whether the building and construction industry could be said to benefit from the additional obligations set out in the Bill, and commented that, on the face of it, it might seem that a Bill which required the fitting of smoke alarms (including one mains-powered) in rented properties could be of some benefit to that industry and so to the members of the Foundation and Council.
52. Ms Seabeck replied to my letters of 13 and 18 January on 25 January.92 In response to my question as to whether or not she accepted the Registrar’s advice that she had been in breach of the rules in relation to the declaration of interests in not declaring her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the Second Reading debate on the Fire
88 WE 21 89 WE 22 90 The relevant content of these paragraphs is summarised at paragraphs 9 to 12 above. 91 WE 23 92 WE 24
24 Alison Seabeck
Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, Ms Seabeck said that “As I stated in my earlier letters I took her advice regarding the need not to put onto my entry in the Register Mr Raynsford’s interests but instead to make a verbal declaration when appropriate in parliamentary debates.” She continued, “I have to say that this is making speaking in the House of Commons or in Westminster Hall complex and confusing for fellow MPs many of whom, including an Opposition Front Bencher, have asked why I have to list Mr Raynsford’s interests every time and also have to explain my relationship to him”.
53. Ms Seabeck said that her understanding of the Registrar's advice was to use her judgement in individual debates if she was participating in a debate where Mr Raynsford’s interest would be directly relevant. She commented, “I did not think that was the case in a debate about residential private landlords and the need to hard wire smoke alarms. The FPA are not in the business of offering day to day advice to individual residential landlords and to the best of my knowledge had no involvement in preparing or promoting this Bill.” She said that when she had asked the Minister whether he had in the past had any discussions with various organisations including the Fire Protection Association, he had clearly said that he had not. She continued, “If they were thought relevant to this debate then officials would surely have ensured the Minister met with them or at least had a briefing. I can only repeat that in the context of this debate I did not consider when raising the FPA that Mr Raynsford’s interest was anything but extremely peripheral.”
54. Ms Seabeck said that her assessment of the relevance of Mr Raynsford’s financial interest as regards the Fire Protection Association would equally apply to his financial interests in the Construction Industry Council and the National House-Building Council Foundation. She said that the debate was “highly specific to fire safety in private rented properties”. As to what Ms Seabeck described as my “suggestion that an obligation for fitting smoke alarms in rented residential accommodation could potentially bring work to the Construction Industry Council”, Ms Seabeck commented, “I should make clear that this is a body which does not itself undertake any construction activity. It is an umbrella, not for profit organisation.” Ms Seabeck added that the Council’s member organisations “some of which do have a financial interest in construction activity, cover the whole range of building work, and arguably any parliamentary debate relating for example to schools, hospitals, defence, prisons, roads, leisure centres etc would require me on this basis to make a declaration, even if the CIC itself had absolutely no involvement in the issue.” Ms Seabeck said that the National House-Building Council Foundation was “a not for profit trust which supports research with the objective of improving the quality of house building”.
55. Ms Seabeck concluded by saying that she had made a judgement call “on the basis of the information set out above and in my previous letters and have from the moment I was offered this job sought advice, as I have done historically whenever I had concerns.”
56. I replied to Ms Seabeck on 31 January.93 I told her that I had noted what she had said about the Registrar’s advice, but that nothing she had said in her letter caused me to change the conclusion I had set out in my letter of 13 January that she did not accept the Registrar’s view, which the Registrar had set out in her letter of 15 December, that she should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate
93 WE 25
Alison Seabeck 25
on 19 November, at the least during her intervention and preferably earlier. I also told her that her letter did not appear to give a specific answer to the question I had asked her in my letter of 13 January as to whether she had specifically considered whether she should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November, and that I would accordingly conclude that she had not specifically answered that question.
57. On the matter of the relevance of Ms Seabeck’s indirect interests in the Construction Industry Council and the National House-Building Council Foundation, I told her that, while these were not part of the complaint, since she had raised them in her letter of 11 January I would need to come to a conclusion on whether she should within the rules have declared an indirect interest in either of these bodies during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November.
58. Ms Seabeck replied on 2 February.94 In response to my question as to whether she had specifically considered whether she should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November, Ms Seabeck commented, “I thought I had already made clear I did not judge that it was necessary on the basis of [the Registrar]’s advice to make a declaration at the start of the debate”. Ms Seabeck also said that, as the Registrar had commented that she should have made a declaration “at least at the time of intervention”, she assumed that the Registrar accepted that “there is an element of doubt about whether a declaration at the start of the debate was really necessary”. Ms Seabeck concluded, “I did not feel that the reference in the intervention required a declaration for all the reasons given in my earlier letters...”
59. I replied to Ms Seabeck on 8 February.95 I told her that, in the light of her further explanation, I hoped I was right to conclude that her evidence was that she did in fact consider whether she should declare her interest when preparing for the debate on 19 November, but decided, for the reasons she had already given, that it was not necessary to do so.
60. Ms Seabeck e-mailed me her response on 9 February.96 She did not answer the point I had raised with her.97 But she summarised some of her earlier evidence. She said that she had been asked to take the debate at short notice, and that the subject was not within her normal Front-Bench remit. With the debate focussing on the installation of smoke alarms in private rented sector, she did not see any direct connection with the Fire Protection Association, who had not to the best of her knowledge played any role in promoting or advising on the Bill. She commented, “As you know I had not intended any reference to the FPA in my speech and it therefore did not occur to me that I needed to make a declaration at the start of my speech. When I made the intervention on the spur of the moment I did not see the need for a declaration in the context of the question, and at a juncture in the time-limited debate when it might have impeded the business of the House.”
94 WE 26. This letter was received in my office on 8 February. 95 WE 27 96 WE 28 97 See WE 27
26 Alison Seabeck
61. I replied to Ms Seabeck on 9 February.98 I said that I would reflect in my findings of fact my assumption from her evidence that she did consider declaration in preparing for the debate. Ms Seabeck e-mailed me on 14 February to say that my assumption that she had considered making a declaration of interest in advance of the debate was “wrong”. She commented, “As I explained I was asked at the last minute to take on this debate which should have been covered by another member of the team—responsible for Fire. In preparing my speech for this debate I had absolutely no intention of raising anything linked to the Rt Hon Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s entry in the register so the issue of making a declaration of interest at the outset did not arise.”
Findings of Fact 62. Ms Seabeck was appointed the official Opposition spokesperson on Housing on 11 October 2010.
63. Ms Seabeck took part in the debate on 19 November 2010 on the Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill.99 She spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition. Her evidence is that she was deputising at the last minute for the colleague who was the Shadow Front-Bench lead on fire. The Bill is a Private Member’s Bill. One of its main provisions would require landlords of residential accommodation to provide a system of smoke detection comprising at least one mains-powered smoke alarm with an integral battery stand-by supply before a contract of tenancy is agreed. The debate began shortly after 1.30 pm, and was adjourned at 2.30 pm.
64. Ms Seabeck intervened once as Mr Adrian Sanders, the Member for Torbay, introduced the Bill. She then gave her own speech, expressing her party’s support for the Bill. She intervened twice as Mr Robert Neill, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Communities and Local Government, responded to the debate. In the first intervention, she asked him when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association. In the second, she expressed her hope that the Minister would meet the Fire Commission.
65. Both Mr Sanders and Mr Neill declared financial interests at the start of their respective speeches. Ms Seabeck did not declare any financial interests either in her speech or in her interventions.
66. Ms Seabeck is the partner of Rt Hon Nick Raynsford, the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Mr Raynsford has had, in the 12 months preceding the debate, a registered financial interest as a non-executive Board Member of the Fire Protection Association and Chair of its Advisory Council. In that period, Mr Raynsford has also registered financial interests as Hon vice-chairman of the Construction Industry Council and as Chairman of the National House-Building Council Foundation.
67. The Fire Protection Association’s agreed aims and objectives include protecting people and property and the environment by advancing fire prevention and protection techniques, and collaborating with central Government, the Fire Service and other agencies
98 Not included in the written evidence. 99 The principal provisions of the Bill are summarised in footnote23 above.
Alison Seabeck 27
in this work. The Construction Industry Council is the representative forum for the professional bodies, research organisations and specialist business associations in the construction industry. It provides “a single voice” for professionals in all sectors of the built environment through its collective membership of 500,000 individual professionals and 25,000 firms of construction consultants. The remit of the National House-Building Council Foundation is to provide the necessary data and intelligence to develop long-term solutions to industry challenges which lie ahead and lead debate and thinking among industry experts.
