House of Commons Committee on Standards
Simon Hughes
Third Report of Session 2013–14
HC 805
House of Commons Committee on Standards
Simon Hughes
Third Report of Session 2013–14
Volume I: Report, together with Appendices and formal minutes
Written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/standards
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 November 2013
HC 805 Published on 7 November 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £12.00
The Committee on Standards
The Committee on Standards is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
Current membership
Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Mr Robert Buckland MP (Conservative, South Swindon) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Sharon Darcy (Lay Member) Sir Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Mr Peter Jinman (Lay Member) Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Walter Rader (Lay Member) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test)
The following were also Members of the Committee during the Parliament: Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Powers
The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/standards. Footnotes: “WE” footnotes refer to the numbered items in the virtual volume on the Committee’s website
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Eve Samson (Clerk), Danielle Nash (Second Clerk) and Miss Christine McGrane (Committee Assistant).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615
Simon Hughes 1
Contents
Report Page
Report 3 Findings and recommendations on the complaint 3 Dealing with the Commissioner 6 Donations linked to Members 6 Declaration of interests 7
Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—Complaint against Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP 8 Introduction 8 The complaint 8 Complaints in respect of Southwark Metals Ltd 9 City Cruises Plc 10 IPA Consulting Ltd 10 Relevant Rules of the House 11 Registration of interests 11 Declaration of interests 12 Lobbying for reward or consideration 13 My Inquiries 14 Relevant donations 14 Mr Hughes’s evidence 16 Evidence from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests 29 Findings of fact 31 Standard of Proof 33 Conclusions 33 Overall conclusions 37
Appendix 2: Complaint letter from Peter John to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards [WE 1] 39
Appendix 3: Letter from Simon Hughes to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards 47
Formal Minutes 49
Simon Hughes 3
Report
Findings and recommendations on the complaint
1. This Report deals with the memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reporting on her investigation into four matters connected with the conduct of Mr Simon Hughes:
that Mr Hughes failed to register six donations to his local party received from four named companies over six years despite the links he had with the donors;
that he failed to declare two of these financial interests, in the House and in the Public Bill Committee on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill;
that he failed to declare two of these financial interests when approaching another Member and local councillors; and
that he arranged one meeting which amounted to lobbying for reward or consideration, contrary to the rules of the House.
2. The Commissioner’s memorandum gives full details of her inquiry, and her findings on each of these points. In this Report we are principally concerned with two matters: Mr Hughes’s failure to register donations which were linked to him although made to his local party in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and his actions in arranging a meeting to discuss a development near his constituency.
3. Members have to register donations to constituency parties or associations where they are “linked” to the Member him or herself, even though the party will also report those donations to the Electoral Commission. The current Guide to the Rules says:
For the purposes of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, support should be regarded as “linked” directly to a Member’s candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member by name, eg if it is a contribution to the Member’s fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate. Financial contributions to constituency associations, parties or area associations, etc, which are not linked to a Member’s candidacy or membership of the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or Member, and the candidate or Member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.1
Some of the donations in question were made when the 2002 edition of the Guide to the Rules applied. That said:
support should be regarded as “linked” directly to a Member’s candidacy or Membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the member by name, e.g. if it is a
1 HC (2010-12) 1885, para 30
4 Simon Hughes
contribution to the Member’s fighting fund or a donation which has been solicited or encouraged by the Member.2
4. The Commissioner’s inquiry concluded that over a period of six years Mr Hughes failed to register six donations to his local party which were linked to him. All the donations in question were reported to the Electoral Commission by Mr Hughes’s local party. A further donation was wrongly recorded by the local party, and was promptly reported to the Electoral Commission and registered when the mistake came to light as a result of the Commissioner’s inquiry. Although there was no intention to hide the donations, and we note that over the period covered by the investigation Mr Hughes did register a number of other linked donations to his party, we agree with the Commissioner that the number of breaches suggest that Mr Hughes was “not as attentive as he should have been to the rules of the House”.3
5. In the course of assessing the complaint, the Commissioner also had to consider whether a meeting Mr Hughes had arranged constituted lobbying for reward and consideration, which would have been a serious breach of the rules of the House. Mr Hughes had facilitated a meeting with local government officials and representatives of MPs from the neighbouring constituency to discuss a planning application for a site adjoining his constituency. Mr Hughes said he had made it clear that he could not take sides on the merits of the development because it was outside the constituency, and that he could not seek to influence local councillors because his position was that planning applications should be the responsibility of local councillors, not the MP.4
6. The director of Southwark Metals Ltd, a company based in Mr Southwark,5 asked for guidance in contacting the local council on the development of some land, in which the company had an interest. Mr Hughes made inquiries about this land in 2011. In April 2012 a local architect also contacted Mr Hughes proposing that there should be a meeting to discuss the plans. In September 2012 Mr Hughes’s diary manager tried to set up a meeting between Mr Hughes, the MP’s for the area concerned, Rt Hon Harriet Harman, and local councillors. That meeting took place on 6 November 2012, although not all those invited attended.6 In April 2012 Mr Hughes’s local party received a donation from the director of Southwark Metals Ltd. The Commissioner’s memorandum notes: “Mr Hughes has told me that he met the director of the company; he followed this up with a direct request for a donation, which included a request to fund one or two interns in his office”.7
7. While he was aware that the director of Southwark Metals Ltd, who was a donor to his party, had an interest in the development, Mr Hughes was not aware that Westminster Waste Ltd, another company with an interest, was part owned by that director,8 or that Westminster Waste Ltd had in fact also made a donation to the local party (this donation
2 HC (2004-05) 351, para 26 3 Appendix 1, para 93 4 WE 4 (WE footnotes referred to the numbered items in the virtual volume on the Committee’s website) 5 Appendix 1, para 54, 6 WE 4 and WE 5 7 Appendix 1, para 80 8 Appendix 1, para 53
Simon Hughes 5
was initially and incorrectly reported by the party to the Electoral Commission as being from Southwark Metals Ltd).9 The donation from Southwark Metals Ltd was in the public domain, as it had been reported to the Electoral Commission. Mr Hughes considered that the requirement to declare interests in meetings with public officials did not extend to a meeting with colleagues who were not Ministers, or with councillors and council officials. The Commissioner has found that in arranging this meeting Mr Hughes did not breach the prohibition on paid advocacy. She does however consider that he should have declared his interest in respect of the donations received, both in arranging the meeting, and when he was chairing and that he should have made sure he was informed about any financial relationships between participants in the meeting. We agree that Mr Hughes should have declared his interest, not least to protect himself. Although we accept that he was not attempting to influence colleagues or officials, his actions might have appeared intended to do so.
8. The Commissioner has also identified two failures to declare interests in proceedings in the House. The first was in debate on 22 October 2010, the second was in the debate on Scrap Metal Dealers Bill in the Public Bill Committee on 11 September 2012. We consider the failure to declare an interest (in that his local party had received a donation from a company which would be directly affected by this Bill) in a Public Bill Committee dealing with a contentious subject particularly serious. In the debate Mr Hughes referred to the views of the director of Southwark Metal Ltd and sought information to meet his concerns.
9. The Commissioner considered that she might have been able to resolve any of the individual breaches individually through the rectification procedure. She has submitted a memorandum to us because of the number of the breaches, the total value of the unregistered donations (over £30,000), and because the allegation of paid advocacy, which has not been upheld, was a particularly serious one.10
10. On 4 November Mr Hughes wrote to the Committee expressing his relief that the serious complaint about lobbying for reward had not been upheld by the Commissioner, and expressing his apologies for his mistakes in registration and declaration. He has told us that he has already put in place much more robust systems in his office and within the local party to ensure these mistakes are not repeated, and has assured us that he will consult the Registrar to ensure all necessary corrections to the Register are made.11
11. We agree with the Commissioner that that meeting Mr Hughes arranged to discuss a local development did not constitute a breach of the lobbying rules. There was no attempt to conceal the donations to Mr Hughes’s local party, which were reported to the Electoral Commission, although there was a failure to include them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and a failure to declare interests. The publication of the Commissioner’s memorandum sets on record Mr Hughes’s failures to declare appropriately. Mr Hughes apologised at the outset of the Commissioner’s investigation, has since apologised to the Committee, and has taken steps to reduce the
9 Appendix 1, para 40 10 Appendix 1, para 90 11 Appendix 3
6 Simon Hughes
chance that such mistakes will occur in future. We recommend that he now registers any outstanding interests; late registrations will appear in bold italics.
12. Nonetheless we are concerned that a Member of Mr Hughes’s seniority and experience should have failed to observe The Code of Conduct over such a long period and failed to seek advice from the Registrar. We recommend that Mr Hughes apologise by way of a Personal Statement to the House.
13. There are a number of general points we wish to draw to the attention of Members.
Dealing with the Commissioner
14. The Commissioner’s inquiry has taken nearly a year, and required extensive correspondence with Mr Hughes. The allegation that Mr Hughes had lobbied for consideration or reward was an extremely serious one. If such a complaint is made with sufficient evidence to warrant investigation, it is in the best interests of the House and of the Member concerned for the investigation to be thorough. Anything less would either be unfair to the Member concerned or, if a Member was exonerated, risk accusations that the findings were a whitewash. The Commissioner’s memorandum notes that:
Mr Hughes has told me that he did not understand that I needed to establish the relevant facts in this inquiry, given that he had—with one or two exceptions— accepted at the outset that he had breached the rules.12
We do not believe that Mr Hughes was attempting to obstruct or delay the inquiry in any way, but it took some time before the Commissioner was able to gather all the information she needed to conclude the case. Members involved in an investigation must respond to the Commissioner’s inquiries promptly and as fully and accurately as possible.
Donations linked to Members
15. There are two types of donations which Members are required to register. The first, (category 4a) includes
Any donation received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant group of associations which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House
The second, (category 4b), comprises:
any other form of financial or material support as a Member of Parliament.
Originally donations falling into category 4b had to be to be reported both to the Electoral Commission and in the Register; in 2009, this “dual reporting” was ended, and the Electoral Commission will now use the Register itself as a source of information about 4b donations. Although dual reporting has been ended for category 4b donations, Members still need to register under category 4a donations to their local parties which are linked to them. One reason for the breaches of the rules relating to the registration of donations
12 Appendix, para 91
Simon Hughes 7
appears to have been a lack of clarity over whether particular donations to Mr Hughes’s local party were linked to him, either because they supported his work directly, or because he had been instrumental in securing them. The register is designed to show Members’ financial interests, and only those donations which support the Member, or which the Member has been involved in securing, should be registered. Relationships between Members and their constituency parties will vary widely, and it is not for us to regulate them, but, however those relationships are structured, Members need to ensure that they and their local parties have some system to identify promptly and effectively donations which are linked to the Member and should appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If Members are in any doubt about the status of an individual donation they should seek advice from the Registrar.
Declaration of interests
16. Mr Hughes stated that he failed to declare interests properly because he had not appreciated that the donations in question should have been registered.13 He also failed to appreciate that the requirement to declare interests goes wider than the registration requirements. He is not the only Member to have made such mistakes, which is why the House clarified the wording on declarations when it revised the Code of Conduct last year. We remind Members of the need to declare financial interests which might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. As constituency work has grown in importance, so has the range of circumstances in which declaration may be appropriate. Guidance cannot cover every case: Members should always assess their conduct against the Seven Principles of Public Life which are set out in the Code of Conduct itself.
13 WE 4
8 Simon Hughes
Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—Complaint against Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports on my inquiry into a complaint concerning Rt Hon Simon Hughes, the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. The matters I have investigated are:
that Mr Hughes failed to register donations to his constituency party received from four named companies despite the links he had with the donors;
that he failed to declare two of these financial interests in the House;
that he failed to declare two of these financial interests when approaching another Member and local councillors; and
that he arranged one meeting which amounted to lobbying for reward or consideration, contrary to the rules of the House.
