---

House of Lords: Code of Conduct

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Leader’s Group’s report, the code and the guide. I was here in 2001, as were many others, when the tone of the debate was quite different from what we are experiencing today. Then, the late lamented Lord Williams of Mostyn, a man who could persuade the birds to come down from the trees and charm the House, ran into a brick wall when he came to move his code through this House. I recall it being one of the strongest and fiercest debates that I had heard for a good many years. We have moved on since then, but it is worth reminding ourselves—I pick up the prompting from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester about honesty—that we have made one or two other changes which have been prompted not so much of our own volition as on the basis of the media’s intervention. Three years ago, following criticism of the alleged misuse of parliamentary passes, a register of interests of Lords Members’ secretaries and research assistants, and, I presume, anyone else whom they supported for a pass, was introduced. This is not mentioned in the report or the guidance. It should have been picked up during the examination and referred to, at least in the guidance. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Leader would comment on that. Overall, I welcome the revised code and the guidance and I oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—he is endeavouring to fight against the tide and the other problems that may arise. The report and, in particular, the guidance, which will become increasingly important, move the House in the right direction, although, as I have mentioned to members of the committee, there may still be more that can be done. It may come as a surprise to some of my colleagues that I welcome the changes, because I am one of eight out of more than 700 Peers who registered as a parliamentary consultant. Assuming that the measures go through—and I shall support them—it means that that will come to an end. I wish to say a few words about the background to that and the problems that may arise as a result. When I came into the Lords, I was already working as a consultant with several organisations, one of them being an international firm, Accenture plc. When the Register was introduced, I complied. As I had worked with those organisations before I entered Parliament, I registered them as non-parliamentary consultancies. Subsequently, Accenture, particularly its American counsel, decided that it wanted to review my contract. Understandably, it is protective of its reputation and extremely fearful of any adverse publicity that may come its way and harm it. It therefore went through the House’s 2001 code of conduct in fine detail and incorporated much of it into a contract, which I have before me. It runs to 14 pages and extends even to the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 and the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, it specifically states that I must not infringe the "Advocacy Rule" and sets out a long list from the code of what I cannot do, such as, ""vote on any bill or motion, or ask any question of the House or a committee, or promote any matter on behalf of Accenture"." I could read out all the others, but I shall not take up more time. However, it is very restrictive. I therefore say to the House that I have never breached the rule on parliamentary advocacy as a parliamentary consultant. If I had done, I think that Accenture would have sacked me, because it has a contract with me that prevents me from so doing. I registered this contract with the authorities here. Notwithstanding the fact that it makes much mention of parliamentary activities, as I have just described, I did not view it personally as a parliamentary consultancy. I have never had any dealings with Accenture’s individual clients—in many instances, I do not even know who its clients are—but have been engaged primarily as a strategic adviser. The authorities here took a different view and insisted that it was registered as a parliamentary consultancy. On balance, at the end of the day, I fell in line with them. It was even said that I had a model contract, which, if it was used by others, would avoid many of the problems that have arisen in this House. Of course, it has been open to me simply to override the authorities’ judgment; that is in the report and remains there. I could reclassify myself as a non-parliamentary consultant. I know that others in the House have done that. The authorities have wished to see them classed as parliamentary consultants, but they have decided themselves—with the freedom of the House—to classify themselves as non-parliamentary consultants. My contract has been open to the public, my salary has been declared publicly and, of course, my conduct has been under close examination, by anyone who has chosen to spend a bit of time looking at the contract and my remuneration. I have had some problems with that recently. Noble Lords might ask why I am telling them all this and what it has to do with the Eames report. My first reason, as noble Lords have probably gathered, is that this is the sole opportunity for me to respond to what is in effect a summary ban on an employment engagement that I have. For the record, and contrary to what the media have said recently, I am still with Accenture plc. Indeed, I have had a troubled weekend with the media, but