68. It is the view of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests that Ms Seabeck should have declared Mr Raynsford’s financial interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate as an indirect interest, at the least during her intervention on the Minister and preferably earlier. Ms Seabeck does not accept the Registrar’s view. The Registrar also takes the view that if Ms Seabeck’s judgement was that Mr Raynsford’s financial interests in the Construction Industry Council and the National House-Building Council Foundation were as relevant to the Bill as his interest in the Fire Protection Association, then, without imposing her own judgement on the matter, she would have to conclude that Ms Seabeck should also have declared these interests.
69. Ms Seabeck’s evidence is that she had sought advice from the Registrar when appointed to the Opposition Front Bench on the implications of her partner’s financial interests. She initially said that she had been told by the Registrar that there was no need to direct Members to Mr Raynsford’s interests when she spoke in the House. She subsequently said that she had been told by the Registrar that she should consider each debate on its merit and declare as appropriate. Her evidence is that, in preparing her speech for the debate, which she was asked to undertake at short notice and for which she was not the policy lead, she had absolutely no intention of raising anything which she believed to be linked to Mr Raynsford’s registered interests. So in her view, the issue of considering whether to make a declaration of interest at the outset did not arise.
70. In respect of her interventions during the debate, Ms Seabeck’s evidence is that her reference to the Fire Protection Association in a list of organisations had been made on the spur of the moment. She had asked the Minister when he had last met organisations such as the two she listed to discuss how to reduce fire deaths. Ms Seabeck’s evidence is that her judgement, made in good faith, was that no declaration was necessary as the Association had played no part in the preparation of the Bill. She referred to it by way of illustration only, and was not seeking any action from the Minister in respect of it. She also believes that a declaration then might have impeded the business of the House. Her evidence is that she had not referred to the Association in a subsequent intervention, when she had asked the Minister to meet a specific organisation, because she was aware that this could be wrong.
71. Ms Seabeck’s evidence is that she did not consider it necessary to declare an interest in either the National House-Building Council Foundation or the Construction Industry Council, although Mr Raynsford has financial interests in both. While she considers that, like the Fire Protection Association, both could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation, in her view the interests of all three bodies in this Bill are extremely peripheral.
28 Alison Seabeck
Conclusions 72. The issue I am to resolve is whether Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association when she spoke in the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November 2010.
73. While not part of the complaint, I need also to resolve the issue which Ms Seabeck raised with me about whether she should also have declared during the same debate her indirect interests in the Construction Industry Council and the National House-Building Council Foundation.
74. The questions I have therefore considered are:
i. Did Ms Seabeck’s relationship to Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP create a possible requirement on her to declare an indirect interest in his financial interests?
ii. Should Ms Seabeck have declared an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association, in the Construction Industry Council and in the National House- Building Council Foundation during the fire safety debate on 19 November?
Did Ms Seabeck’s relationship to Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP create a possible requirement to declare an interest in his financial interests? 75. The rules require Members to declare indirect financial interests. These indirect interests specifically include the interests of a spouse or partner. Ms Seabeck has accepted that she is the partner of Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP. His financial interests are, therefore, relevant to the requirement in the rules on Members to declare indirect interests.
76. This obligation arises whether or not the partner is a Member of the House. Most partners of Members are not. Contrary to what Ms Seabeck has stated, there is no requirement on Members to name their partner when making a declaration. They need, however, to declare an interest arising from their partner’s financial interests, whoever that partner may be, where that interest is relevant to a debate or proceeding in the House.
77. Ms Seabeck properly consulted the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests about her partner’s interests when she was appointed to her Shadow post on 11 October 2010. She seemed initially to have had a mistaken recollection of that conversation, since she told me that the Registrar’s advice was that there was a need neither to register nor to declare her partner’s interests. While she was correct in recalling the Registrar’s advice that there was no need for her to register her partner’s interests, it clearly would have been an inexplicable error if the Registrar had advised that Ms Seabeck had no obligation to declare such an interest if it was relevant to a debate or proceeding. Ms Seabeck’s subsequent recollection, prompted by the Registrar’s advice to me, was, I consider, a more accurate reflection of the position. The Registrar’s advice which Ms Seabeck subsequently recalled was that Ms Seabeck should consider each debate on its merits and declare as appropriate, although such declarations should not unduly impede the business of the House. I consider that this is a correct summary of the relevant rule.
78. Ms Seabeck has suggested that she should have been able to put in cross references to Mr Raynsford’s registered interests in her own Register entry. I do not believe that such a
Alison Seabeck 29
requirement is necessary or would have any particular benefit. It would put an unnecessary obligation on Members whose partners also happened to be Members of Parliament which would not apply to other Members. It would not therefore provide a comprehensive register of indirect interests. I do not consider a register of indirect interests is sufficiently necessary to justify the resultant intrusion into the private life of a Member’s partner. Nor would it obviate the proper requirement to declare a relevant interest during parliamentary proceedings. I would not, therefore, recommend such an extension of the Register on account of my investigation of this complaint.
79. Having established that Ms Seabeck had an indirect interest in her partner’s financial interests, I need now to consider whether that interest was relevant to her contribution to the debate on the Fire Safety Bill and whether she should therefore have declared it.
Should Ms Seabeck have declared an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association, in the Construction Industry Council and in the National House- Building Council Foundation during the fire safety debate on 19 November? 80. The Registrar’s advice is that Ms Seabeck did have a relevant indirect interest as a result of her partner’s role with the Fire Protection Association and that she should have declared it during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, at least during her intervention on the Minister or preferably earlier. I agree with the Registrar.
81. I accept Ms Seabeck’s view that it is the Member’s responsibility to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate. But paragraph 74 of the Guide to the Rules makes it clear that in exercising that judgement, Members must have regard to the rules of the House.100 In my view, Ms Seabeck’s judgement in this case did not have sufficient regard to those rules. I consider that the obligation under the rules to declare Ms Seabeck’s indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association was clear and unequivocal. While every Member needs to make a judgement on whether they have a relevant interest, and whether they can declare it in appropriate terms without impeding proceedings, I do not believe that this was a particularly “grey area”, as suggested by Ms Seabeck. Ms Seabeck was aware of her partner’s paid role in the Fire Protection Association. Fire safety is at the core of the Fire Protection Association’s interests. Fire safety is the central purpose of smoke alarms. The Bill would require landlords to provide at least one hard-wired smoke alarm in rented residential accommodation. It is inconceivable that that is not of interest to the members of the Fire Protection Association.
82. Ms Seabeck’s evidence, taken together, shows that she was generally aware of the declaration requirement. In my judgement, she should quickly (and easily) have recognised that the Association had a central interest in fire safety which was relevant to the legislation she might have to debate. She should have declared that interest when she spoke. In my judgement, Ms Seabeck was clearly in breach of the rules of the House in not doing so. She was in breach of Rule 16 in the Code in respect of the declaration of interests, taking account of paragraphs 72 to 77 of the Guide to the Rules.
100 The relevant part of this paragraph is reproduced at paragraph 10 above.
30 Alison Seabeck
83. There is a secondary question about when that interest should have been declared. In my view, it would have been most appropriate for Ms Seabeck to have declared her interest at the beginning of the Front-Bench speech which she gave. While I accept that there was some uncertainty about whether she would give the Front-Bench speech, she seems to have had some time to prepare, even if only on a contingency basis, and that would have been the moment for her to have inserted a reference to her indirect interest in case, as happened, she was asked to deliver the speech on behalf of the Opposition. In any event, Ms Seabeck should have been sensitive to the obvious link between fire safety and the interests of the Fire Protection Association. Rule 76 is I believe right to note that no difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the House in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. I do not believe there should have been a difficulty for Ms Seabeck n this case. Had she, for some reason, overlooked this requirement, her intervention to make a specific reference to the Fire Protection Association should have prompted her to make the declaration at that stage. In my judgement, the limited time available for debate on 19 November was not sufficient reason for her to have failed to have done so. Ms Seabeck’s statement to me that, at her second intervention, she thought it would be “wrong” to mention the Association, suggests that at that stage she was well aware of the possible need to declare an interest.