The complaint
2. Councillor Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council, wrote to my predecessor on 19 November 2012 with a complaint about the conduct of Rt Hon Simon Hughes, the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.14 Councillor John said that Mr Hughes’s constituency party had received “substantial cash donations” from two named companies (Southwark Metals Ltd and City Cruises Plc) and that Mr Hughes had not registered these donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He also said that Mr Hughes had “spoken on behalf of” these companies in Parliament without declaring an interest and that he had “lobbied on behalf of” them. He added that “a further third business”, IPA Consulting Ltd, had made a donation to Mr Hughes’s constituency party and that this donation had been “immediately passed on to him without an interest being registered”. Councillor John asked my predecessor to investigate whether Mr Hughes’s actions had breached the rules of conduct relating to the registration of financial interests, the declaration of interests and lobbying for reward or consideration.
3. My predecessor replied to Councillor John on 26 November 2012.15 He informed him that he had accepted his complaint in respect of the possible non-registration and non- declaration of Mr Hughes’ financial interest arising from donations to his constituency party from the three organisations identified in Councillor John’s letter, and in respect of
14 WE 1 15 WE2
Simon Hughes 9
lobbying for reward or consideration in the meeting with public office holders to which he had referred. He did not, however, accept the complaint that Mr Hughes’ reported actions in proceedings in the House amounted to lobbying for reward or consideration since he did not consider that the evidence Councillor John had provided was sufficient to justify initiating an inquiry into those allegations.
Complaints in respect of Southwark Metals Ltd
4. Councillor John explained that Southwark Metals Ltd was a business based outside Mr Hughes’s constituency. It had made a donation of £10,000 to Mr Hughes’s constituency party on 15 May 2012.16 This donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission but had not been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Councillor John noted that the rules of the House required Members to register donations to their constituency party when these were linked to the Member. He considered that “the scale of the donation”, “the lack of previous declared donations by the donor” and “Simon Hughes’s subsequent actions” provided grounds for an investigation by the Commissioner.
5. Councillor John drew attention to a speech that Mr Hughes had made on 11 September 2012 in the Public Bill Committee considering the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill.17 Mr Hughes had made a specific reference to Southwark Metals and to the views of its owner on the provisions of the Bill. Councillor John said that Mr Hughes had not declared the donation that Southwark Metals had made to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats. He considered that this was a breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct relating to the declaration of interests.
6. Councillor John also considered that Mr Hughes had breached the rule about the declaration of interests when approaching another Member and councillors in the London Borough of Southwark about a proposed development on the “Southwark Metals site”. Councillor John said that the owner of Southwark Metals had proposed a development of the land currently occupied by the firm. He told my predecessor that the owner of the company had owned a “significant proportion” of the land, under the name SCCD Developments, since 31 May 2012. This date was sixteen days after the donation had been made to Mr Hughes’s constituency party. Councillor John said that the director of Southwark Metals Ltd had bought the land for £1.65 million, and that if planning permission were granted the development was “potentially of a significantly higher financial value”.
7. Councillor John included in his letter copies of two e-mails sent by Mr Hughes’s diary manager to the office of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP on 17 September 2012, which invited her to attend a meeting with Mr Hughes and “local stakeholders” to discuss the development. He also sent an e-mail he had received from his own personal assistant on 15 May 2012, which reported a telephone conversation with Mr Hughes’s office requesting “an urgent meeting within this week or next re Schools”. Councillor John said: “When my office called back to clarify the message it was explained that the meeting would be about the
16 This information was derived from the Electoral Commission’s website.In fact as I subsequently discovered, the donation was of £5,000 and had been received on the same date as another donation of £5,000 from a different entity. Both donations were received on 16 May 2012. 17 Public Bill Committee Deb, Scrap Metal Dealers Bill, 12 September 2012, col 49ff
10 Simon Hughes
development, including the school”. His personal assistant had subsequently received another e-mail, on 11 October 2012, which he also included with his letter. In that e-mail, Mr Hughes’s diary manager explained that he was trying to set up a meeting about the site proposed for development. He said that the purpose of the meeting was “to discuss the plans for the site which has been quite controversial I believe”. The e-mail explained that this meeting would be between councillors of both relevant wards, local investors, Mr Hughes, a representative from Ms Harman’s office, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group, and Councillor John in his capacity as Leader of the Council. Councillor John noted that local ward councillors had also received invitations for briefings about the site from Mr Hughes’s office. He included one example of this, which had been sent on 1 November 2012. He said that: “In none of these messages or any other conversations on this subject did Simon Hughes or his office declare the donation.” He also considered Mr Hughes’s “facilitation” of the development to be “surprising” in light of “his public opposition to free schools”.
City Cruises Plc
8. In respect of City Cruises Plc, Councillor John said that the company had made a donation of £3,300 to Mr Hughes’s constituency party on 31 December 2009. He noted that this donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission but had not been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. He considered that this would be a breach of the rules of the House if Mr Hughes were linked to the donation. He believed that “the scale of the donation”, and “Simon Hughes’s subsequent actions” provided grounds for an investigation by the then Commissioner.
9. Councillor John noted that Mr Hughes had secured an adjournment debate on the subject of Marine Training and Employment on 22 October 2010 in which he argued for public authorities to provide a local site for boat-building and repair, giving jobs and apprenticeships to Southwark residents.18 Councillor John provided extracts from Mr Hughes’s speech, in which he referred to City Cruises Plc and to its directors among a number of companies, and in which he quoted the views of City Cruises on a proposal for a London marine hub, which he commended to the Minister. Councillor John said that Mr Hughes had not declared an interest when making these remarks.
IPA Consulting Ltd
10. Councillor John said that on 11 December 2007 IPA Consulting Ltd had made a donation of £11,000 to Mr Hughes’s constituency party. He said that, on the same day, the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats had made a donation of £11,000 to Mr Hughes. He noted that the donations had been reported to the Electoral Commission but neither had been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Councillor John considered that this appeared “to show a clear linking of ... to the donation and therefore a breach of his duty to declare type 4a donations”. He said that IPA Consulting Ltd had made three further donations to Mr Hughes’s constituency party, to a total value of £10,000, on 31 March 2008, 26 February 2009 and 5 July 2010. Of these donations, only the
18 HC Deb, 22 October 2012, col 1279
Simon Hughes 11
donation of 26 February 2009 had been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Relevant Rules of the House
Registration of interests
11. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament approved by the House on 12 March 2012 provides in paragraph 13 as follows:
“Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests...”
This replaced a similar provision in the Code of Conduct approved by the House on 13 July 2005.
12. Chapter 1 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members identifies the categories of registrable interest. The editions of the Guide relevant to this inquiry are the Guide approved by the House on 14 May 2002 (“the 2002 Guide”) which relates to the first four IPA donations and the current Guide, which was approved on 9 February 2009 (“the 2009 Guide”) which relates to the last two IPA donations and the other donations. In both editions, Category 4 defines registrable sponsorships as follows:
(a) Any donation received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House; and
(b) any other form of financial or material support as a Member of Parliament,
amounting to more than £1,000 from a single source, whether as a single donation or as multiple donations of more than £200 during the course of a calendar year.
The relevant thresholds were increased to more than £1,500 and more than £500 from 1 January 2010.
13. Paragraphs 30 and 32 in the 2009 Guide provide further guidance on the interpretation of whether any donation is “linked” to a Member’s membership of the House. (They did not appear in the 2002 Guide). In particular, paragraph 30 provides as follows:
“For the purposes of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, support should be regarded as “linked” directly to a Member’s candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member by name, eg if it is a contribution to the Member’s fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate. Financial contributions to constituency associations, parties or area associations, etc, which are not linked to a Member’s candidacy or membership of the House, that is where the donation would have been forthcoming irrespective of the identity of the candidate or Member, and the candidate or Member played no personal part in securing it, do not have to be registered on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.”
14. Paragraph 32 provides as follows:
12 Simon Hughes
“It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of what might be considered ‘linked’ to an individual, and, as always, Members who are in any doubt should consult the Registrar.12 They are also reminded that the requirement to register covers only donations of which they are aware or might reasonably be expected to be aware. Registration by the Member is additional to any registration required of the local organisation.”
Footnote 12 to that paragraph provides as follows:
“Members might, in this context, ask themselves such questions as ‘Did I write to or meet the donor asking for a contribution?’ ‘Was a letter sent out headed ‘Campaign to [Re-] Elect [name]’, ‘Was I the guest of honour at a dinner where donations were sought?’ and ‘Have I a particular relationship to the donor which would not be the case in respect of another candidate?’. If the answer to any of these is ‘Yes’, then the presumption should be in favour of registration.”
Declaration of interests
15. The Code of Conduct approved by the House on 13 July 2005 provided as follows:
12 In any activities with, or on behalf of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship, including activities which may not be a matter of public record such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials.
This was replaced in the Code approved on 12 March 2012 by the following paragraph:
“[...][Members] shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
16. The rules in relation to the declaration of Members’ interests are set out in Chapter 2 of the Guide. Paragraph 72 of the 2009 Guide (paragraph 55 of the 2002 Guide) provides as follows:
“In 1974 the House replaced a long standing convention with a rule that any relevant financial interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, should be declared in debate, or other proceeding. The same rule places a duty on Members to disclose to Ministers, or servants of the Crown, all relevant interests. The term ‘servants of the Crown’ should be interpreted as applying to the staff of executive agencies as well as to all staff employed in government departments.”
17. Paragraph 73 (paragraph 56 of the 2005 Guide) includes the following:
“The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in three important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those current within the previous twelve months, need normally be considered for declaration.”
Simon Hughes 13
18. Paragraph 74 (paragraph 57 of the 2005 Guide) provides the following definition of a relevant interest:
“The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a financial interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question. A declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Member’s interest.”
19. Paragraph 86 provides the following guidance:
“The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member’s parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important. In 1975 the House agreed to the report of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests (Declaration) which contained these words: “it should be a matter of honour that a financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the House and its Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his fellow Members, whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion, with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation.”
Lobbying for reward or consideration
20. The relevant edition of the Guide for this part of the complaint is the 2009 Guide. The rules relating to lobbying for reward and consideration are set out in Chapter 3 of that edition. Paragraph 96 of the 2009 Guide sets out the following guidelines provided by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to assist Members:
“1. Parliamentary proceedings: When a Member is taking part in any parliamentary proceeding or making any approach to a Minister or servant of the Crown, advocacy is prohibited which seeks to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament, from which the Member has received, is receiving, or expects to receive a financial benefit, or upon any registrable client of such a body (or individual). Otherwise a Member may speak freely on matters which relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual) from which he or she receives a financial benefit, provided the benefit is properly registered and declared.
2. Constituency interests: Irrespective of any relevant interest which the Member is required to register or declare, he or she may pursue any constituency interest in any proceeding of the House or any approach to a Minister or servant of the Crown, except that:
—where the Member has a financial relationship with a company in the Member’s constituency the guidelines above relating to parliamentary proceedings shall apply;
—where the Member is an adviser to a trade association, or to a professional (or other representative) body, the Member should avoid using a constituency interest as the means by which to raise any matter which the Member would otherwise be unable to pursue.”
14 Simon Hughes
My Inquiries
21. In the course of my inquiry I have considered evidence from the following: a) Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP; b) The website of the Electoral Commission; c) the Chair of Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats; d) the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests.
The evidence is appended to this memorandum.