Accenture has been in touch with me and has given me full support to ensure that the right thing is done. I am still with Accenture but, in the light of what the House decides, given the decision that I took earlier, I shall in due course fully comply with the decisions that we take and will end my engagement with that firm. My second reason for giving noble Lords all this information, which is more important in the broader sense, is that while the group’s report abolishes the confusing distinction between parliamentary and non-parliamentary consultancies, it does not appear to have seen too many problems in that area with a non-parliamentary consultancy. As a parliamentary consultant, I have sat and watched and moved around the House and I am surprised that only eight people were designated as parliamentary consultants. Indeed, we have between 150 and 160 non-parliamentary consultants, as noble Lords can see from the Register—quite a substantial number of people in the House. As I said, some have changed their views about where they stand and I believe without any doubt that they will be able to justify the position that they have taken. However, we must try hard to ensure that we avoid some of the criticisms that we have had in the past by making the guidance that we bring in cover as far as possible all the eventualities that might lead to criticism. I suggested to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and previously to the Leader, that, while I recognise that the House cannot enter into a contract between itself and individual Peers, we should encourage individual Peers, particularly those who fall in the non-parliamentary consultancy arena, to follow best practice. By that I mean that I hope that we might explore the possibility of drawing up model contracts, which Peers might seek to introduce into the employment contract that they have with people outside. I think that it is worth having a look at that. It may mean additional bureaucracy—I heard what was said during the noble Lord’s introduction—but this is an area where we may come under close examination in future and model contracts would help us significantly in beefing up our position. I would welcome my noble friend’s views on that. I will close fairly quickly now. I just make the point that, if that were agreed, it would be in the guidance and Peers would decide on a voluntary basis—nothing compulsory—whether they wanted to use it. If they did, I believe that it would support the culture that the code is endeavouring to enhance; it would be a positive and additional safeguard for individual Peers in covering outside activities and avoiding some of the criticisms that they may fall foul of. It would also be a clear demonstration to the outside world of Peers’ desire to practise self-regulation; again, it would be an element of self-regulation. Staying on the guidance, I welcome particularly the changes on directorships in paragraph 39 on page 35. Giving a broader indication of the company’s business as distinct from simply listing it, as at present, is quite a move towards greater openness and accountability. However, I do not understand why paragraphs 41, 42 and 52 positively prohibit the disclosure of remuneration, the value of shares or the percentage of shares in a company owned by any Peer. That is a retrograde step away from the existing code, which states at paragraph 14: ""Members of the House are not required to disclose how much they earn from the financial interests set out in paragraphs 12 and 13"—" that is, non-parliamentary consultancies, directorships, regularly remunerated employment, shareholdings and so on— ""but they may do so if they wish"." For some reason we are deleting, ""but they may do so if they wish"." No explanation is given for that, and I would welcome one. I would like to be convinced that deleting those words adds to more transparency and openness for this House; I fear that, as I read it, it does not. I look forward to answers on those points. I come to my final point, which, to a degree, may have been covered already. I refer to paragraphs 100 and 101 on page 45 of the guidance, about making complaints. I have no difficulty as a Peer in confronting another Peer on an issue where I do not feel happy with their conduct; indeed, I have done so previously. On previous occasions, not with my present Leader but with previous Leaders, I have also made complaints about the conduct of Peers and I have complained to previous Clerks about what has been happening. One of the great difficulties here is that you make a complaint and it disappears. We need to be aware of that and ensure that we have proper processes in place. I wonder whether all Peers are able to make the complaints that they would like to and whether they are comfortable with facing up to other Peers. I am not sure about that, but I leave it as it is. One area that I am interested in, though, and I pick this up from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is that a reference is made in paragraph 101 to non-Members who are required to confront a Peer if they are not acting honourably. I would like to know who those people are, because if they are non-Members they cannot be covered by the code. Are we talking about the staff of the House? This is where I pick up on the noble Lord’s point; I suspect that it may be House staff. May we please have some clarification on who these non-Members are and where they fit in?