84. While not part of the complaint, Ms Seabeck has raised the question of whether during this debate she should also have declared her indirect interest in the Construction Industry Council and in the National House-Building Council Foundation. Having considered her evidence and the statement of each body’s purposes on its website, I consider that there was no requirement on her to declare her interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation, since that would appear to be a research-led organisation sharing guidance and good practice. Its interests do not appear to be sufficiently relevant to the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill. Members of the Construction Industry Council, however, might be thought to have a potential benefit from the Bill, since it could lead to construction work in fitting the relevant alarms in tenanted properties. In my judgement, Ms Seabeck should have declared this interest and was in breach of the rules in not doing so. The words “Construction Industry Council” could easily have been inserted in a declaration of her interest in the Fire Protection Association at the beginning of her speech.
85. Ms Seabeck’s evidence to me suggests that she has too narrow an understanding of the requirement to declare indirect interests. The obligation to declare does not arise only if the Member wishes to name the organisation in which their partner has a financial interest. It does not arise only if the organisation has been involved in the preparation or promotion of a particular piece of parliamentary business. Nor is the status of the body relevant. It does not matter whether it is a voluntary body, a non-profit organisation or a publicly- quoted company. What matters is the relevance of these financial interests to the matter in hand. Nor does the obligation arise only when a Member is suggesting that the Minister have some contact with that body (as implied by Ms Seabeck). Nor is it avoided by including the name of the organisation in a list of other organisations (as suggested by Ms Seabeck, although the list that she gave in the House amounted only to two organisations). The obligation is properly not so narrowly confined: as the Registrar has advised, it arises when the Member is involved in proceedings which relate to the aims and interests of the organisation in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest.
Alison Seabeck 31
86. The purpose of a declaration, therefore, is to enable Members and others to be aware of a Member’s direct and indirect financial interests which might be thought by others to influence their speech and their actions. The test is not what the Member believes to be the case; it is what others might reasonably think. Members should be expected therefore to declare such interests where the aims, objectives or activities of the organisation in which either they or their partner has a financial interest could be considered by others to be relevant to the subject of the parliamentary proceeding in which they are taking part.
87. Looking to the future, I would hope that Ms Seabeck would have little difficulty in identifying her partner’s relevant interests in her Front-Bench and other responsibilities. I would hope that she would have equally little difficulty in declaring that interest at the appropriate time without unduly impeding the business of the House. I do not accept that the obligation on Ms Seabeck is necessarily so complex and onerous as to confuse other Members or unduly to impede the business of the House. The Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests in my office is always available to advise any Member on these matters.
Overall conclusion 88. My conclusion, therefore, is that Ms Seabeck was in breach of the rules of the House in relation to the declaration of Members’ interests in failing to declare her indirect interest arising from her partner’s paid role in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November 2010. I therefore uphold this complaint. While not part of the complaint, I also find that Ms Seabeck was in breach of the rules in not declaring also her indirect interest arising from her partner’s paid role in the Construction Industry Council during the same debate on 19 November. While not at the most serious end of the spectrum, I consider that a Member’s failure to declare a relevant interest is a serious matter, since openness about such matters is important in ensuring that Members are seen to be acting in the public interest. It is to Ms Seabeck’s credit that she sought advice from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, but it is unfortunate that Ms Seabeck should have misinterpreted the advice which she subsequently accepted that the Registrar gave her. It is, I believe, equally unfortunate that Ms Seabeck should have taken such a narrow view of her obligations to declare indirect interests, both during the debate and during the course of my inquiry. I hope that my inquiry into this complaint serves as a reminder of the importance of Members declaring direct and indirect financial interests during parliamentary proceedings, and of assessing the relevance of those interests to particular proceedings in a way which fully meets the stated purpose of the rule. The requirement is for a Member to declare any direct or indirect interest which others might think could influence them in their conduct of their parliamentary duties. That requirement is important in maintaining public confidence in the proceedings of the House and in the conduct of its Members.
16 February 2011 John Lyon CB
32 Alison Seabeck
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Guy Opperman MP, 26 November 2010
I am writing to you with reference to questions asked in the House of Commons by Shadow Housing Minister Alison Seabeck, concerning a company in which her partner, Nick Raynsford MP, has a registered interest, without declaring an interest herself. The registered interest by the Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP which I consider relevant is his position as non Executive Board Member and Chair of the Fire Protection Association Council. Hansard shows that on 19 November 2010, Alison Seabeck asked Bob Neill, the Local Government and Planning Minister, when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association (Hansard, 19 November 2010, Col. 1236).101 I note that the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members (2009)102 states: “Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
...
V. Rules of Conduct
...
9. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.”
I would be grateful if you could investigate if Ms Seabeck and Mr Raynsford's conduct is contrary to these principles.
26 November 2010
2. Extract from the Official Report, 19 November 2010, cols 1236-7
Alison Seabeck: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when he last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association to discuss how we reach those ends?
101 See WE 2 102 The Code of Conduct together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, 2009, HC (2008–09) 735
Alison Seabeck 33
Robert Neill: I have had a raft of meetings with organisations across the fire sector. I will not pretend off the top of my head that I recall those particular ones, but I regularly meet representatives of, for example, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the fire prevention industries and the Fire Brigades Union, and I continue to keep in touch with them. I am aware that these issue are often discussed with Housing Ministers as responsibilities overlap here. Under this Administration, the door of our Department is always open to professional and voluntary organisations that want to raise issues with us. Alison Seabeck rose- Robert Neill: If the hon. Lady wants to suggest more people whom it will be useful for me to meet, I am happy for her to do so. Alison Seabeck: I am aware that the Fire Commission, which is part of the Local Government Association, has requested a meeting with the Minister. I hope that it will get a positive response. Robert Neill: I have in fact met the Local Government Association's fire forum on more than one occasion. I have attended its meetings and have had meetings with its Chairman, Councillor Brian Coleman, and other leading members. I have already made it clear that I have a regular series of debates, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I am sure that if the Fire Commission wishes to raise a specific issue, it will ask for a further meeting and I will happily oblige, as I hope I have always tried to do.
19 November 2010
3. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 30 November 2010
I would welcome your help on a complaint which I have received from Mr Guy Opperman MP suggesting that you failed to declare a relevant interest during a debate in the House of Commons on 19 November this year. I enclose a copy of the complainant’s letter of 26 November.103 I enclose an extract from the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill of 19 November which identifies your contributions in the debate;104 and an extract from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP in respect of his position with the Fire Protection Association Council.105 I enclose also a copy of an article in the Sunday Times of 28 November referring to this complaint and quoting your response.106 In essence, the complaint is that you failed to declare an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association Council when you took part in the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November. Section 6 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament refers to the registration and declaration of interests in the following terms: “Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Interests and shall always draw attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, or in any communication acting in accordance with Standing Orders Nos 149 and 150 respectively.”
The Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members sets out the rules in relation to the declaration of Members’ Interests in section 2 of that guide in paragraphs 72 to 88. Among other things, paragraph 73 provides: “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).”
103 WE 1 104 WE 2 105 WE 4 106 WE 5
34 Alison Seabeck
Paragraph 74 to 77 sets out the rules on relevance including paragraph 74 as follows: “It is the responsibility of the Member, having regard to the rules of the House, to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant to a particular debate, proceeding, meeting or other activity to require a declaration. 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.”
Paragraph 76 provides: “The House has endorsed the following advice on the occasions when such a declaration of interest should be made: “no difficulty should arise in any proceeding of the House or its Committees in which the Member has an opportunity to speak. Such proceedings, in addition to debates in the House, include debates in Standing Committees, the presentation of a Public Petition, and meetings of Select Committees at which evidence is heard. On all such occasions the Member will declare his interest at the beginning of his remarks ... it will be a matter of judgement, if his interest is already recorded in the Register, whether he simply draws attention to this or makes a rather fuller disclosure”.25 Any declaration “should be sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member’s financial interest ...”,26 and Members are advised to be specific if there is any doubt as to which interest is involved.”