Relevant donations
22. The complaint from Councillor John related to one donation from Southwark Metals Ltd, one donation from City Cruises Plc and three donations from IPA Consulting Ltd. In the course of my inquiry, Mr Hughes drew to my attention a further donation from IPA Consulting Ltd which he had not registered. It also emerged that the donation of £10,000 from Southwark Metals Ltd identified by the complainant had been incorrectly reported to the Electoral Commission by Mr Hughes’s local party. The party had in fact received two donations: £5,000 from Southwark Metals Ltd and £5,000 from another company, Westminster Waste Ltd.19 For completeness, I have considered these donations as well as those identified in the original complaint.
23. The following tables list the donations which are relevant to this inquiry and which are referred to in the evidence.
19 See paragraphs 38 and 39, below.
Simon Hughes 15
Table 1: Donations from IPA Consulting Ltd (Company A in some evidence)
Date of Date of Recipient Date Amount Date of registration receipt acceptance reported in Register of Members’ to the EC Financial Interests
17/02/06 07/03/06 Rt Hon 01/04/06 £15,000 8/11/06 Simon Hughes MP
30/09/06 30/09/06 Bermondsey 30/10/06 £5,000 Not registered and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats
11/12/07 31/12/07 Bermondsey 30/01/08 £11,000 Not registered and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats
31/03/08 31/03/08 Bermondsey 30/04/08 £6,000 Not registered and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats
26/02/09 24/03/09 Bermondsey 30/04/09 £2,000 21/04/09 and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats
05/07/10 04/08/10 Bermondsey 29/03/11 £2,000 Not registered and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats
Table 2: Donation from City Cruises Plc (Company B in some evidence)
Date of Date of Recipient Date Amount Date of registration receipt acceptance reported in Register of Members’ to the EC Financial Interests
2/12/09 31/12/09 Bermondsey 30/01/10 £3,300 Not registered and Old (as Southwark advertising) Liberal Democrats
Table 3: Donation from Southwark Metals Ltd (Company C in some evidence)
Date of Date of Recipient Date Amount Date of registration in receipt of acceptance reported Register of Members’ donation of donation to the EC Financial Interests
16/4/12 15/5/12 Bermondsey 30/07/12 £5, 000 Not registered and Old (corrected) Southwark
16 Simon Hughes
Liberal Democrats
Table 4: Donation from Westminster Waste Ltd (Company D in some evidence)
Date of Date of Recipient Date Amount Date of registration in receipt of acceptance reported Register of Members’ donation of donation to the EC Financial Interests
16/4/12 15/5/12 Bermondsey 30/07/12 £5, 000 26/06/13 and Old (corrected) Southwark Liberal Democrats
Mr Hughes’s evidence
24. My predecessor wrote to Mr Hughes on 26 November 2012 to invite him to respond to this complaint.20 Mr Hughes replied on 4 January, shortly after I took up my post.21 I considered at that stage that he had provided me with almost all of the information I would need in order to seek the advice of the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests on the elements of the complaint which related to registration and declaration. I accordingly replied to his letter on 22 January, summarising the evidence he had given me and asking some further questions about the detail. My subsequent correspondence with Mr Hughes, which spans some six months, is appended to this report, together with the other evidence I have obtained.
25. This inquiry has taken 10 months to complete and the matters raised have been both complex and confusing to investigate. New information came to light at various stages during my inquiry as a result of my requests for further information on two occasions, in writing and then in interview. Once he was aware of the need for a significant level of detail, Mr Hughes made every effort to provide the information required. To assist the Committee, I have provided below the final summaries of Mr Hughes’s evidence, which he and I were able to agree after an interview on 15 July.22.
26. Mr Hughes identified “two themes” in my inquiry: the first was that all of the donations had been reported to the Electoral Commission, and at the time he had believed that to be sufficient, although he now realised that it was not. The second was the fact that he had held his seat for a long time (some thirty years), that the Liberal Democrats had had control of Southwark Council, and that his party also had seats on the Greater London Assembly. He told me that “many of the dealings we had with donors were not about me, they were as much about the council, in fact the council may have mattered more to them.” He accepted, however, that the fact that he was the local MP might have influenced donors but wanted to state that he has not received any personal benefit from any of the donations.
20 WE 2 21 WE 3 22 WE 21
Simon Hughes 17
Donations from IPA Consulting Ltd (Company A)
27. The original complaint was that Mr Hughes had failed to register three donations from this company to his constituency party, which were received on 11 December 2007, 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010. As I have said in paragraph 22 above, Mr Hughes drew to my attention a further donation from this company to his constituency party which had not been registered.23
28. Following our interview, I agreed the following summary of his evidence in respect of IPA Consulting Ltd with Mr Hughes:
since 2006, this company has made six donations to Mr Hughes or to his constituency party, of which four were identified by the complainant. Three of the donations were for constituency party use, one was made directly to Mr Hughes and two others were made to the local party but for his use;
in that period, Mr Hughes registered two of these donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: one on 8 November 2006, which was given to him to support his campaign for leadership of his party; and one on 21 April 2009, which was given to his local party for him ahead of his re-election campaign in 2010;
Mr Hughes has met the director of this company regularly over the years, and he offered to support Mr Hughes’s local party from time to time, and explicitly to support him in his campaign for leadership of his party and in the run up to the 2010 general election. Mr Hughes and a local party colleague met this director from time to time sometimes together and sometimes separately. Following a few of these meetings donations were given;
Mr Hughes was aware of the donation by this company received by his local party on 11 December 2007 at the time it was given or immediately afterwards, but he does not remember when he heard of any of the other donations identified by the complainant; he believes, however, that he would have been informed by local party officers a short time—at most within a few weeks—after any such donations were received;
Mr Hughes believes that he directly or indirectly orally encouraged the donation of £11,000 of 11 December 2007 from this company to his local party as a result of a conversation with a representative of the company during one meeting sometime before the donation was made;
following this donation received by Mr Hughes’s constituency party on 11 December 2007, the local party immediately made an £11,000 donation to Mr Hughes;
Mr Hughes did not register this donation from this company to his local party. He considers that this was a “clear mistake” on his part, for which he sincerely and unreservedly apologises;
23 WE 4
18 Simon Hughes
Mr Hughes has been advised that there is no requirement in the rules for him to register donations made by his local party to him;
in respect of the donations from this company received by his constituency party on 30 September 2006, 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010, Mr Hughes does not remember that he invited or encouraged any of these donations directly, and does not believe that these donations were linked directly to his candidacy at any election or his membership of the House. He believes that they might have been forthcoming irrespective of his role as an MP because of the position of the Liberal Democrats as a party and of Liberal Democrat councillors in the borough of Southwark;
Mr Hughes considers that it would have been wise to have registered the donation received on 31 March 2008, because although it was received shortly before the London Mayoral and Assembly elections and seems to have been linked to those elections, he cannot categorically say that the fact that he was the MP did not influence the donation;
Mr Hughes accepts that he should have registered the donation received on 5 July 2010, and made after further guidance was added to the 2009 Guide, because he cannot say with certainty that this donation would have been forthcoming if he had not been the MP and that nothing he had done played any personal part in securing it;
Mr Hughes believes that he did not directly encourage the donations received by his local party on 30 September 2006, 31 March 2008 and 5 July 2010 from this company, and that at least one other local party member would have encouraged them, but that with hindsight and for the reasons set out above he believes that all three donations were “linked” to him in a way that required registration;
Mr Hughes apologises sincerely and unreservedly for his failure to register these three donations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; this arose from his belief at the time that reporting the donations to the Electoral Commission was sufficient;
Mr Hughes has undertaken, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any registrable interest whenever such an interest is registered with the Electoral Commission.
29. Mr Hughes did not tell me until 18 June that he had had regular meetings with the director of IPA Consulting Ltd.24 I asked him at interview why he had not told me this earlier.25 He explained to me that he had sought in his answers to use the wording of the Guide to the Rules, rather than giving me “all the details of who these individuals were”. He said that he had provided the information when I had asked him specific questions and
24 WE 16 25 WE 21
Simon Hughes 19
had not believed that he needed to go into any more detail then was required to answer that specific question.
30. In the case of IPA Consulting Ltd, he told me that the director of that company saw a local party officer more often than he saw Mr Hughes himself, often about council business. Mr Hughes emphasised that he was talking about a series of meetings, and that he had not attended all of these. These meetings were not, he said, set up as an opportunity to ask for donations, although the director did on occasion offer to help. Mr Hughes told me that he did not always know when these donations came in to the local party; he would be told later. The director of the company had offered to contribute to Mr Hughes’s campaign for the leadership of his party and to his election campaign in 2010.
31. Mr Hughes noted that the original complaint had identified four donations from this company and asked whether my inquiry would be limited to the three donations about which Councillor John had complained. I wrote to him on 18 July to clarify this point.26 The further donation of £5,000 to which Mr Hughes drew my attention was made by IPA Consulting Ltd and was received by Mr Hughes’s local party on 30 September 2006. Mr Hughes himself, in his letter to me of 4 January, had told me about the donations that this company had made to him and to his local party from 2006 onwards and about the donations he had registered in that time. In reconciling this information with the records published by the Electoral Commission, it was not clear to me which of the two donations received in 2006 was the donation Mr Hughes had registered on 8 November 2006. Having become aware in this way that one of these 2006 donations had not been registered, I considered that I did need to inquire into whether Mr Hughes should have registered the donation of 30 September 2006.
Donation from City Cruises Plc (Company B)
32. The complaint was that Mr Hughes had failed to register a donation from this company to his local party, in spite of the links he had with the donor, and that he had failed to declare this interest in an adjournment debate on 22 October 2010.
33. Following our interview, I agreed the following summary of his evidence in respect of City Cruises Plc with Mr Hughes:
from 2006, this company has made one donation to Mr Hughes’s constituency party: a donation of advertising to the value of £3,300 which was received on 2 December 2009; this company has made no donations to Mr Hughes personally;
Mr Hughes does not believe that this donation was linked directly to his candidacy at the 2010 general election or to his membership of the House any more than it was linked to the Liberal Democrat campaign to win overall control of Southwark Council in 2010;
Mr Hughes believes that he directly and orally encouraged this donation as a result of a conversation with two representatives of the company during one meeting sometime before the donation was made. This meeting took place at his request;
26 WE 23
20 Simon Hughes
at this meeting, Mr Hughes asked whether the company would be willing to advertise in and sponsor the local Christmas card from him and local Liberal Democrats, which they did;
Mr Hughes believes that this donation was not only, principally or specifically in connection with his candidacy at an election or his membership of the House;
with hindsight, Mr Hughes however has believed from the time of his first answers on this inquiry that this donation was “linked” to him in a way that required registration, should have been treated by him as being “linked” to him and that he should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he apologises sincerely for not doing so ;
Mr Hughes has undertaken, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to his local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
Mr Hughes accepts that he did not declare an interest when he mentioned this company in debate on 22 October 2010;
he did not do so because he had not registered an interest in this company. He knew that the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission and he did not believe that he should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Because the donation was not registered, he did not believe that he needed to declare it;
since he now believes that he should have registered this interest, he also considers that he should have declared it in debate;
Mr Hughes has apologised sincerely and unreservedly for this omission; as he intends to “double register” in future, he will make sure that it does not happen again.
34. This agreed statement of evidence differs significantly from the initial account that Mr Hughes had given me in his letter of 4 January.27 I asked Mr Hughes at interview why there appeared to have been a significant change in his evidence in respect of this company in the course of my inquiry. In particular, I asked him why he had initially told me that the donation was not directly linked to him, but then had later told me that he had directly solicited the donation at a meeting with representatives of the company. Mr Hughes did not consider that there was “anything contradictory” in his evidence. He noted that the company had made one donation, in 2009—a time when the Liberal Democrats were leading Southwark Council and were seeking to retain control of the council. He told me that the donation was linked to this. He nevertheless considered that he should have understood that the donation “could have been linked to [him] because [he] was the MP”.
