HOUSE OF LORDS Committee for Privileges and Conduct 10th Report of Session 2013–14 The conduct of Lord Laird Ordered to be printed and published 9 December 2013 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £23.00 HL Paper 96 The Committee for Privileges and Conduct The Committee for Privileges and Conduct is appointed each session by the House to consider questions regarding its privileges and claims of peerage and precedence and to oversee the operation of the Code of Conduct. Detailed consideration of matters relating to the Code of Conduct is undertaken by the Sub- Committee on Lords’ Conduct. Current Membership The Members of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are: Baroness Anelay of St Johns Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Eames Lord Howe of Aberavon (until 5 December 2013) Lord Hill of Oareford Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Laming Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord McNally Baroness Manningham-Buller Lord Newby Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Sewel (Chairman) Viscount Ullswater (from 5 December 2013) The Members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct are: Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Dholakia Lord Irvine of Lairg Baroness Manningham-Buller (Chairman) Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve The Code of Conduct and the up-to-date Register of Lords’ Interests are on the Internet at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm General Information General information about the House of Lords and its Committees can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Contacts General correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW (telephone 020 7219 3112). Correspondence relating to the work of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct should be addressed to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW (telephone 020 7219 1228). CONTENTS Paragraph Page The Conduct of Lord Laird 1 PC 5 Background 1 PC 5 Summary of the case 3 PC 5 The Commissioner’s findings 4 PC 5 Lord Laird’s appeal 8 PC 6 The Committee’s role 9 PC 6 Lord Laird’s submissions 11 PC 6 The Committee’s decision 18 PC 9 Annex 1: Report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct 4 Annex 2: Report by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards 6 Annex 3: Appeal by Lord Laird on the findings of the Report (“The Report”) by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards issued on 19 November 2013 and transcript of proceedings 204 The numbering of the first page of the annexes as page 4 is intentional THE CONDUCT OF LORD LAIRD Background 1. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct has considered a report by the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards on the conduct of Lord Laird (at Annex 1). The Committee has also considered a report by the Sub- Committee on Lords’ Conduct (at Annex 2). 2. The procedure in cases such as this is set out in the Guide to the Code of Conduct. Under this procedure, the Commissioner investigates allegations against Members. He reports his findings to the Sub-Committee, which, if the Commissioner has found the Member to have breached the Code, recommends any action that the Member concerned should take and any sanction that the House should apply. The Sub-Committee does not reopen the Commissioner’s findings, which are reported without amendment to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. The Member may then appeal to that Committee against the Commissioner’s findings or the Sub- Committee’s recommended sanction, or both. Summary of the case 3. This case arose out of a request by Lord Laird that the Commissioner for Standards should investigate his conduct in connection with two separate sets of allegations. The first set of allegations arose from the Sunday Times articles in which undercover journalists purported to act for consultants working on behalf of a South Korean solar energy investor. These allegations are the same as those in the cases of Lords Cunningham of Felling, Mackenzie of Framwellgate and O’Neill of Clackmannan (though no article was in fact published about Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan). The second set of allegations arose from a BBC Panorama programme in which undercover reporters purported to act on behalf of a group called the Society of Friends of Fiji. No other Members of the House of Lords featured in that Panorama programme (but one MP did—the House of Commons Commissioner’s investigation into that MP has not yet concluded.) The Commissioner’s findings 4. The Commissioner found that Lord Laird breached the Code of Conduct in three respects. 5. All three of the Commissioner’s findings relate to the requirement in paragraph 8(b) of the Code that Members must always act on their personal honour. In particular, the findings are that Lord Laird demonstrated a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement which would have involved him breaching the Code. The findings are: first, that Lord Laird attempted to negotiate an agreement with the undercover Sunday Times journalists which would have involved him in helping to create an all-party group at the behest of the consultants in return for payment or other reward; secondly, that Lord Laird attempted to negotiate an agreement with the undercover Sunday Times journalists which would have involved him providing parliamentary services in return for payment or other reward; PC 6 10TH REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT thirdly, that Lord Laird attempted to negotiate an agreement with the undercover Panorama reporters which would have involved him helping to create an all-party group at the behest of the client in return for payment or other reward. 6. The facts are set out briefly in the report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and in detail in the report from the Commissioner for Standards. 7. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct has considered the case and recommended that Lord Laird be suspended from the service of the House for four months. Lord Laird’s appeal 8. Lord Laird appealed against all three findings and against the recommended sanction of four months’ suspension. The Committee’s role 9. The role of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct when there is an appeal is set out in paragraph 133 of the Guide to the Code: “On appeal, the Committee will not reopen the Commissioner’s investigation. Rather members of the Committee will use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the conclusions of the Commissioner; they will also consider whether or not the recommended sanction is appropriate.” 10. Accordingly, the Committee has considered the reports of the Commissioner and the Sub-Committee. The Committee has also considered Lord Laird’s written appeal and met to hear oral evidence from him. Lord Laird’s written appeal and the full transcript of the meeting with him are printed with this report (at Annex 3). Lord Laird’s submissions 11. Lord Laird argued in his oral and written submissions that, by referring to some insulting remarks made by Lord Laird to the reporters about Members of the House of Lords (see paragraph 25 of the Commissioner’s report), the Commissioner had “set the tone” for his inquiry and shown himself to have been prejudiced against Lord Laird (Q2). Lord Laird said that because such remarks did not and could not constitute a breach of the Code, the Commissioner should not have raised them. By introducing matters that were not relevant and by commenting that these matters reflected no credit on Lord Laird, the Commissioner had, according to Lord Laird, revealed “a level of bias” (Q2). It seems to the Committee however that the Commissioner was required to examine Lord Laird’s unflattering remarks about Members of the House in order to reach his conclusion that they fell outside his remit. He had to raise them in order to dismiss them. He could not have proceeded in his investigation or reached his conclusions in any other way. We conclude that the Commissioner’s comments about Lord Laird’s remarks about the House and its Members cannot reasonably be regarded as showing prejudice. 12. In his appeal Lord Laird disputed the Commissioner’s first finding, namely, that there was strong evidence that Lord Laird had demonstrated a clear willingness to negotiate an agreement which would involve him in helping to 10TH REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT PC 7 set up an all-party group in return for payment by the consultants who were in fact Sunday Times journalists. Lord Laird argued that the evidence clearly showed his total opposition to creating an all-party group. However, we find Lord Laird’s submissions difficult to reconcile with statements such as “everybody else is a bloody chairman of an APPG [all-party group], why can’t I be a chairman of an APPG?”, “it’s better to have one [i.e. an all-party group] than not have one”, and with his answer to the reporter when asked whether he might be able to help them to set up an all-party group “Oh, I would have thought so” (see Commissioner’s report, paragraphs 32–33). We acknowledge that there is evidence showing that Lord Laird was not an enthusiastic promoter of all-party groups. But his opposition seems to us to have been based on tactical considerations that an all-party group would not achieve what the prospective employer wanted (p175), and was not based on the principle that helping to set up a group in return for payment was prohibited by the Code (Q3).