Paragraph 77 provides: “In a debate in the House the Member should declare an interest briefly, usually at the beginning of his or her speech. If the House is dealing with the Committee or Consideration stages of a Bill it will normally be sufficient for the Member to declare a relevant interest when speaking for the first time. In Public Bill Committees, Members should declare relevant interests at the first meeting of the Committee or on the first occasion on which they address the Committee. It will not be necessary for a declaration to be repeated at subsequent meetings except when the Member speaks on an Amendment to 25 Select Committee on Members’ Interests (Declaration), First Report, Session 1974–75, HC 102, paragraph 43; approved by the House, 12th June 1975. 26 Select Committee on Members’ Interests, First Report, Session 1991–92, op.cit., paragraph 80. Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members 30 which the interest is particularly relevant. When giving notice of an Amendment or a Motion (including a Motion for leave to introduce a ‘Ten Minute Rule’ Bill), giving notice of the presentation of a Bill or adding a name to an amendment or motion, Members should declare any relevant interest in the appropriate manner (see paragraphs 78–81).”
I would welcome your comments on this matter in the light of this summary of the relevant rules. In particular, it would be helpful if you could explain: 1. whether you considered at the time or subsequently whether you should have declared an interest;
2. whether you accept that you have an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association by virtue of Mr Raynsford’s role as Chair of the Association’s Council;
3. whether you have at any time sought advice from my office about the registration or declaration of indirect interests.
Any other points you may wish to make to help me in resolving this matter would, of course, be very welcome. I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow. I have written to the complainant to let him know that I have accepted his complaint and I am writing to you about it. I would be grateful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next three weeks. If you would like a word about any of this, please contact me at the House. I would be most grateful for your help on this matter.
Alison Seabeck 35
30 November 2010
4. Extract from entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP, as at 22 November 2010
Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc Fire Protection Association Council (non-executive Board Member and Chair), London Road, Moreton-in- Marsh, Gloucestershire, GL56 0RH. Work involves advising on the development of the FPA’s work and mission to promote fire safety, including attendance at board meetings. (£5,001–£10,000) Received £3,500 (excluding VAT) covering May to October 2009. Estimated hours: 18 hrs. (Registered 3 December 2009) Received £3,500 (excluding VAT) covering November 2009 to April 2010. Estimated hours: 13 hours. (Registered 4 August 2010)
22 November 2010
5. Extract from Sunday Times article, 28 November 2010
LABOUR’S Shadow Housing Minister has been reported to the parliamentary standards watchdog after urging ministers to meet a company whose Chairman is her boyfriend. Alison Seabeck, appointed to Labour’s Front Bench by Ed Miliband seven weeks ago, used a Commons debate on smoke alarms to suggest the government should meet the Fire Protection Association (FPA), which promotes the fire safety industry, to discuss ways of reducing fire deaths. Seabeck has been accused of a conflict of interest because her boyfriend, Nick Raynsford, a Labour MP and a former Housing and local government Minister under Tony Blair, is a non-executive member of the FPA board. He has been paid a total of £35,000 by the company since 2005. ... The complaint was triggered by Seabeck’s comments at the opposition dispatch box on November 19. She told MPs that her party supported a Private Member’s Bill requiring landlords to fit fire alarms in all rental properties, a proposal backed by the FPA. She then suggested the government should hold meetings with the FPA. Guy Opperman, a Conservative MP, has written to John Lyon, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, asking him to investigate Seabeck over a possible breach of the MPs’ code of conduct. Seabeck said: “I checked with the parliamentary standards office to ask if I would need to declare anything... If this MP has a concern then it’s perfectly proper that it’s looked at.”
28 November 2010
6. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 1 December 2010
Thank you for your letter of the 30th November inviting my input to your investigation into the complaint by Guy Opperman MP. I am grateful for the enclosed information and the opportunity to respond. I am sorry to say that Mr Opperman, who to the best of my knowledge was not in the chamber on 19th November, has not had the courtesy to speak to me directly about his concerns and I first learned of his complaint when contacted by the Sunday Times. I feel it would be helpful if I were to set out, to you, the nature of my relationship with Mr Raynsford. I am not Mr Raynsford's wife, I do not have a joint bank account with Mr Raynsford and our sole shared asset is our flat in Greenwich. I accept that, as my partner, Mr Raynsford's outside interests are, potentially, of interest given my role as my party's spokeswoman for Housing. For this reason I spoke, at length, with [the Registrar of Members’
36 Alison Seabeck
Financial Interests], in your office, on taking up this role to clarify my responsibilities and to ensure that I acted in compliance with the Code of Conduct. In these verbal conversations with [the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests], I specifically asked whether I ought to put a note in my entry in the Members' Register of Interest, which would draw attention to the interests registered by Mr Raynsford. I was told that this was not necessary and that there was also no need to direct Members to Mr Raynsford's interests when I speak in the House. In light of Mr Opperman's complaint I would welcome written confirmation that the advice that was provided to me by your office was correct. Due to my desire to be very clear about any potential conflict, I have also sought written advice from [the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests] on registering or declaring interests with regard to two specific APPGs107 on 8th June and the 19th November and I followed the advice that I was given by your office. In the debate of the 19th November I made two interventions. I was aware that the Fire Commission had not been able to secure a meeting with the Minister. In my first intervention I listed organisations, as you will see from Hansard, in a very general way. My second intervention, later in the debate, was specific only to the Fire Commission. I was aware that to mention the FPA at this juncture and in this context could be wrong. As Hansard shows, and contrary to the allegations made in the Sunday Times, at no time did I ask the Minister whether he would meet with the FPA. It was my understanding that using general lists would not constitute a conflict of interest but I would welcome your advice on this. I have always sought to act fully in line with the Members’ Code of Conduct and have both sought and followed advice given to me by members of your office when fulfilling my duties in the House. As I have stated, I would really appreciate your advice on this not least because I have a complex Bill to work on soon and I need to be very clear exactly what statements I ought to make at the start of it, in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
1 December 2010
7. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 2 December 2010
Thank you for your letter of 1 December responding to mine of 30 November about this complaint. I was grateful for this prompt response. I see that you have identified two interventions which you made in the debate on 19 November on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill. It might be helpful at this stage to clarify your contribution to the debate. As I read the debate, you made one intervention on Mr Adrian Sanders (column 1230); you gave your own speech (columns 1233 to 1234); and you intervened twice on Mr Neill (at column 1236 and column 1237).108 I assume that the two interventions you refer to were the last two of these. I note also that other Members declared an interest during the debate, namely Mr Adrian Sanders and Mr Robert Neill. If I am mistaken or have misdirected myself on any of these points, do please let me know. I have noted that you have referred to discussions with the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests. I will now seek advice from the Registrar on the matters to which you refer. When I hear from her, I will be back in touch. Thank you for your help with this.
107 All-Party Parliamentary Groups 108 WE 2
Alison Seabeck 37
2 December 2010
8. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 6 December 2010
Thank you for your letters of the 2 December 2010. I will address these in turn: Complaint from Mr Guy Opperman MP—yes the interventions you refer to are those which are relevant at column 1236 and column 1237. When I began the debate my pre-written speech contained no reference to any organisation with which Rt Hon Nick Raynsford had a link. During Mr Neill's contribution I made an intervention, on the spur of the moment, regarding the Fire Commission and included in the list the Fire Protection Association, although not with regard to the question of a meeting. [Material not relevant to the inquiry] To ensure you are kept fully up to date of the situation I enclose a copy of the correction printed by the Sunday Times on 5th December 2010.109
6 December 2010
9. Correction printed by the Sunday Times, 5 December 2010
We reported last week that Alison Seabeck MP, the Shadow Housing Minister, sought to obtain a meeting with the Minister for the Fire Protection Association, an organisation in which her partner has an interest (“Labour MP draws fire over boyfriend,” News).110 The parliamentary record shows that this was not the case. We apologise for any misunderstanding that this has caused.
5 December 2010
10. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 2 December 2010
I would welcome your help on a complaint which I have received against Ms Alison Seabeck MP in respect of an alleged failure to declare a relevant interest in the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, to which she contributed. I attach the relevant correspondence. In essence, the complaint is that Ms Seabeck failed to declare an indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association Council when she took part in the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November. As you will see from her letter to me of 1 December, Ms Seabeck refers to discussions with you and your office and to advice she received about the registration and declaration of the indirect interest arising from the registered interests of her partner, Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP. As you will see, Ms Seabeck reports that you advised that there was no need for her to register Mr Raynsford’s interest in her own entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and there was also no need to declare Mr Raynsford’s interests when she spoke in the House. She notes also that she received written advice from this office in relation to two specific All Party Parliamentary Groups on 8 June and 19 November (I assume this year). I would be very grateful if: 1. you could confirm or otherwise modify Ms Seabeck’s account of her conversations with you in respect of the registration and declaration of Mr Raynsford’s interests. It would be helpful if you could give me an indication of how many such conversations took place and the dates;
109 WE 9 110 WE 5
38 Alison Seabeck
2. you could let me have copies of the written advice which this office gave Ms Seabeck in relation to the two specific APPGs to which she refers, together with any comments you may wish to make on the circumstances and substance of that advice;
3. you could let me have your considered advice in the light of the circumstances of this complaint whether, under the rules of the House in relation to the declaration of indirect relevant interests, you consider that Ms Seabeck should have declared such an interest during the debate on 19 November.