35. I asked him why his evidence had changed from “might have been linked” to “directly or indirectly” to “directly encouraged”. He told me:
27 WE 3
Simon Hughes 21
Well, that’s because the issue wasn’t that I didn’t speak to the people from the firm—I did—my understanding was that it was a question of whether the donations were linked to me. Their interest was in the council elections. The link was me as the senior Liberal Democrat locally, that’s why I was there. I was using the phrases in the rules.
Mr Hughes confirmed to me that he had attended a meeting with representatives of the company, and that “one of the things that came up, among others, was the Christmas cards”. He also confirmed that this had arisen as a direct request from him, but said that this was “not a request for me personally”. He explained that he had not told me this earlier because he had been, in relation to all the companies named in this inquiry, trying to use the phrases in the rules.
Donation from Southwark Metals Ltd (Company C)
36. The complaints relating to this company concern a donation of £5,000 made to Mr Hughes’s constituency party on 16 April 2012.28 The complaints were that Mr Hughes had failed to register the donation and that he had failed to declare it in debate on 11 September 2012 and when making approaches to another Member and to local councillors.
37. Following our interview, I agreed the following summary of his evidence in respect of Southwark Metals Ltd with Mr Hughes:
Mr Hughes was first introduced to a director of this company by a mutual friend; he met this director for the first time in either 2010 or early 2011;
this company has made one donation to Mr Hughes’s local party: a donation of £5,000 which was received on 16 April 2012; this company has made no donations to Mr Hughes;
this was incorrectly reported to the Electoral Commission as a donation of £10,000, and Mr Hughes’s party has taken steps to correct this error;
this donation was made ahead of the London elections in May 2012 and followed a written request by Mr Hughes for help with the London election campaign for a Liberal Democrat candidate living in Southwark who was seeking re-election to the Greater London Assembly, and for help to fund one or two interns in his office. The director did not indicate whether he wished the donation to be used for the GLA campaign, for Mr Hughes’s office, or to be divided between the two;
Mr Hughes believes that this donation was clearly “linked” to him in a way that required registration;
Mr Hughes therefore accepts that he should have treated this donation as being “linked” to him and should have registered it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he apologises sincerely for not having done so;
28 This donation had been incorrectly reported to the Electoral Commission as a donation of £10,000.
22 Simon Hughes
Mr Hughes has undertaken, in order to avoid any such mistakes or misunderstandings in the future, to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests any donation made to his local party and reported to the Electoral Commission;
Mr Hughes accepts that he did not declare an interest when he mentioned this company in debate on 11 September 2012;
because he had not registered an interest in this company in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and because the donation had been reported to the Electoral Commission, Mr Hughes did not believe that he had a duty to declare an interest when he mentioned this company in debate and therefore he did not do so;
he now accepts that, as the donation should have been registered, he should have declared his interest in the debate; he apologises sincerely and unreservedly for this omission, and as he intends to “double register” in future, he will make sure that it does not happen again.
38. At our interview, I noted that an error had arisen in reporting this donation: Mr Hughes’s local party had reported a donation of £10,000 from Southwark Metals Ltd, but in fact the party had received two donations of £5,000—one from Southwark Metals Ltd and one from Westminster Waste Ltd. I asked Mr Hughes how this error had occurred. He told me that he understood that both of the cheques had arrived on the same day and that “they were both sent from Southwark Metals”. His understanding—although he had not himself seen the cheques—was that the local party office had had a telephone call from Southwark Metals and that in the end two cheques had arrived. He assumed, but did not know, that these cheques had arrived in the same envelope. He told me that: “it was only later when people went over this again that they realised what had happened.”
39. I asked Mr Hughes why he had not told me at an early stage of my inquiry that this donation had come as a result of a letter he had written. He told me that he had not realised that I needed that level of detail. When I had asked the question, he had gone through his files. He told me that he had imagined that my inquiry would be brief. He reminded me that he had “put his hands up” and apologised in his first letter to me. He concluded: “I’ve never denied that I should have registered.”
Donation from Westminster Waste Ltd (Company D)
40. Mr Hughes told me in his letter of 8 May that the donation of £10,000 from Southwark Metals Ltd identified by the complainant had been incorrectly reported to the Electoral Commission, and that this donation was in fact two donations of £5,000—one from Southwark Metals Ltd and one from Westminster Waste Ltd.29 In the light of Mr Hughes’s evidence about the connection between these donations (see paragraphs 38 and 39, above), I considered that it was necessary for me also to inquire into whether he should have registered the donation of £5,000 from Westminster Waste Ltd.
29 WE 12
Simon Hughes 23
41. In advance of our interview, I prepared the following summary of the evidence Mr Hughes had given me about the donation from Westminster Waste Ltd:
“this company has made one donation to your constituency party of £5,000, which was received by your local party on 16 April 2012;
your local party received this donation at the same time, and you believe from the same person, as it received the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd which is also the subject of this complaint;
you do not believe that the donation was given in response to any letter from you, from your local party, or on behalf of you or your party to Westminster Waste Ltd;
you understand that the donation was made at the request of the director of Southwark Metals Ltd;
the director of Southwark Metals Ltd is the joint owner of, and a shareholder in, Westminster Waste Ltd;
you have met the other owner of Westminster Waste Ltd on at most two occasions, and on both occasions the director of Southwark Metals Ltd was present.”
42. At our interview, I asked Mr Hughes to explain to me what he had meant when he told me that the donation had been given “apparently at the request of [the director of Southwark Metals Ltd]”. Mr Hughes told me that he did not know what the process had been between Southwark Metals Ltd and Westminster Waste Ltd, and that he did not know who had signed the cheques. After our interview, I wrote on 16 July to the Chair of Mr Hughes’s constituency party to ask him who had signed each cheque, and the name of the person or organisation given on the cheque itself.30 He let me know on 4 September that the local party was unable to answer these questions as they had not kept copies of the cheques.31
43. Mr Hughes told me that the director of Southwark Metals Ltd had invited the director of Westminster Waste Ltd to their meeting, and had told him that he was a “business neighbour”. Mr Hughes told me that he had not been aware of any link between the two directors, other than that “they were in the same business and were based next to each other”. His initial contact had been with the director of Southwark Metals Ltd.
44. I asked Mr Hughes why, if he was not aware of any link between the two companies, he had asked about experiences of apprenticeships at Westminster Waste Ltd when he wrote to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd. He told me that this subject had arisen at the meeting at which both directors were present, which had preceded the letter. Mr Hughes had assumed that the companies were entirely separate, and had discovered that the director of Southwark Metals Ltd was a joint owner of Westminster Waste Ltd only in the course of my inquiry.32
30 WE 25 31 WE 26 32 This ownership is not recorded on Westminster Waste’s December 2012 return to Companies House.
24 Simon Hughes
45. I asked Mr Hughes why this donation had come to light so late in my inquiry. He told me it was because, unbeknown to him, the sum had been registered as a single donation from Southwark Metals Ltd, when in fact it was two donations. He told me that his office had never had any dealings with Westminster Waste Ltd and that he had not written to its director. He had had no knowledge of the donation.
46. Following our interview, I agreed the following summary of his evidence in respect of Westminster Waste Ltd with Mr Hughes:
this company has made one donation to Mr Hughes’s constituency party of £5,000, which was received by his local party on 16 April 2012, which has been registered by his local party with the Electoral Commission and which he registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on 26 June 2013 when this donation came to light. This company has made no donations to Mr Hughes;
Mr Hughes’s local party received this donation at the same time, and, he has been told, from the same person, as it received the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd which is also the subject of this complaint;
Mr Hughes does not believe that the donation was given in response to any letter from him, from his local party, or on behalf of him or his party to Westminster Waste Ltd;
Mr Hughes understands that the donation was made following his request to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd;
the director of Southwark Metals Ltd has told Mr Hughes that he is the joint owner of, and a shareholder in, Westminster Waste Ltd;
Mr Hughes has met the other owner of Westminster Waste Ltd on a few occasions, and on each occasion the director of Southwark Metals Ltd was present.
Meeting of 6 November 2012
47. At our interview, I asked Mr Hughes to tell me how this meeting had come about.33 He explained that all of the messages listed by Councillor John in fact related to arrangements for a single meeting with the developer of the scheme.34 The initial request for his assistance had come from Southwark Metals Ltd, via a mutual friend, who would not have been aware of constituency boundaries, who had told him that a local businessman wanted to “have a word” with him. Nearly a year later he was approached by the architect he had mentioned in his evidence. Mr Hughes told me that the architect had approached him of his own accord; they had known each other for some years. He had written to council officers in May 2011 to seek information about planning conditions. In the event, he did not receive a response to these inquiries until September and November 2011.
48. Mr Hughes told me that it is his normal practice to meet business people or other organisations who request opportunities to discuss developments in or affecting his
33 WE 21.Mr Hughes’ notes of the meeting are at WE13 34 Two e-mails are included in written evidence as WE14 and WE18
Simon Hughes 25
constituency. He has provided me with the names, of 17 of these companies. Mr Hughes told me that the only unusual aspect of his involvement in this case was the fact that the site in question was not in his own constituency, although it had been before boundary changes in 2010. He had, however, been taking up concerns of his constituents—who lived across the road from the site—with the council since the 2010 election. He told me that he had an “ongoing interest” in the site because of the concerns of his constituents, which related to the occupation of a building on the site without planning permission, and consequent problems with noise.
49. Mr Hughes told me that he did not know whether the director of Southwark Metals Ltd had owned the land when he came to see him. He told me that he had had no continuing involvement with the director’s planning application. He knew only that the director had an interest in the land, “either prospective or actual”. He said: “To be honest, I never asked those questions”.
50. A Southwark councillor was at the top of the Liberal Democrat list for the GLA elections, and the Liberal Democrats had a candidate in the mayoral election. Mr Hughes told me that, in April 2012, he and his local party were “thinking about who we could ask for help with our funds ahead of the Mayoral elections and the GLA elections”. They had had a conversation about funding, which had preceded Mr Hughes’s letter to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd. Within a week of that letter, and “entirely unrelatedly”, a local architect (whom Mr Hughes had known for some years) contacted Mr Hughes to suggest a meeting about the development of the land. Mr Hughes agreed to facilitate this meeting, although he made clear that this should not be taken as support for the project. Mr Hughes told me that he had ensured that “at all times everything was done equally” in respect of the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors whose wards were affected by the development.
51. Mr Hughes told me that the idea behind the meeting had been to “get everyone round the table”. In the event, the politicians who attended were one Labour councillor and one Liberal Democrat councillor. A representative of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP also attended. Mr Hughes told me that the meeting had been bigger than he expected: the director of Southwark Metals had “brought with him whoever he thought fit”. He himself had convened the meeting and introduced those present. He told me that he had always made it clear that he did not involve himself with planning issues, because these were not the responsibility of MPs. The meeting itself lasted for about an hour. Mr Hughes told me:
I don’t think I said anything other than to get people to introduce themselves and then to close the meeting. I never thought that there was anything different from any other meeting I’m asked to facilitate—I’d just been asked to break the log jam.
52. I asked Mr Hughes whether he had thought that this meeting might be different because of the donation he had received from Southwark Metals Ltd. He told me that he had seen it as “a routine process” which had started a year before the donation was made, and that it had never crossed his mind that it was anything other than routine. He said: “That bell did not ring”. He told me that in the thirty years he had been in Parliament he had never promoted something he had been asked to promote, or lobbied, on behalf of anyone by whom he had been paid. The only reason the meeting was not routine for him was that the site in question was not in his constituency. He also noted that the rules of the House referred to Ministers and servants of the Crown, and said that none of those present
26 Simon Hughes
fell into either of these categories. He concluded: “Any thought of lobbying was a million miles from my mind. And no one who was watching, who was a fly on the wall of the meeting, would have seen anything untoward.”