Any other points you may wish to make to help me with this inquiry would, of course, be very welcome. It would be most helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks.
2 December 2010
11. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 15 December 2010
Thank you for your letters of 2 and 7 December about the complaint against Ms Seabeck. You ask me to confirm or modify Ms Seabeck's account of her conversations with me and the office. Ms Seabeck states in her letter of 1 December, “As my partner Mr Raynsford's outside interests are potentially of interest given my role as my party’s spokeswoman for Housing. For this reason, I spoke at length, with [the Registrar], in your office, on taking up this role to clarify my responsibilities and to ensure that I acted in compliance with the Code of Conduct. In these verbal conversations with [the Registrar] I specifically asked whether I ought to put a note in my entry in the Members’ Register of Interests, which would draw attention to the interests registered by Mr Raynsford. I was told that this was not necessary and that there was also no need to direct Members to Mr Raynsford's interests when I speak in the House.” Mr Raynsford's relevant registered interest in this case is that he is non-executive director and Chair of the Fire Protection Association Council. I am frequently asked whether Members should register or declare the interests of their spouses or partners. The usual advice is that the employment interests of a partner should not be registered but should be declared in parliamentary proceedings where appropriate. Indeed, I cannot recollect any circumstances in which the advice has been different. Ms Seabeck was appointed shadow spokeswoman on 11 October 2010. It is my habit to keep brief manuscript notes of conversations with Members: the more standard the advice, the briefer the note. I have a brief manuscript note that on that day Ms Seabeck rang me about her position as Shadow Housing Minister and her partner’s housing interests. The note reads, “Alison Seabeck—Shadow Minister for Housing—husband [sic] has housing interests...” The very brevity of the note suggests to me that I gave the standard advice in respect of queries of this nature, which I give regularly and which I had, indeed already given Ms Seabeck in another context. I believe I would have made a specific record had the advice been out of the ordinary. I do not have a note of how long the conversation lasted. I have no record of any other conversation with Ms Seabeck on the subject. Ms Seabeck refers to two e-mail exchanges with me which she describes as being related to two specific All-Party Groups. I have found two e- mails with the dates she gives, one of which refers to an All-Party Group and the other to her appointment as a parliamentary patron of Planning Aid England. The earlier and more relevant is dated 8 June 2010, before she became Shadow Housing spokesperson. In this she asks whether she should declare her partner’s interest in the Construction Industry Council to the All- Party Group on Building Excellence, which had asked her to be its secretary. I responded that “there is no requirement to register a spouse or partner’s employment. If you were taking part in parliamentary proceedings or approaching MPs, civil servants or Ministers on a matter relating to the Construction Industry Council I would suggest that you declare it. I would therefore suggest that you remind the APG of this if/when you accept the nomination.” The second exchange, timed about an hour after the debate in question on 19 November, is less relevant, though it does show that Ms Seabeck was alive to standards questions. It relates to Ms Seabeck’s own interests, specifically not to an All-Party Group but to her position as patron of Planning Aid England in relation to her
Alison Seabeck 39
appointment as Shadow Housing spokesperson. Again I suggested that this interest was not registrable but should be declared when relevant to parliamentary proceedings. You will see that in both cases my advice went wider than the specific question put to me and that I recommended declaration in the House. Copies of the e-mail exchanges are enclosed.111 As I said, I can find no other record of any relevant conversation with Ms Seabeck. You ask for my considered advice as to whether Ms Seabeck should have declared an interest in the debate of 19 November (a debate at which, as it happens, I was present as Associate Serjeant at Arms). The complaint relates to an intervention made by Ms Seabeck at a late stage of the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, when she asked “when the Minister last met organisations such as the Fire Commission and the Fire Protection Association”. Ms Seabeck subsequently made a second intervention, saying she was “aware that the Fire Commission, which is part of the Local Government Association, has requested a meeting” and hoped that it would get a positive response. The Bill requires landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation. An interest in an organisation which is concerned with fire protection might therefore reasonably be regarded as relevant to parliamentary proceedings on the Bill. The House has made it clear, in its resolution of 22 May 1974, that “In any debate or proceeding of the House or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.” Paragraph 73 makes clear that “Members are also required to declare relevant indirect interests, for instance those of a spouse or partner”. The requirement to declare is qualified by paragraph 87 of the rules, which states: “In its application of the 1974 Resolution the House has always recognised that there are certain proceedings where declaration of interest is impracticable; e.g. during oral Questions or when asking a question in response to ministerial statement on a matter of public policy or supplementary to an Urgent Question. (The Member asking the Question should, however, declare an interest; see paragraphs 78 to 81.) However, Members are advised to declare any relevant interest when such a declaration does not unduly impede the business of the House, for example in relation to a request for a debate made in response to a Business Question or statement.”
I have considered whether Ms Seabeck's intervention is covered by this exception. That must be a matter of judgement, but given that the second reading of the Bill was on the Order Paper I would have expected Ms Seabeck to have been aware of the possible need for a declaration, and to be in a position to make one without slowing debate. Indeed, it might have been appropriate, for the avoidance of doubt, for her to mention the interest in her original speech, since she was an experienced Member, leading for her party, and would have known that she would be called to speak. In her letter to you of 6 December, Ms Seabeck points out that her pre-written speech contained no reference to any organisation with which Mr Raynsford had an interest. She says she made an intervention on the spur of the moment, regarding the Fire Commission, and included in the list the Fire Protection Association, “although not with regard to the question of a meeting”. It is true that Ms Seabeck did not, as originally reported in the media, ask for the Minister to meet the Fire Protection Association but rather when he had last done so, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest a distinction, in terms of the requirement to declare, between a request that a meeting be held and a request as to whether one has been held. Ms Seabeck also says that she understands that using general lists would not constitute a conflict of interest. I do not know on what part of the Rules Ms Seabeck bases this understanding, but I would not in any case regard a list of two organisations as a general list. I do not believe that the requirement to declare an interest, whether direct or indirect, in the House, is restricted to occasions on which the Member names an organisation in which he or she has an interest, but
111 Not included in the written evidence
40 Alison Seabeck
consider that it applies when a matter for debate or other proceeding relates to the aims and interests of that organisation. It is my considered view that Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate of 19 November, at the least during her intervention and preferably earlier.
15 December 2010
12. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 15 December 2010
When I wrote to you on 2 December, I noted that I was seeking advice from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests on this complaint, in particular on the response in your letter of 1 December. I subsequently sent the Registrar your further letter to me of 6 December. I have now heard back from the Registrar. I enclose copies of my letters to her of 2 and 7 December; and her response of 15 December. As you will see, the Registrar has a different recollection to yours of the telephone discussion you had with her which she says was on 11 October. Her note suggests that the discussion was about your partner’s registered housing interest in relation to your new appointment as Shadow Housing Minister. She believes she would have given you the standard advice on the interests of partners, namely that they should not be registered but should, where appropriate be declared in parliamentary proceedings. She considered this belief is reinforced by the written advice she gave you on 8 June and, to a lesser extent, 19 November where she advised that you should declare your partner’s registered interest in the Construction Industry Council to the all party group on building excellence and you should declare your interest as Shadow Housing Spokesperson in relation to your position as patron of Planning Aid England. You will see also that the Registrar’s considered view is that you should have declared your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate on 19 November, at least during your intervention and “preferably earlier.” I would welcome your views on the Registrar’s advice, in particular whether you accept that she would have not have given you the advice you recall receiving in your telephone conversation on 11 October and if you accept the Registrar’s view that, in any event, your indirect interest should have been declared during the debate. The issues I will need to consider are first whether you had a relevant indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association through Mr Raynsford’s registered interest as a Board Member of the Fire Protection Association and non-executive Chair of the Council. I take it from your letter of 1 December that you do accept that you had an indirect interest because Mr Raynsford is your partner. The second matter I will need to consider is whether that interest was relevant to the debate on 19 November in respect of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill. I will need to take account of the Registrar’s advice and your response to that advice. I enclose an extract from the website of the Fire Protection Association112 which sets out its aims and purposes; and the long title of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill113 which I will take into account when coming to my conclusions. I would, therefore, welcome your response to the Registrar’s advice set out in her letter of 15 December, and any further comments you may wish to make on the two matters which I will need to consider in resolving this complaint. I appreciate we are now very close to the Christmas recess. If you could let me have a response by 21 December I will try to make progress on this during the recess; otherwise I would welcome a response by 5 January.