53. I asked Mr Hughes what he had known about the relationships between the companies who were represented at the meeting. These included Westminster Waste Ltd and SCCD Developments, a company established by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd. Mr Hughes told me that he took “a very simple view”. He had had an approach from an individual who ran a local business, and had given him some advice. He told me that he had “never inquired further” and had “assumed it was his business”. Later on, he discovered that this individual operated more than one site. Mr Hughes told me that he “knew nothing about Westminster Waste” until he was introduced to them and they explained that they operated on the same site as Southwark Metals. He also “knew nothing about” SCCD Developments, “other than that they appeared at the meeting”. It had not crossed his mind that there was a separate development company—he considered the development to be a “Southwark Metals initiative”. He had only asked questions about these issues when I had put questions to him in the course of my inquiry.
54. Following our interview, I agreed the following summary of his evidence in respect of this meeting with Mr Hughes:
more than a year before the Southwark Metals Ltd donation to Mr Hughes’s local party was made, a director of this company came to see him and asked for guidance in contacting the local council in relation to the development of some land in which Mr Hughes understood that his company had an interest; at no time did Mr Hughes know the chronology or details of the acquisition, ownership, disposal or value of the land;
it is Mr Hughes’s normal practice to meet business people or other organisations who ask to meet him to discuss developments in or affecting his constituency and he has done this on many occasions since he was elected;
Mr Hughes’s initial meeting with the director of this company revealed that the land which the director of this company wanted to discuss was land which had been in Mr Hughes’s constituency until boundary changes in 2010. The land in question was just on the Peckham and Camberwell side of the constituency boundary between his seat and that of Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP but directly overlooked his constituency and significant numbers of homes in his constituency. It was a site which had been the subject of complaints by Mr Hughes’s constituents since the general election, which he had taken up with the council. Mr Hughes later learnt that the director also had an interest in a nearby second site, which was and remains in his constituency;
Mr Hughes made written enquiries about this development to the council in May 2011 and received replies to these in September and November 2011;
in April 2012 a local architect, who was working with the director and his company, contacted Mr Hughes and proposed that his client, the architect himself, and Mr Hughes should meet the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive of the council, councillors and other officers to discuss the company’s plans;
Simon Hughes 27
in September 2012, at the request of Mr Hughes, his acting diary manager started to try to set up a meeting between Mr Hughes, Ms Harman, the six councillors directly affected, the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the opposition, and the director of Southwark Metals Ltd. At the request of the director of Southwark Metals Ltd, Mr Hughes’s office also invited the joint owner of Westminster Waste Ltd, a representative of the company developing the site, representatives of a consultancy firm, representatives of a firm of architects, and a representative of a firm of property advisers. Mr Hughes also agreed that the Principal of the City of London Academy should be invited;
at no time did Mr Hughes seek to influence either Ms Harman or the local councillors to support any particular development in which the director or any company associated with him had an interest; he was simply trying to gather all the relevant politicians together at the same time so that there could be one common presentation to all of them; he had made it clear to the director that he could not and would not take sides on the merits of the development;
the meeting took place on 6 November 2012 and, in the event, neither Ms Harman nor Councillor Peter John attended; two other invited councillors did attend: a councillor from one of the affected wards, and the Leader of the Opposition. A representative of Ms Harman’s office, the Principal of the City of London Academy and the director of Southwark Metals Ltd also attended. The director of Southwark Metals Ltd brought with him the joint owner of Westminster Waste Ltd, a representative of the company developing the site, representatives of a consultancy firm, representatives of a firm of architects and a representative of a firm of property advisers;
Mr Hughes does not consider that the paragraphs in the Code of Conduct relating to the declaration of Members’ interests appear to be intended to govern relations with local councillors or council officers, who are not servants of the Crown35;
since Mr Hughes did not believe at the time that the donation received by his constituency party on 16 April 2012 from this company should have been registered in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests although he was aware that it had been reported to the Electoral Commission, he did not declare it, or ask his acting diary secretary to declare it, in communications connected with setting up this meeting, either with the office of Ms Harman or with the office of the local councillors;
Mr Hughes now considers he should have registered this donation, but it is not clear to him that he should also have made a declaration to Ms Harman or her staff or asked his staff to do so. He considers that it is even less clear to him that he should have done so to local councillors or to their office or that he should have asked his staff to do so;
35 The Guide to the Rules refers in paragraph 72 to the need to declare interests to “Ministers or servants of the Crown”, and in paragraph 86 to “correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials”.The 2012 Code of Conduct says in paragraph 13 “... [Members] shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
28 Simon Hughes
in relation to this company, Mr Hughes has assured me that he did not at any time make any approach to any Minister or servant of the Crown which sought to confer benefit exclusively upon a body (or individual) outside Parliament from which he had received, was receiving or expected to receive a financial benefit; he does not consider that facilitating a meeting for one company or organisation to present its case to him, to parliamentary colleagues in his borough or to local councillors or council officers facilitates any benefit that is exclusive to that company, individual or organisation;
at no time did Mr Hughes seek to influence Ms Harman, councillors or the council to support any particular development connected with this company or its director, but simply sought to make life easier for his political colleagues and a local business by facilitating one meeting with locally elected politicians at which a director of this company could put his case;
at the only relevant meeting which did take place, Mr Hughes did little more than initiate the introduction of the individuals present to each other and invite presentation and questioning; he expressly did not speak in support of the plans put forward;
Mr Hughes is clear that he at no time lobbied for reward or consideration in relation to the director or to Southwark Metals Ltd, nor was he pressed to do this by the director.
55. I wrote to Mr Hughes on 19 September enclosing the factual parts of my report and asking him to comment within two weeks.36 Mr Hughes responded on 15 October with a number of amendments many of which I have accepted.37 Mr Hughes asked me to add the following paragraph to my findings of fact but I believe it is more appropriate to include it in his evidence and he has agreed to this.
“All donations which are the subject of this inquiry have been reported to the Electoral Commission by my local party;
One donation was in error not registered by me (the donation from IPA Consulting Ltd of 11th December 2007), but all the others were donations to my local party which I believed at the time it was not necessary for me to register on ROMFI in addition to the reporting to the EC;
No donation which is the subject of the Inquiry was not recorded in the public domain by donor and amount, and therefore nothing was concealed from the public;
With the exception of the donation from IPA Consulting Ltd of 11th December 2007 to my local party, and which was in error not registered by me and after
36 WE 27 37 Not included in the evidence.
Simon Hughes 29
which my local party made a similar donation to me, my office did not profit from any of the donations complained about;
I personally did not profit from any of the donations which are the subject of this inquiry;
I admitted immediately after the matters were put to me that the donations all should have been registered, and declared in the two relevant debates, apologised unreservedly for these unintended failures and mistakes and made clear I was of course willing to have all the donations registered in ROMFI, and made clear that I will always act on the side or caution in the future and that all donations to my local party which are registered with the Electoral Commission I shall also now enter in the register—and this procedure is already being implemented;
In relation to Westminster Waste Ltd, I registered that donation as soon as I was made aware of it.
I have been clear throughout that I never sought to lobby for or be the advocate for Southwark Metals, or its development, or any other associated company, or to influence members, officials, councillors or officers to support any of these companies or the development.”
Evidence from the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests
56. I wrote to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests to seek her advice on this inquiry on 18 July.38 She responded on 5 August.39 I had asked her whether, under the rules of the House, she considered that Mr Hughes should have registered the four donations he had received from IPA Consulting Ltd; the donation from City Cruises Plc, the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd and the donation from Westminster Waste Ltd. In answering this question, the Registrar told me what advice her office would have given Mr Hughes at the time, had she been consulted.
57. In respect of the donation of 11 December 2007 from IPA Consulting Ltd to Mr Hughes’s local party, the Registrar noted that Mr Hughes believed that he had “directly or indirectly orally encouraged” this donation and that, following receipt of this donation, his local party had immediately made a donation of £11,000 to him. Mr Hughes considered that it was a “clear mistake” not to have registered this donation. The Registrar told me that she agreed with Mr Hughes that this donation required registration. Her office would have advised him that the donation to his local party appeared to be linked to him in the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules and that he should therefore have registered it under Category 4(a) of the Register. They would not, however, have advised Mr Hughes to register the donation made by his local party to him, since such donations are not registrable.
58. In respect of the remaining three donations from IPA Consulting Ltd, the Registrar considered that, on the basis of the information given by Mr Hughes, she was unable to say
38 WE 22 39 WE 24
30 Simon Hughes
what the advice of her office would have been. She told me that it was for Members to decide whether a particular donation to a local party organisation was “linked” to them and therefore required registration.
59. The Registrar noted that Mr Hughes believed that he had “directly and orally encouraged” the donation from City Cruises Plc to his constituency party at one meeting which took place, at his request, some time before the donation was made. Mr Hughes himself had said that he believed that the donation was linked to him and should therefore have been registered. The Registrar agreed with this and considered that, had her office had this information at the time when the donation was registered, they would have advised him that the donation to his local party appeared to be linked to him in the terms set out in the Guide to the Rules and that he should therefore have registered it under Category 4(a) of the Register.
60. In respect of the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd, the Registrar noted that Mr Hughes considered this donation to be “clearly ‘linked’ to him in a way which required registration” and that it followed a written request from Mr Hughes for support. He had asked for support for the Liberal Democrat candidate for elections to the GLA and to fund one or two interns in his own office. The Registrar agreed that, since Mr Hughes had encouraged the support, the donation appeared to be “linked” to him. It would have been further linked to him if it had been used to fund interns in his office. For these reasons, the Registrar would have advised Mr Hughes to register the donation.
61. The Registrar noted that Mr Hughes did not believe that the donation from Westminster Waste Ltd was given in response to any letter from him, from his local party, or on behalf of him or his party. However, on the basis that the donation followed the request he had made to the director of Southwark Metals, who was also a joint owner and shareholder of Westminster Waste, the Registrar considered that it appeared that Mr Hughes encouraged the donation. She said that it was likely that she would have advised Mr Hughes to register this donation.
62. The Registrar then turned to the aspects of the complaint which related to the declaration of Mr Hughes’s financial interests. She agreed with Mr Hughes’s judgment that he should have declared the donation his local party had received from City Cruises Plc when he referred to the company in debate on 22 October 2010. She came to this judgment on the grounds that “another person might reasonably have considered the donation to have influenced Mr Hughes’ actions or words when he mentioned in the House the proposal from the owners of City Cruises and invited the Minister to consider it.”40 She also agreed that Mr Hughes should have declared the donation his local party had received from Southwark Metals Ltd in the debate in Public Bill Committee on 11 September 2012. She reached this judgment on the grounds that “another person might reasonably have considered the donation to have influenced Mr Hughes’ actions or words when he raised in the House [the director’s] arguments against requiring cashless payments in the scrap metal industry”. She considered that this reasoning applied even though Mr Hughes said that he himself had a different view.
40 The proposal was not in fact from City Cruises but the firm had commented upon it.
Simon Hughes 31
63. The Registrar noted that Mr Hughes had said that it was not clear to him that he should have declared an interest arising from the donation his local party had received from Southwark Metals Ltd when inviting Rt Hon Harriet Harman and her staff and local councillors to a meeting about the development which is relevant to this complaint. She told me, however, that if she had been asked for advice at the time she would have drawn Mr Hughes’s attention to paragraph 86 of the Guide to the Rules, which says:
“The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost every aspect of a Member’s parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important. In 1975 the House agreed to the report of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests (Declaration) which contained these words: “it should be a matter of honour that a financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the House and its Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his fellow Members, whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion, with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation.”