112 WE 13 113 The Long Title of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill is: A Bill to require landlords to provide smoke alarms in rented accommodation; and for connected purposes.
Alison Seabeck 41
15 December 2010
13. Extract from the website of the Fire Protection Association, downloaded 15 December 2010
Governance, Aims and Objectives
The FPA is the UK’s national fire safety organisation, promoting fire safety within industry, commerce and the wider public. One of 28 similar national bodies worldwide we were established in 1946 and receive strong support from the insurance industry, primarily through the Association of British Insurers and Lloyd's. Our five stakeholders who currently sit on the FPA board are: The Association of British Insurers (ABI)
Lloyd’s
The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA)
The Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE)
The Fire Industry Association (FIA)
In addition to the Board of Directors, FPA has an Advisory Council, which has an independent Chair and is made up of a broad range of stakeholders from the UK fire industry and includes representatives from both central and local government and from industry and commerce. The agreed aims and objectives of the FPA are: To protect people and property and the environment by advancing fire prevention and protection techniques
To collaborate with central Government, the Fire Service and other agencies in this work
To focus national and European attention on these issues
To influence consumers and business related decision making
To collect, analyse and publish statistics, identify trends and provide research
To disseminate advice and information
Downloaded 15 December 2010
14. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 21 December 2010
Thank you for your letter of 15 December enclosing [the response from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests]. It was helpful to have this because it did expose one or two areas of potential difficulty. Can I at this stage make clear that I am not a patron of Planning Aid and following advice from [the Registrar], I took a view that this could create difficulties and therefore did not accept the position. [The Registrar] is correct to say that I am “alive to standards questions”, indeed throughout my time both as an MP and as a member of staff for an MP I have been scrupulously careful to remain within the guidelines set and that is why I find this complaint particularly unsettling. The Bill was a Private Member’s Bill which should have been taken by my colleague Chris Williamson MP who is the lead on fire within the Shadow Front-Bench Team. He was unable to do this and so at the last minute I was asked to deputise in case the debate happened. As you know you can never be sure of that on a Friday with Private Members’ business and therefore it is not right to say that I would have known that I would be called to speak. I did prepare a draft speech to be read either by me or another Minister, as can happen on Fridays, in the event of the business being reached and being called to speak, but as [the Registrar] acknowledges this made no reference to the Fire Protection Association or any other body in which Mr Raynsford has an interest. I find it strange therefore that she concludes I should preferably have made a
42 Alison Seabeck
declaration earlier than at the time of the intervention. [The Registrar]’s comment that the Bill was on the order paper is correct but it was not a Bill I was seeking to either speak in or lead on. As regards to the conversation we had following my being offered the Shadow Housing role, [the Registrar] said that I would not need to register Nick Raynsford’s interests although she was very aware of just how diverse they are and that I should consider each debate on its merit and declare as appropriate. I do recall her saying that this could mean me having to declare every time I spoke. Though, as her letter confirms, such declarations should not unduly impede the business of the House. She said it was a matter for my judgement and that I should perhaps speak to my Party’s Whips. With regard to the intervention I made in which the Fire Protection Association was mentioned, it would have been difficult to make a declaration at that point without unduly delaying this time limited business of the House and as I was only quoting the FPA for illustrative purposes and was not specifically asking the Minister to meet them, I did not believe that a declaration was necessary. This is a matter of judgement. As my judgement has been called into question I am therefore now concerned that in other debates in which I have participated and where housing and construction issues have been mentioned I should have made declarations when I did not feel them necessary. Nick has links, particularly through the Construction Industry Council (CIC) which is an umbrella organisation, to just about every area of the brief I have been given. The National Housing Federation, for example, is a member of the CIC and therefore when it was mentioned in a debate on Housing and the CSR it perhaps would have been appropriate in the light of [the Registrar]’s advice for me to declare an interest here too. I would certainly welcome clarification of [the Registrar’s ] earlier advice on “where appropriate” as there are clearly some horribly grey areas and I would include the fire debate. I would much rather have had to put an entry on my register of interests which links back across to Mr Raynsford's. The whole area would then be so much clearer. As this stands I feel I will have no option if I am to avoid the risk of further, perhaps politically motivated complaints, but to make at the outset of any and every debate in which I participate declaration of my partner's entry in the register and that will mean that I will also always have to name him because the wider public will not know who he is. Indeed most of the Members of the House of Commons do not know he is my partner, whereas if the entry was mine and a reference within it was to Mr Raynsford then all would be clear to anyone who wanted to check. It would also shorten the time taken to make the declaration. He and I are probably going to be in the very odd situation on the Localism Bill committee in 2011 where I shall have to make a declaration of his interests and then he will have to declare his own interests a couple of minutes later I really would welcome some help on this and clarity because I do not want to fall foul of the guidelines.
21 December 2010
15. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 4 January 2011
Thank you for your letter of 21 December responding to mine of 15 December about this complaint. You have raised a number of matters about the procedure for declaring your interests in the future. I have passed your letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests so that she can consider what advice to give you on these matters. In the meantime, I do need to resolve this complaint against you. The question I have to resolve is whether you should have declared your indirect interest during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November, when you intervened by referring to the Fire Protection Association. The Registrar’s view is that you should have declared this interest, and that it would have been preferable if you had done so earlier in the debate. I hope I am right in interpreting your letter as accepting this advice. If that were the case, then I take it that you accept the basis of the complaint, namely that you were in breach of the rules in relation to the declaration of interests in not declaring your indirect interest during this debate. You have argued that the decision about declaring an indirect interest is a matter of judgement, and that you had indeed considered the general question of the declaration of your partner’s interests, including when you were appointed Shadow Housing spokesman in October 2010. I think it would be helpful, however, if I could be clear whether you considered specifically whether to declare your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association for the debate on the
Alison Seabeck 43
Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November—in which case any error was not inadvertent but, in your view, was an error of judgement—or whether you did not specifically consider this matter at that time. Finally, I note that your summary of your conversation with the Registrar following her recollection of the conversation which she sent me on 15 December,114 is different from your initial recollection which you sent me on 1 December, where you suggested that her advice was that there was no need to direct Members to your partner’s interests when you spoke in the House.115 I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could confirm that you accept the Registrar’s advice on the declaration of your indirect interests; whether, as a consequence, you accept that you were in breach of the rules in relation to declaration when you made no declaration of your partner’s interests in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November; and if you could confirm whether or not you considered making such a declaration at the time. I have been most grateful for your prompt responses to this matter. If you could let me have a reply in the next week, that would be most helpful in bringing this to a conclusion.