In view of the provisions of this paragraph, she considered it likely that her office would have advised Mr Hughes to declare an interest arising from this donation before and during any discussions about the development. She also considered that, had her office known at that time about the donation from Westminster Waste, they would have given similar advice in relation to the interest arising from that donation.
64. I had asked the Registrar what advice, if any, she and her office had given to Mr Hughes about these donations. She told me that on 20 February 2008 Mr Hughes had tried to register a donation of £11,000 received on 11 December 2007 from Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats “as a contribution to staff costs”. She told me that he had been advised, in accordance with the rules, that there was no requirement to register a donation towards staff costs made by a Member’s own constituency party. She also told me that, on 26 June 2013, Mr Hughes had registered under Category 4(a) the £5,000 donation to his local party from Westminster Waste Ltd. She told me that she had found no record of any other relevant advice on registering or declaring these interests.
65. The Registrar also drew my attention to “a slight discrepancy” in the details recorded by her office and by the Electoral Commission in relation to the donation received by Mr Hughes’ constituency party from IPA Consulting Ltd on 26 February 2009. While the Electoral Commission listed the donor as IPA Consulting Ltd, the Register recorded the donor as an individual (the director of IPA Consulting Ltd), rather than the company itself. She noted that both of the donations from IPA Consulting Ltd that Mr Hughes had registered were registered outside the time limit set by the House, one by eight months.
Findings of fact
66. IPA Consulting Ltd has made six donations to Mr Hughes since 2006. In that time, he has registered two of these: a donation to him of £15,000 received on 17 February 2006 and a donation of £2,000 to his local party received on 26 February 2009. This company made a donation of £11,000 to Mr Hughes’s local party on 11 December 2007. Mr Hughes believes that he orally encouraged this donation to his party. Immediately afterwards, Mr Hughes’s
32 Simon Hughes
party made a donation of £11,000 to Mr Hughes himself. Mr Hughes believes this would have been used to meet staff costs. Mr Hughes considers that it was a “clear mistake” on his part not to register this donation from IPA Consulting Ltd to his local party and has apologised. The Registrar agrees with this assessment.
67. In respect of the remaining three donations from this company, Mr Hughes’s evidence is that he and a local party officer met the director of this company from time to time, sometimes together and sometimes separately, and that following a few of these meetings donations were given. He cannot now recall that he indirectly or directly encouraged these donations and believes that he did not directly encourage them. Nevertheless, he considers that he should have registered these donations because they were “linked” to him in the terms set out in the rules of the House and he has apologised for not having done so. The Registrar has said that she does not have sufficient evidence, given the amount of time that has elapsed, to determine whether she would, if asked, have advised Mr Hughes to register these donations.
68. City Cruises Plc made a donation of £3,300 to Mr Hughes’s local party on 2 December 2009 of advertising and sponsorship of Christmas cards. Mr Hughes’s evidence is that this donation followed a direct oral request from him at a meeting with two of the company’s representatives. He therefore believes that this donation was “linked” to him in a way that required registration and has apologised for not having registered it. The Registrar agrees with this assessment. Mr Hughes has readily acknowledged that he should have declared this donation in debate on 22 October 2010 when he referred to City Cruises Plc and its directors.
69. Southwark Metals Ltd made a donation of £5,000 to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 16 April 2012. This followed a written request on 5 April 2012 from Mr Hughes to the director of the company. Mr Hughes has accepted that this donation was therefore “linked” to him and that he should have registered it, and has apologised for not having done so. The Registrar agrees with this. The donation was incorrectly reported to the Electoral Commission as a donation of £10,000 although — unknown to Mr Hughes — it was actually for £5,000. Mr Hughes’s party has now taken steps to correct this error. Mr Hughes has readily acknowledged that he should have declared this donation in debate on 11 September 2012 when he referred to Southwark Metals Ltd and the views of its director. He is less clear, however, that he should have declared this donation when arranging and attending a meeting about the development proposed by the director of this company because he was not seeking to influence other Members concerning the development in question.
70. Westminster Waste Ltd made a donation of £5,000 to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats on 16 April 2012. This donation was received at the same time as the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd and was apparently made at the request of that company’s director, following Mr Hughes’s letter to him. Mr Hughes registered this donation when he became aware of it, on 26 June 2013. Mr Hughes’s evidence is that this donation was not given in response to any letter from him or from his local party, or on their behalf to Westminster Waste Ltd. The Registrar’s evidence is that, on the basis that the donation followed the request made by Mr Hughes to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd, who was also a joint owner and shareholder of Westminster Waste Ltd, she would have advised him to register the donation. Had her office known about the donation at the
Simon Hughes 33
time, she would also have advised Mr Hughes to declare it when arranging and attending a meeting about the development proposed by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd.
71. Mr Hughes’s evidence about the meeting of 6 November 2012 is that he was asked to arrange the meeting by a local architect and that the meeting was not connected to the donation his local party had received from Southwark Metals Ltd. The purpose of the meeting was to enable those involved in the proposals for development of the site, led by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd, to present their plans to local elected representatives. Mr Hughes told this director that he could not support the proposal and he did not speak in its favour at the meeting in question. His evidence is that he at no time lobbied for reward or consideration in relation to Southwark Metals Ltd or its director.
Standard of Proof
72. When considering allegations against Members, the Commissioner and the Committee normally require allegations to be proved on the balance of probabilities, namely, that they are more likely than not to be true. That is the standard of proof which I have applied in this case.
Conclusions
73. This inquiry has been a very lengthy one. My Hughes told me at an early stage that he believed he was at fault and apologised. It would have been straightforward to accept his apologies and to close the inquiry at that point. However, once a matter has been accepted for inquiry it is important to establish the facts as clearly as possible. This work protects the Committee and the Member concerned, as well as other Members who might find themselves in a similar position in future. To accept an apology and rectify a complaint without first establishing the facts would be to run the risk of recording a breach of the rules where none had occurred, and of confusing other Members with an unhelpful precedent. Before I accepted the Member’s apologies therefore I felt it right to establish the facts and to check his understanding of the relevant rules.
74. In this case, the complaint about alleged failures to register and declare interests was accompanied by a complaint about alleged breaches of the advocacy rules in relation to a controversial planning application. This, if proven, would be a particular serious matter which has merited in depth consideration. In the event however I have found no evidence of Mr Hughes’ involvement in the planning application, other than as stated in this Report.
75. The questions I had to resolve were: a) Was Mr Hughes required by the rules of the House to register four donations from IPA Consulting Ltd, one donation from City Cruises Plc, one donation from Southwark Metals Ltd, and one donation from Westminster Waste Ltd? b) Was Mr Hughes required by the rules of the House to declare in debate the donations his local party had received from City Cruises Plc and Southwark Metals Ltd and to declare the donations his party had received from Southwark Metals Ltd and Westminster Waste Ltd when arranging and attending a meeting about a development proposed by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd?
34 Simon Hughes
c) Did the meeting Mr Hughes arranged constitute lobbying for reward and consideration, contrary to the rules of the House?
As the section on the relevant Rules makes plain, different Codes of Conduct and Guides to the Rules applied at different times. a) Was Mr Hughes required by the rules of the House to register four donations from IPA Consulting Ltd, one donation from City Cruises Plc, one donation from Southwark Metals Ltd, and one donation from Westminster Waste Ltd?
76. Mr Hughes’s local party received a donation of £11,000 from IPA Consulting Ltd on 11 December 2007 and shortly afterwards made a donation of the same amount to Mr Hughes. Mr Hughes believes that he encouraged this donation to his local party and that it would have been used to meet staff costs in his office. I therefore consider that this donation to the party was “linked” to Mr Hughes and that he should therefore have registered it. Had he sought the Registrar’s advice at the time, she would have advised registration. Mr Hughes himself has readily accepted that he should have registered the donation and has apologised for not having done so.
77. The position in respect of the remaining three unregistered donations from IPA Consulting Ltd is less clear. It is understandable, given that the donations were given between three and six years ago, that Mr Hughes cannot now recall the circumstances in any great detail. In view of this, the Registrar is not able to say what advice she would have given. Mr Hughes himself has told me that he believes that all three of these donations to his constituency party were “linked” to him in a way that required registration and that he, himself, had meetings with the company’s director. On this basis, I consider, on the balance of probabilities, that he should also have registered these three donations.
78. The Registrar also alerted me to the fact that one of the donations from this company that Mr Hughes did register—a donation of £15,000 received on 17 February 2006—was registered almost eight months late. This is a serious delay but I have not considered it constructive, at this distance in time, to inquire into the circumstances which led to this late registration.
79. In respect of the donation from City Cruises Plc, I agree with the advice of the Registrar that this donation should have been registered. It arose as a direct result of a meeting between Mr Hughes and two representatives of the company and from a direct oral request from Mr Hughes himself. The first question suggested by the Guide to the Rules to determine whether or not a donation is “linked” to a Member is: “Did I write to or meet the donor asking for a contribution?” In addition to this, the donation took the form of sponsorship of Christmas cards sent in the name of Mr Hughes and his local party. For these reasons, I consider that Mr Hughes was required by the rules of the House to register this donation.
80. I also agree with the advice of the Registrar concerning the donation from Southwark Metals Ltd. Mr Hughes has told me that he met the director of the company and the possibility of a donation was raised; he followed this up with a direct written request for a contribution, which included a specific request for a donation to fund one or two interns in
Simon Hughes 35
his own office. The donation was therefore clearly “linked” to him and required registration. Mr Hughes has pointed out that part of the request related to funding for the campaign of a Southwark councillor for election to the Greater London Assembly, although he has not sought to argue that he should not have registered the donation. I do not, however, consider that this changes the position. The direct encouragement of the donation came from Mr Hughes himself. Had Mr Hughes asked himself the question suggested by the Guide to the Rules, it would have been immediately apparent to him that the donation was “linked” to him.
81. Mr Hughes became aware of the donation from Westminster Waste Ltd received by his local party on 16 April 2012 only in the course of my inquiry and registered it on 26 June 2013. I consider that this was the correct course of action. Although Mr Hughes has told me that the donation did not come as a result of a letter from him or from his local party, it is clear from his evidence that the donation was a result of the letter he wrote to the director of Southwark Metals Ltd on 5 April 2012. On that basis, I agree with the Registrar’s advice that this donation required registration.
82. As a result of the error in recording and reporting this donation, Mr Hughes’s entry in the register was made more than a year late. I do recognise that he was not aware that the donation had been received and that he took steps to register it once he knew about it. Members are responsible for complying with the rules on registration, which include the duty to inform the Registrar of changes to their interests within four weeks of any change and would be wise to establish arrangements to inform themselves promptly about such donations. I therefore consider that Mr Hughes shares the responsibility for the failure to register this donation on time. Mr Hughes has told me, on several occasions, that he intends to dual register all future donations with the Electoral Commission and on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is no longer necessary nor is it permissible and Mr Hughes will need to decide for himself, possibly in discussion with constituency officials and the Registrar, whether each donation is linked to him and register accordingly. b) Was Mr Hughes required by the rules of the House to declare in debate the donations his local party had received from City Cruises Plc and Southwark Metals Ltd and to declare the donations his party had received from Southwark Metals Ltd and Westminster Waste Ltd when arranging and attending a meeting about a development proposed by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd?
83. Mr Hughes has readily accepted that he should have declared in debate the donations his local party had received from City Cruises Plc and from Southwark Metals Ltd. The Registrar’s advice, with which I agree, is that these donations met the “test of relevance”: that is, that another person might reasonably have thought that Mr Hughes’s speeches could have been influenced by them. Mr Hughes has told me that he did not declare these donations because, not having registered them, he believed that he had no duty to declare them. As I have said, I consider that Mr Hughes should have been aware that these donations were linked to him: in both cases he had made direct requests to the donors. Another person would not, in my judgment, have been unreasonable to think that a substantial donation made to a Member’s local party at his request could have influenced his speeches. I would also have expected him to be aware that the requirement to declare a
36 Simon Hughes
donation, for example in debate, is wider than the requirement to register an interest. Members may on occasion be required to declare an interest which does not need registration.