4 January 2011
16. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 11 January 2011
Thank you for your letter of 4th January. I look forward to hearing from the Registrar further on the question I raised in my last letter and on which I seek further advice. I apologise for taking a while to respond, your office chased mine today, but the issues which need to be answered are serious and I had thought that I had made clear in my letter of 21 December that I find it difficult to agree with [the Registrar]'s conclusion that I should have declared my indirect interest in the FPA in the debate on 19th November “at the least during her intervention and preferably earlier”. Without going over the ground already covered in previous correspondence, I must emphasise that while the Fire Protection Association has as its objective the promotion of fire safety and protection, it had no involvement in the preparation or promotion of the private members Bill under debate on 19th November. Other organisations with an interest in promoting fire safety and the protection of tenants in rented accommodation, one of which I mentioned in the intervention were more directly involved. I did therefore not see any reasons for declaring an indirect interest in the FPA any more than I felt it necessary to declare an interest in at least two other organisations in which Mr Raynsford has a registered interest—National House Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council—both of which could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation. In all three instances the linkage between the organisation with which Mr Raynsford has an interest and the debate on 19 November did not appear sufficiently direct for me to consider that I should make a declaration of interest. This illustrates my area of concern and the dilemma which I highlighted in my letter of 21 December. The range of Mr Raynsford's interest in the fields of policy for which I have Front-Bench responsibility might suggest that I should as a matter of course declare an interest in each and every debate in which I participate. However, that was not the advice I received from [the Registrar] on 11 October, when she advised that it was a matter of judgement. She did not say I must declare in advance of each and every debate. Had she done so then I would not be in the position I find myself in now. As [the Registrar] knows because she has seen my speech of 19 November, and I enclose a copy of the draft I worked from on the day,116 I did not intend to raise the FPA at all in the course of my remarks. I did so only on an intervention. As you will see my original speaking note was amended heavily on the hoof because this was my first speech on the floor of the House of Commons from the Dispatch Box and my intervention was, as is the nature of the House of Commons, only considered immediately before I jumped up to make it. [The Registrar]'s view that I should have made a declaration “at the least during her intervention” implies that it was
114 WE 11 115 WE 6 116 Not included in the written evidence.
44 Alison Seabeck
the reference to the FPA in that intervention that led her to the conclusion that a declaration should have been made. As you know, it would in my view, have been difficult to make such a declaration at that point without unduly impeding time limited business. As I referred to the FPA by way of illustration only and did not seek any action from the Minister in respect of the FPA, my judgement was that a declaration was not necessary. You may not agree with this judgement but it was made in good faith and, I believe, in keeping with the advice I had received in October.
11 January 2011
17. Further extract from entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests by Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP, as at 22 November 2010
1. Remunerated directorships Hon vice-chairman (from June 2009), Construction Industry Council, 26 Store Street, London, WC1E 7BT. CIC is the representative body for professionals working in the construction industry. Work involves assisting the chairman and chief executive in the oversight and strategic direction of CIC, attendance at board meetings and chairing the Strategic Forum for Construction. Received payment of £12,500 (excluding VAT) for August to October 2009. Hours: 71 hrs. (Registered 3 December 2009) Received payment of £12,498 (excluding VAT) for November 2009 to January 2010. Hours: 74 hrs. (Registered 4 March 2010) Received payment of £4,166 (excluding VAT) for March 2010 Hours: 22 hours. (Registered 16 June 2010) Received payment of £4,166 (excluding VAT) for May 2010 Hours: 28 hours. (Registered 4 August 2010) Received payment of £6,250 (excluding VAT) for June-July 2010. Hours: 38 hours (Registered 28 September 2010) Received payment of £6,250 (excluding VAT) for August-September 2010. Hours; 27 hrs. (Registered 18 November 2010) Chairman, NHBC Foundation, 4th floor, 120 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6AS. The NHBC Foundation promotes research to support the development of sustainable housing. Work involves oversight of the Foundation’s research programme and dissemination of good practice, including chairing meetings of the advisory board. Received payment of £6250 (excluding VAT) for carrying out work from August to October 2009. Hours: 20 hrs. (Registered 6 January 2010) Received payment of £6,250 (excluding VAT) for carrying out work from November 2009 to January 2010. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 8 April 2010) Received £6,250 for about 18 hours work in May to July 2010 (Registered 28 September 2010)
22 November 2010
18. Extract from the website of the National House-Building Council Foundation, downloaded 2 February 2011
The NHBC Foundation
The NHBC Foundation was launched in 2006 in partnership with the BRE Trust. Its remit is to provide the necessary data and intelligence to develop long-term solutions to industry challenges which lie ahead and lead debate and thinking among industry experts. The NHBC Foundation facilitates research and development, and shares pragmatic and relevant guidance and good practice to the homebuilding industry. Much of the NHBC Foundation’s research is focused on the challenges of the Government’s 2016 zero carbon homes target.
Alison Seabeck 45
Downloaded 2 February 2011
19. Extract from the website of the Construction Industry Council, downloaded 2 February 2011
The Construction Industry Council (CIC) is the representative forum for the professional bodies, research organisations and specialist business associations in the construction industry. It provides a single voice for professionals in all sectors of the built environment through its collective membership of 500,000 individual professionals and 25,000 firms of construction consultants. In addition, CIC represents the views of the higher level of the industry (professional, managerial and technical) in ConstructionSkills—the Sector Skills Council for construction. ConstructionSkills is a partnership between CIC, CITB-ConstructionSkills and CITB Northern Ireland.
Downloaded 2 February 2011
20. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 13 January 2011
Thank you for your letter of 11 January responding to mine of 4 January about this complaint. I take it from your response that you do not accept the Registrar’s advice and you do not, therefore, accept that you were in breach of the rules in relation to the declaration of interests in not declaring your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November last. There was one outstanding point, however, which I do not think you have addressed in your letter. It is whether you specifically considered whether you should have declared your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November. As I said in my letter of 4 January, I do need to know whether you specifically considered that matter in advance of the debate, and judged that a declaration was not necessary, or whether you did not specifically consider the matter at that time. If you did not so consider it, it would be helpful to know why you did not do so. Meanwhile, I am now copying our correspondence to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests for any further comments she may wish to make, in particular on the suggestion in your letter of 11 January that your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in respect of the Fire Safety Bill was no greater than any such interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council. It would be very helpful if you could let me have a response to the outstanding point in this letter within the next week. I will also be back in touch once I hear from the Registrar. I should say that I am minded to submit a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on this matter. You should draw no inferences from that. Once I have concluded my inquiry, I will prepare the draft factual sections of my memorandum, which I would show to you so that you can comment if necessary on their factual accuracy. I would then add my conclusions and submit the full memorandum to the Committee. I would let you and the complainant know when I do so. The Clerk of the Committee would send you a copy of the full memorandum so that you can respond to it before the Committee comes to consider the matter. Thank you for your help with this.
13 January 2011
21. Letter to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests from the Commissioner, 13 January 2011
I would welcome some further advice on this complaint that Ms Alison Seabeck MP failed to declare a relevant interest during a debate on 19 November last year, about which you advised me in your letter of 15 December. I enclose [relevant correspondence].
46 Alison Seabeck
Ms Seabeck has raised a number of questions about how she should declare her interests in the future, including her possible indirect interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council. I suggest it would be more straightforward if you awaited the conclusion of my inquiry into the complaint against Ms Seabeck so that you can take that into account in following up Ms Seabeck’s questions. I would welcome any further comments you may wish to make on Ms Seabeck’s response to your advice. It would be particularly helpful if you could also give me your advice on Ms Seabeck’s suggestion in her letter of 11 January that her interest in the Fire Protection Association was no more relevant (or direct) than her indirect interest in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council in respect of the debate on 19 November. If you could let me have a response within the next week, I would be most grateful. Thank you for your help.
13 January 2011
22. Letter to the Commissioner from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, 14 January 2011
Thank you for your letter of yesterday and the enclosed correspondence between you and Ms Seabeck. I do not think I have anything to add to what I have previously written on the generality of the requirement to declare. I maintain the advice I gave you in my earlier letter. You ask for my advice on Ms Seabeck’s suggestion, in her letter of 11 January, that her interest in the Fire Protection Association was no more relevant (or direct) than her interest in respect of the National House- Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council in respect of the debate on 19 November. This is a question which I have not previously addressed, since the complaint does not refer to it. While the question of whether or not to declare is indeed one for the Member to decide on, this judgement should be exercised in the light of paragraphs 72 to 77 in the Guide to the Rules. I have already advised you of my opinion that Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in respect of Fire Protection Association. Ms Seabeck says that two other organisations in which Mr Raynsford has a registered interest—the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council—could be said to have some involvement in issues relating to fire safety in residential accommodation. If Ms Seabeck’s judgement is that these interests are as relevant to the Bill as that in the Fire Protection Association, then, without imposing my own judgement on the matter, I would have to conclude that she should have declared these interests also.