84. Mr Hughes has told me that it is not clear to him that he should have declared his interest in Southwark Metals Ltd, or asked his staff to do so, when approaching another Member and local councillors to arrange a meeting, and at the meeting itself. Paragraph 13 of the 2012 Code, however requires Members to declare relevant interests to “public officials or public office holders”. The rules of the House are also very clear that the requirement on Members to declare an interest “covers almost every aspect of a Member’s parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and meetings with Ministers and public officials” and that “Frankness with colleagues is also important”. Mr Hughes’s local party had received a substantial donation from Southwark Metals Ltd. The meeting was being arranged in order to enable the director of that company, together with others of his choosing, to present their plans to elected office holders. I consider that, whatever Mr Hughes’s own views on the development proposals, he should have drawn his financial interest to the attention of the Member and the public office holders he was inviting by asking his staff to record it in the e-mails they sent to arrange the meeting. He should then have declared his interest in person to those who were present.
85. At the time of the meeting, Mr Hughes was not aware that Westminster Waste Ltd had made a donation to his constituency party. Nor was he aware that Westminster Waste Ltd was (as he has told me) part-owned by the director of Southwark Metals Ltd, and that the donation from Westminster Waste Ltd had been made at that person’s request. Nevertheless, the fact was that his constituency party had received a substantial donation which was linked to Mr Hughes. It would therefore have been proper for Mr Hughes, had he known this, to declare his interest before and at the meeting. c) Did the meeting Mr Hughes arranged constitute lobbying for reward and consideration, contrary to the rules of the House?
86. I have considered carefully whether Mr Hughes’s actions in arranging a meeting relating to a proposed development in his constituency amounted to a breach of the rules relating to paid advocacy. The guidelines given in paragraph 96 of the Guide to the Rules for application of the lobbying rule relate only to Ministers and servants of the Crown. Rt Hon Harriet Harman—whose representative attended the meeting—is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, and therefore not covered by the provisions relating to Ministers. Local councillors are not, under any usual definition, servants of the Crown. I do not, therefore, consider that the lobbying rules have been breached in this case.
87. However, I do consider that Mr Hughes was unwise to enter into this meeting without fully informing himself about the relationships between the companies involved and about the interest which the director of Southwark Metals Ltd had in the land. He said to me: “I never asked those questions.”41 In my view, knowing that this company had made a donation to his local party, Mr Hughes should have asked those questions. When I asked him whether he had considered whether the fact that his party had had a donation from
41 WE 21
Simon Hughes 37
this company made the meeting different from other meetings he arranged in the usual course of his work as a Member, he told me: “it never crossed my mind that it was anything other than routine. That bell did not ring.”42 For any Member, and especially a Member with Mr Hughes’s experience, that bell should have rung. As it happened, in my view Mr Hughes’s actions did not breach the rules of the House—but he himself had not taken steps to ensure that this was the case and as a result he left himself open to accusations of impropriety.
Overall conclusions
88. I therefore conclude that Mr Hughes was in breach of the rules of House in not registering, as required by the House, six donations to his local party organization: four from IPA Consulting Ltd, one from City Cruises Plc, and one from Southwark Metals Ltd. These donations had been reported to the Electoral Commission. A further donation received from IPA consulting in 2006 was registered some eight months late. In addition, during the course of this inquiry Mr Hughes made a late registration of a 2012 donation of £5,000 from Westminster Waste Ltd, of which he was not aware at the time and which had not been reported to the Electoral Commission.
89. Mr Hughes was in breach of the rules in failing to declare in debate his interests in City Cruises Plc and in Southwark Metals, and in failing to declare his interest in Southwark Metals Ltd (and in Westminster Waste Ltd) to another Member and to local councillors when arranging a meeting on behalf of the director of Southwark Metals. He did not, however, breach the rules of the House relating to lobbying for reward and consideration.
90. Had I been inquiring into any of these breaches individually, I consider that I would have been able to resolve such an inquiry by means of the rectification procedure. However, in view of the number of breaches, the substantial total value of the unregistered donations (over £30,000), and the serious allegation of paid advocacy, I have considered it necessary to prepare this memorandum for the Committee.
91. This inquiry has taken almost a year to complete. Mr Hughes has provided extensive responses to my letters, although these were sometimes late. However, much of the relevant evidence eg in relation to the City Cruises donation did not emerge until some months after the inquiry had begun. Mr Hughes has told me that he did not understand that I needed to establish the relevant facts in this inquiry, given that he had—with one or two exceptions—accepted at the outset that he had breached the rules. As a result, the evidence he gave me in January differed significantly from the evidence I was finally able to agree with him in July. If he had provided me with all the evidence at an earlier stage this inquiry would have been resolved more quickly.
92. I do not believe that Mr Hughes deliberately delayed my inquiry or deliberately gave inaccurate information. However, I would have expected him to have sought from his office and from his local party all of the records relating to these donations at the very beginning of my inquiry and to have provided me at that stage with all of the information
42 WE 21
38 Simon Hughes
available. It is in the interests of the Member under inquiry, the complainant and ultimately the Committee that my inquiries should be resolved as speedily as possible.
93. I have no evidence that Mr Hughes deliberately breached the rules of the House. All of the donations which are the subject of this inquiry were reported to the Electoral Commission and made public on its website and there is no evidence that Mr Hughes or his party were seeking to conceal them. Nevertheless, in the course of more than six years he failed to register six donations. The total value of the unregistered donations was over £30,000. A seventh donation was registered eight months late, and an eighth donation, of which Mr Hughes was not aware at the time, was registered just over one year late. In addition to this, on two occasions in the House, and on one occasion when arranging and attending a meeting, he failed to declare relevant donations. I consider that this number of breaches, and the length of time taken to respond to some of my requests for information, suggests that Mr Hughes was, over a number of years, not as attentive as he should have been to the rules of the House relating to donations made to his constituency party. He had not set in place arrangements to ensure that he was aware of donations at the appropriate time. It was open to him, as it is to all Members, to seek advice from the Registrar. Had he done so at the relevant times, I consider it likely that he would have been able to avoid breaching the rules of the House.
94. Because Mr Hughes had an incomplete awareness of his responsibilities he was unaware that he was required to register certain donations made to his local party organization. Had he been aware of his responsibilities I would have expected him to be careful to inform himself about donations ‘linked’ to him as set out in the rules of the House. He did not obtain this information and did not register the donations. This lack of care has caused Mr Hughes repeatedly to breach the rules of the House relating to the registration and declaration of interests.
31 October 2013 Kathryn Hudson Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Simon Hughes 39
Appendix 2: Complaint letter from Peter John to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards [WE 1]
I am writing to make a complaint which I believe provides grounds for an investigation into the conduct of Rt Hon Simon Hughes, Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Summary of the complaint
Simon Hughes’s constituency party has taken substantial cash donations (Southwark Metals; City Cruises) from two businesses which he has then spoken on behalf of in Parliament and/or subsequently lobbied on behalf of, without registering these donations in his interests or declaring the interests when speaking to other MPs or servants of the Crown. A further third business (IPA Consulting) has made a contribution to Simon Hughes’s constituency party that was immediately passed onto him without an interest being registered.
I ask you to investigate whether these actions are breaches of the following sections of the Code of Conduct:
1. Registering of Members’ financial interests 2. Declaring of Members’ interests 3. Lobbying for reward or consideration
Southwark Metals
Non-registration of interest
Southwark Metals is a company based outside Simon Hughes’s constituency. On 15/05/2012 they made a £10,000 donation to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrat constituency party — Simon Hughes’s local party. While this donation was registered with the Electoral Commission, Simon Hughes did not register it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This — if Simon Hughes is linked to the donation — is a clear breach of his duty to declare type 4a donations:
“Any donation received by a Member’s constituency party or association, or relevant grouping of associations which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House”
Whilst I do not have evidence that the donation was “a contribution to the Member’s fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate”, I believe that a) the scale of the donation b) the lack of previous declared donations by the donor and c) Simon Hughes’s subsequent actions provide grounds for you to conduct an investigation.
Non-declaration of interest in Committee
40 Simon Hughes
Following this donation Simon Hughes spoke in the Public Bill Committee debate on the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill on 11th September, making specific reference to Southwark Metals and “asking the question—that [the measure to ban cash payments] is a discrimination in relation to this industry, when we are not banning cash payments across all other industries”. He did not declare the donation to his constituency party to the committee despite a specific requirement in the Code of Conduct to:
“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.”
During the debate Simon Hughes introduced Southwark Metals and requested more information on their behalf about cashless payments by saying:
“He is a gentleman called [name], who runs Southwark Metals, which is a very reputable organisation based just outside my constituency, in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Nevertheless, it serves the whole of the borough and it is certainly very well regarded in my part of the borough.
[Name’s] argument is that although this is an understandable proposition, the best way to regulate and catch people, by and large, is to make sure that the transactions must happen in certain places, namely registered sites, and that we get on CCTV the people, their licence plates and so on. He has put the argument that the best way to catch people is not by having cashless payments. He also makes the wider argument—I have argued the contrary, so I am not adopting his argument but just asking the question— that this measure is a discrimination in relation to this industry, when we are not banning cash payments across all other industries. He asks, “Why should we be singled out as an industry? Loads and loads of people pay in cash for all sorts of things. That’s how lots of business is done.” So I would be grateful for a considered reflection on the wisdom of going down this road, as opposed to going down the roads that he and other people in the industry are apparently suggesting.
I am aware that, by and large, the scrap metal industry, representatives of which have written to us, is supportive of this proposal, but it would be worth making sure that we understand that there are other views, and if they are views held by reputable, successful, concerned, socially aware and politically conscious business people we need to address them.”
He went on during the debate to press the point about cashless payments:
“Before we conclude this issue about cashless payments, which is a repeat of the current legislative position rather than something new, it would be helpful if the Minister, with the help of his civil servants, could put on the record the other places where, in legislation, we currently ban such payments. We should be careful about legislating for a particular solution in a particular industry if we do not understand what the implications are elsewhere. This is really a heads-up to my hon. Friend the Member for
Simon Hughes 41
Croydon South, who might be able to give me the answer when we debate clause stand part in a moment.”
And again:
“It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could arrange, at some convenient moment before Report, for a note to be given to those of us in the Committee who want the promoter of the Bill and the right hon. Member for Delyn to meet, which shows the consideration of the matter. I am clear that this is unusual. We want to ensure that it is justified and it would be really helpful to see if there are any other examples in English law.”
And concluded by saying:
“I will reflect on whether there is anything else that it might be helpful to get on the record for people in the industry.”
Non-declaration of interest in dealings with other Members and servants of the Crown
Simon Hughes has also approached other Members (Rt Hon Harriet Harman) in respect of the Southwark Metals site and a proposed development on it without declaring an interest. I also believe that given the breadth of the definition of servants of the Crown under paragraph 72 of Code of Conduct, he has also arguably approached servants of the Crown for the same purposes without declaring an interest (Cllrs Peter John, [name], [name], [name], all LB [London Borough of] Southwark).
The owner of Southwark Metals [name] has proposed a development of the land that Southwark Metals currently occupies that would require planning permission including permission for a change of use (further information on the development is available at [address]). [name] has only owned a significant proportion of this land (under the name S.C.C.D. Developments) since 31/05/2012, sixteen days after the donation was made to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats, when he bought it for £1.65 million. If planning permission is granted the development is potentially of a significantly higher financial value.