14 January 2011
23. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 18 January 2011
When I wrote to you on 13 January in response to your letter to me of 11 January, I noted that I would be copying our correspondence to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests for any further comments she may wish to make. I have now heard back from her. I enclose a copy of my letter to her of 13 January, and her response of the following day. As you will see, she has no further comments which would modify the advice she has already given me on whether you should have declared your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November. In respect of the references you made to the relevance of your indirect interests in the National House-Building Council Foundation and the Construction Industry Council, as you will see, her advice is that if, in your judgment, these interests are as relevant to the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill as those of the Fire Protection Association, then she would have to conclude that you should have declared those interests also. I would welcome any comments you may wish to make on the Registrar’s letter. I would be grateful to know, in particular, whether you consider that the extent of the relevance to the purposes of the Fire Safety Bill of the interests of the building and construction organisations you have identified is similar to those of the Fire Protection Association. And it would be helpful if you could let me have your reasons for coming to your
Alison Seabeck 47
view. The relevant question may be whether the building and construction industry could be said to benefit from the additional obligations set out in the Bill. On the face of it, it might seem that a Bill which requires the fitting of smoke alarms (including one mains-powered) in rented properties could be of some benefit to that industry and so to the members of the Foundation and Council. It would be very helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next week, perhaps at the same time that you respond to the outstanding point I have raised with you in my letter of 13 January. I am grateful for your help.
18 January 2011
24. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 25 January 2011
Thank you for your letters of 13th and 18th of January which raised further questions. The letter of the 13th asks whether or not I accepted the Registrar's advice. As I stated in my earlier letters I took her advice regarding the need not to put onto my entry in the Register Mr Raynsford’s interests but instead to make a verbal declaration when appropriate in parliamentary debates. I have to say that this is making speaking in the House of Commons or in Westminster Hall complex and confusing for fellow MPs many of whom, including an Opposition Front Bencher, have asked why I have to list Mr Raynsford’s interests every time and also have to explain my relationship to him. My understanding of the Registrar's advice was to use my judgement in individual debates if I was participating in a debate where Mr Raynsford’s interest would be directly relevant. I did not think that was the case in a debate about residential private landlords and the need to hard wire smoke alarms. The FPA are not in the business of offering day to day advice to individual residential landlords and to the best of my knowledge had no involvement in preparing or promoting this Bill. Indeed when I asked the Minister whether he had in the past had any discussions with various organisations including the FPA he said clearly “No”. If they were thought relevant to this debate then officials would surely have ensured the Minister met with them or at least had a briefing. I can only repeat that in the context of this debate I did not consider when raising the FPA that Mr Raynsford’s interest was anything but extremely peripheral and that would equally apply to the CIC and NHBC Foundation. The debate was highly specific to fire safety in private rented properties. With regard to your suggestion that an obligation for fitting of smoke alarms in rented residential accommodation could potentially bring work to the CIC, I should make clear that this is a body which does not itself undertake any construction activity. It is an umbrella, not for profit organisation. Its member organisations some of which do have a financial interest in construction activity, cover the whole range of building work, and arguably any parliamentary debate relating for example to schools, hospitals, defence, prisons, roads, leisure centres etc would require me on this basis to make a declaration, even if the CIC itself had absolutely no involvement in the issue. The NHBC Foundation is a not for profit trust which supports research with the objective of improving the quality of house building. There is nothing more I can add. I made a judgement call on the basis of the information set out above and in my previous letters and have from the moment I was offered this job sought advice, as I have done historically whenever I had concerns.
25 January 2011
25. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 31 January 2011
Thank you for your letter of 25 January responding to mine of 13 and 18 January about this complaint. I have noted what you say about the Registrar’s advice. In her letter to me of 15 December, the Registrar concluded as follows: “It is my considered view that Ms Seabeck should have declared her indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association in the debate of 19 November, at the least during her intervention and preferably earlier.” As I said in my letter of 13 January, I take it that you do not accept that judgment. As far as I can see, there is nothing in your letter of 25 January to cause me to come to a different conclusion. I will, therefore,
48 Alison Seabeck
note that you do not accept her view as set out in the paragraph I have quoted from her letter of 15 December. If this is an incorrect conclusion, please let me know at once. The question I asked you in my letter of 13 January was whether you specifically considered whether you should have declared your indirect interest in the Fire Protection Association during the debate on 19 November. I am not sure I have a specific answer to this question. Unless you tell me otherwise, therefore, I will conclude that you have not specifically answered my question about whether you considered at the time of the debate whether you should declare your interest in the Fire Protection Association. If I have misunderstood this, please let me know at once and accept my apologies. Finally, I was most grateful for your comments on the relevance of your indirect interests in the Construction Industry Council and the National House-Building Council Foundation. While these were not part of this complaint, since you have raised them in your letter of 11 January I will need to come to a conclusion on whether I consider that you should within the rules have declared an indirect interest in either of these bodies during the debate on 19 November. Subject to any immediate response you may wish to make to this letter, I believe that that has now concluded my inquiry. I will now prepare the draft factual sections of my memorandum which I will be submitting to the Committee. I will send you a copy of those sections so that you can comment, if necessary, on their factual accuracy. I will then add my conclusions and submit the full memorandum to the Committee. The Clerk of the Committee will send you a copy of the full memorandum so that you can respond to it before the Committee come to consider the matter. Thank you for your help with this.
31 January 2011
26. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 2 February 2011
Thank you for your further letter dated 31 January 2011. I am sorry if I was not clear in my previous letters on the issue of the advice given and my interpretation of it. I thought I had already made clear I did not judge that it was necessary on the basis of [the Registrar]’s advice to make a declaration at the start of the debate and as she comments that I should have done it “at least at the time of intervention” I assume accepts that there is an element of doubt about whether a declaration at the start of the debate was really necessary. I did not feel that the reference in the intervention required a declaration for all the reasons given in my earlier letters and do not feel that there is anything further that I can add on this point. As I have already said, I would clearly welcome your advice on the other related concerns I have raised on this matter.
2 February 2011
27. Letter to Ms Alison Seabeck MP from the Commissioner, 8 February 2011
Thank you for your letter of 2 February, which I received here on 8 February, responding to my letter to you of 31 January. I was grateful for this further explanation. I hope I am right in concluding from this that your evidence is that you did in fact consider whether you should declare your interest when preparing for the debate on 19 November, but decided, for the reasons you have already given, that it was not necessary to do so. I wrote to you on 3 February to let you have the draft factual sections of my memorandum.117 I will add your letter of 2 February and this response to the written evidence and to the draft factual sections of my memorandum. I enclose the relevant additional paragraphs to the account of my inquiries, and a slight revision to one of the paragraphs in the findings of fact.118
117 This letter is not included in the written evidence. 118 Not included in the written evidence
Alison Seabeck 49
I hope it might be possible to let me have a response to my letter of 3 February by 9 February as requested. As your letters are taking such a long time to reach here, I would be very content, if you so wished, to receive your response also by e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you.
8 February 2011
28. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 9 February 2011
Thank you for your further letter dated 8 February. I am not really sure what more I can add. I was asked to take this debate at short notice. It is not a subject within my normal Front-Bench remit and with the debate focussing on the installation of smoke alarms in private rented sector I did not see any direct connection with the FPA who did not to the best of my knowledge play any role in promoting or advising on the Bill. As you know I had not intended any reference to the FPA in my speech and it therefore did not occur to me that I needed to make a declaration at the start of my speech. When I made the intervention on the spur of the moment I did not see the need for a declaration in the context of the question, and at a juncture in the time limited debate when it might have impeded the business of the House. I hope that this clarifies the position.
9 February 2011
29. E-mail to the Commissioner from Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 14 February 2011
I note your letter and e-mails of 9 February119 and your assumption that I considered making a declaration of interest in advance of the debate. This is wrong. As I explained I was asked at the last minute to take on this debate which should have been covered by another member of the team—responsible for Fire. In preparing my speech for this debate I had absolutely no intention of raising anything linked to the Rt Hon Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s entry in the register so the issue of making a declaration of interest at the outset did not arise. [The Registrar] felt that I should “at least” have mentioned his interest during the intervention and my explanation as to why I did not is already a matter of record in previous letters. I hope this clarifies the position.
16 February 2010
119 Not included in the written evidence
50 Alison Seabeck
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 1 March 2011
Members present: Mr Kevin Barron, in the Chair Sir Paul Beresford Matthew Hancock Annette Brooke Heather Wheeler Mr Tom Clarke Dr Alan Whitehead Mr Geoffrey Cox
Draft Report (Alison Seabeck), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chair’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 12 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 13 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 14 to 20 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 21 read, amended and agreed to.
One Paper was appended to the Report.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Twelfth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 15 March at 9.30 am