Simon Hughes has approached both Rt Hon Harriet Harman, in whose constituency the Southwark Metals site is situated and the local council leader and ward councillors to set up meetings to discuss the development scheme without declaring the donation to his local party.
His office contacted Harriet Harman on 17/09/2012 with the following email:
Just want to follow-up from the conversation last week. Did you have any chance to set a few dates to meet with Simon, Harriet and local stakeholders about [name’s] development of [address]? The issue is quite urgent and, if possible, some date during the Tory conference would be ideal. Please let me know asap.
Best, [name]Diary Manager to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons
42 Simon Hughes
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
And again on the same day:
Many thanks. I’m not too involved with the procedures, but from what I understand, the developers are now at a critical stage of the development of [address] and are in the process of setting up public consultations at the site over the next coming weeks. Hence, request for the meeting as soon as possible.
His office contacted my office on 15/05/2012 by telephone with the following message (the development as proposed would include a free school):
Hello [name],
[name], from Simon Hughes’ office called as Simon would like an urgent meeting within this week or next re Schools.
They have proposed: anytime Friday, 18th Thurs, 17th at 12 Mon, 21st before 2 Tues, 22nd before 11 or at 12-1.00 Wed, 23rd before 11.30
Please let me know how you would like me to respond.
With thanks.
[name]
Personal Assistant to COUNCILLOR PETER JOHN LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
When my office called back to clarify the message it was explained that the meeting would be about the development, including the school.
He subsequently received a further email 11/10/2012 (the site is on [address], the spelling … is a misspelling): [name]
I’m writing with regard to the meeting I’m trying to set about the site on [address] (border between Harriet and Simon). This will be to discuss the plans for the site which has been quite controversial I believe, but I haven’t got much details. The meeting would be between :
Councillors of both wards (Livesey and South Bermondsey)
Local investors
Simon Hughes MP
Simon Hughes 43
Representative from Harriet Harman’s office
[Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group]
and [name] as the leader of the Council
I am exploring the dates for the meeting and the time that would be most suitable for Simon, Harriet, [name] and Investors is morning of 29th October. I am aiming for 11am that day. It would be crucial for councillors to make time for that meeting and equally important for Peter John to be there.
Could you please let me know his availability on that day and that time? Many thanks and I’m looking forward to hearing back from you soon.
With best wishes,
[name]
Diary Manager to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Local ward councillors [name], [name] and [name] all received invitations for briefings about the site from Simon Hughes’s office including this one on 01/11/2012.
Dear All,
Thank you for all those who responded and are planning to attend the meeting next Tuesday about the development around [address]. For the sake of convenience of all parties involved, the meeting will now take place in Parliament.
Attached43 are the boards used in public exhibition for you to get familiar as well as some bullet-point facts for info before the meeting.
A new Free School providing 450 pupil places (including 30 place nursery)
A new Sixth Form Academy providing expanded teaching space for CoLA [City of London Academy] and easing pressure on existing facilities at Lynton Road
The formation of links with [organisation], extending their work with youth groups and vulnerable/disadvantaged individuals towards the south of the Borough
Increased employment — ie circa 60 full-time jobs as part of all of the above versus no more than ten were the land to retain its ‘Industrial’ use class
43 Not enclosed
44 Simon Hughes
The creation of 160 new homes, mostly 2 & 3 bed units, responding to the need for family homes
The creation of new community facilities, especially the Multi-Use Games Area which can be made available to local residents and community groups
Attached is also map of parliamentary estate. The meeting will take place in room W4 just off Westminster Hall. Please come through the Cromwell Green entrance (visitors entrance), number 6 at the attached map. Go down the ramp and you will be directed into the Westminster Hall. The W4 room is on the right side of the hall. Visitors services will direct you.
Please allow about 15 minutes to go through security and do let me know if there are any problems. Best,
[name]
Diary Manager to Rt Hon Simon Hughes MP Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Bermondsey and Old Southwark
In none of these messages or any other conversations on this subject did Simon Hughes or his office declare the donation.
What also makes these approaches, and Simon Hughes’s facilitation of this development all the more surprising — apart from the site’s location outside his constituency — is his public opposition to free schools. He is on the record on 5th September 2011 as saying that he ‘would not support a free school in his constituency’.
Lobbying for reward or consideration
Whilst I do not have evidence that Simon Hughes made these interventions “in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, or reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect” I believe that the a) scale of the donation b) extent of the interventions, c) persistent neglect of his duty to declare an interest and d) the contradiction between his publicly expressed objection to free schools and action in respect of this particular development, which includes a free school, provide grounds for investigation.
City Cruises
Non registration of interest
City Cruises made a £3,300 donation to Simon Hughes’ Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrat constituency party on 31/12/2009. While this donation was registered with the Electoral Commission, Simon Hughes did not register it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This— if Simon Hughes is linked to the donation— is a clear breach of his duty to declare type 4a donations.
Simon Hughes 45
Whilst I do not have evidence that the donation was “a contribution to the Member’s fighting fund or a donation which has been invited or encouraged by the Member or candidate”, I believe that a) the scale of the [donation] and b) Simon Hughes’ subsequent actions provide grounds for you to conduct an investigation.
Non-declaration of interest in the House
On 22/10/2010 Simon Hughes called an adjournment debate on Marine Training and Employment in the House of Commons. He did not declare an interest in City Cruises. However, in the debate he made the following comments about the company:
“There is an eminent firm based in my constituency called City Cruises, run by two of the great protagonists in redevelopment along the river, [names], to whom I pay tribute for their work generally and for pressing me and others to do something about producing a new facility.”
He went on to say:
“I commend to the Minister-I will ask his Department to look at it, and to respond to me-a proposal for a London marine hub, which builds on the Government’s policy of using our ports to develop new industries. One of the potential sites is Deptford. City Cruises says that the hub would give us
“strategic infrastructure... a cluster of marine skills and expertise which can develop into a centre of excellence”,
along with
“employment creation in an area of London”
- an area that has traditionally suffered from high unemployment-
“where there are... few new businesses offering skilled and semi-skilled manual work”. That would allow the experience of the old generation to be retained and shared with the new generation. I hope that the Government will respond positively by examining the proposal with the Greater London authority, the Port of London authority and others.”
Lobbying for reward or consideration
Whilst I do not have evidence that Simon Hughes made these interventions “in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, or reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect” I believe that the a) scale of the donation and b) neglect of his duty to declare an interest, provide grounds for investigation.
IPA Consulting
Non-registration of interest
On 11/12/2007 IPA Consulting Ltd. made an £11,000 donation to Simon Hughes’s constituency party, Bermondsey and Old Southwark. On the same day (11/12/2007) Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats made an £11,000 donation to Simon
46 Simon Hughes
Hughes MP. Whilst the donations were declared to the Electoral Commission Simon Hughes did not register either a donation from his constituency party or from IPA Consulting in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests This appears to show a clear linking of his link to the donation and therefore a breach of his duty to declare type 4a donations.
IPA Consulting Ltd. went on to make a further three donations to the Bermondsey and Old Southwark Constituency Party to the value of £10,000 on 31/03/2008, 26/02/2009 and 05/07/2010. Of these only the 26/02/2009 donation was registered by Simon Hughes in his financial interests.
I hope that you will be able to contact me at your earliest convenience to explain whether you will be investigating this complaint.
19 November 2012
Simon Hughes 47
Appendix 3: Letter from Simon Hughes to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards
Thank you for your letter of 31 October and our subsequent conversation.
I am, following your advice, submitting this letter as my evidence to the Committee and will be grateful if you pass it on in the normal way.
I am relieved and grateful that the allegations that my activities in proceedings in the House had constituted ‘lobbying on behalf’ of two named companies were rejected from the beginning by the previous Commissioner—and that the Commissioner has found no evidence on the ‘particularly serious matter’ of breaching the advocacy rules forbidding lobbying for reward or consideration in relation to a meeting about a planning application which was complained about and investigated. I am grateful that the Commissioner accepted the argument which I had put from the beginning that in no way had I done anything which could be regarded as being lobbying for consideration or reward.
In relation to these allegations and the remaining complaints I would be very grateful if the Committee could in particular read paragraph 55 of the Commissioner’s Memorandum. In relation to all the complaints about registration and declaration, I accepted my mistakes from the beginning and apologised unreservedly. The reasons why I had not registered the donations in question is the same in every case and set out in paragraph 55, and each relevant donation was recorded in full with the Electoral Commission and therefore in the public domain. I am clear that this was not sufficient and will not make this mistake again. Indeed, I have already put in place much more robust systems in my own office and with my local party—and I am as certain as I can be that these will prevent any further mistakes. I and my staff now consult the Registrar about each donation made to me or my constituency party and will continue to do so.
In relation to the donation in December 2007 from IPA Consulting, this was clearly my mistake and I apologise unreservedly. In relation to the other three donations from IPA Consulting and the individual donations from City Cruises and Southwark Metals, I accepted immediately at the beginning of the inquiry that they should have been registered and apologised unreservedly. I repeat this apology to the Committee. In relation to the donation from Westminster Waste, I only became aware of this donation during the course of this inquiry and registered it immediately. I accept that I did not check the details of this donation when it was made and share responsibility for this.
Immediately the Committee has completed its consideration of this complaint, I shall consult the Registrar to make sure all necessary corrections to the Register are made. From the beginning of the inquiry I have also taken steps to make sure that all donations to my constituency party which could be linked to me in any way are registered in the Members’ Register, whether or not they are also registered by my local party with the Electoral Commission.
On the complaint that on two occasions I failed to make appropriate declarations in the House, I accepted from the beginning that I should have made these declarations and had I
48 Simon Hughes
not made the mistake of failing to register these donations I would had of course declared them. I repeat my sincere apology for these failures, and am now clear that the recording with the Electoral Commission in each case was not sufficient.
Last, in relation to the complaint that I and my staff did not declare the donation from Southwark Metals when making arrangements for a meeting involving that company, or during the meeting, I apologise that I did not believe I had to make the declaration as it had been recorded with the Electoral Commission. I accept entirely that this was a mistake and apologise to the Committee without reservation for this mistake. I also accept the judgment of the Commissioner that I had not been as careful as I should have been in the way I dealt with the arrangements for the meeting in order to make sure I did not leave myself open to allegations of impropriety.
Any delays in answering the Commissioner’s questions during the inquiry were solely due to my wish to make sure that I answered fully all the questions put to me.
I am relieved and grateful that the Commissioner confirmed that at no time did I deliberately breach any rules and that there was no attempt to conceal the source or amount of any of the donations. I am now very clear that I must be as attentive to donations made to my local as to me personally and have changed procedures to make sure that happens. I accept responsibility for the failures not to have done this sufficiently in the past. I apologise that these failures have led to my breaches of the rules which were all entirely unintended. I accept responsibility for this of course, and am clear that this will not happen again.
I am very sorry that the Commissioner and Committee have needed to be troubled with these complaints. You will not be troubled again on these issues, and I am of course ready to work with the Registrar to correct immediately my mistakes in whatever way you or she think necessary. 4 November 2013
Simon Hughes 49
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 5 November 2013
Members present:
Mr Kevin Barron, in the Chair
Sir Paul Beresford Sir Nick Harvey Mr Robert Buckland Mr Peter Jinman Mr Tom Clarke Fiona O’Donnell Mr Christopher Chope Mr Walter Rader Sharon Darcy Heather Wheeler
Draft Report (Simon Hughes), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 16 read and agreed to.
Three papers were appended to the Report.
Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was ordered to be reported to the House for publishing with the Report.
None of the lay members present wished to submit an opinion on the Report (Standing Order No. 149 (9)).
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 19 November at 9.45 am