Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fifth Report


The Committee on Standards and Privileges has agreed to the following Report:—


1. In our Fifteenth Report of last Session,[6] published on 13 July 2000, we proposed a number of changes to the rules relating to the conduct of Members, on which we invited Members and others to comment. We are grateful to all those who responded; they are listed in the Annex to this Report. We have also taken oral evidence on certain aspects of our proposals, and on wider issues relating to the regulation of parliamentary standards, from the Rt. Hon. John Major MP, the Rt. Hon Kenneth Clarke MP and the Rt. Hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell MP. The minutes of evidence of those meetings are published with this Report, together with the written submissions we received from the Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Neill of Bladen.

2. Having considered the representations which have been made to us we have modified the proposals in our Fifteenth Report in a number of respects. For the convenience of the House we have also reiterated in this Report those proposals which we have not revised. Our aims in this exercise have been to simplify and clarify the Guide to the Rules, while maintaining the ban on lobbying for reward or consideration (see para. 39 below) by Members of the House. We hope that our recommendations will lead to a more robust and less complex system for the registration and declaration of Members' interests.

3. Before dealing with our recommendations in detail, we make two general observations. The first relates to the Code of Conduct. The purpose of the Code is "to assist Members in the discharge of their obligations to the House, their constituents and the public at large". Like the seven principles identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Code applies to Members in all aspects of their public life. The Code does not, and the House should not, seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives.

4. Secondly, the purpose of registration is openness about interests or benefits which might reasonably be thought to influence actions taken in the capacity of a Member of Parliament. Registration of an interest does not imply any wrongdoing and should not be treated as doing so, either by Members or by the media.


5. In our previous Report we recommended that overseas visits which a Member makes at someone else's expense would continue to be registrable but would not be taken into account when applying the advocacy rule. This proposal has not met with objection from any of those who responded to our Report. Our recommendation is unchanged: we recommend that the guidance set out in paragraph 63 of The Guide to the Rules be applied in future. We further recommend that paragraph 62(7) of The Guide to the Rules be amended to read:


6. We recommended that the threshold for the registration of tangible gifts that relate in any way to membership of the House be raised from £125 to 0.5% of the parliamentary salary. Some of the responses to our consultations considered this figure to be too low. We consider that the threshold should henceforth be expressed as a percentage of the parliamentary salary rather than as a flat sum, and that the final decision on the level of the threshold should be taken by the House. We recommend that the House decide whether the threshold for tangible gifts be set at 0.5 % or 1% of the parliamentary salary.

7. We asked for the views of Members on whether the threshold for hospitality under this category received in the course of a Member's official duties should be raised from 0.5% to 1% of the parliamentary salary. If this suggestion were adopted, we would need to be able to give the Commissioner a watertight definition of a Member's "official duties", including those duties specific to Ministers, Opposition frontbenchers and select committee chairmen. We suggest that a workable definition of hospitality in connection with parliamentary responsibilities would be:

where these

    —   are based in a Member's constituency or directly relate to an interest within that constituency;

    —   directly relate to the work of a committee on which a Member serves; or

    —   directly relate to the Member's portfolio if he or she is an Opposition front-bencher.

8. We have some concerns that attempting to categorise hospitality and material benefits in this way may be confusing and unnecessarily complex. An alternative option, which has the advantage of simplicity, is to raise the threshold for all hospitality. We recommend that the House decide among the following three options:

  • the threshold for the registration of hospitality and material benefits remains at 0.5% of the parliamentary salary;

  • the threshold is increased to 1% of the parliamentary salary; or

  • the threshold for registration of hospitality received in the course of parliamentary duties, as defined above, is set at 1% of the parliamentary salary. The threshold for registration of all other hospitality remains at 0.5% of the parliamentary salary. As set out in paragraph 26 of The Guide to the Rules, if there were any doubt as to whether a particular event was registrable, the Member concerned should register it.

9. Any increase in the thresholds for category 5 should also apply to category 7 (Overseas benefits and gifts).

10. We recommended in our previous Report that hospitality provided by the government or any of the devolved institutions should be exempt from registration.[8] We are now minded to apply this principle slightly more widely, and we recommend that hospitality provided by Her Majesty's Government, any of the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or Non-Departmental Public Bodies, including a Member's local authorities or health authorities, should be exempt from registration.

11. We proposed that benefits received by another person together with or on behalf of a Member should be registered. The Leader of the House took issue with this recommendation, suggesting that this might disproportionately affect Members with families. We see no difficulty about this: a Member who receives a benefit for himself and his family is receiving greater advantage than a Member who receives a benefit for himself alone, and if it exceeds the threshold it should be registered. We continue to recommend that the following sentences be added to paragraph 24 of The Guide to the Rules:

    Benefits, such as tickets to sporting or cultural events, received by another person together with or on behalf of a Member should be registered as if they had been received by the Member. Gifts, or other benefits, from another Member of Parliament are registrable in the same way as those from anyone else.


12. Our proposals on the amendment of the rules and guidance relating to category 4[9] were primarily intended to bring them more closely into line with Members' statutory requirements to disclose donations under the Political Parties, Referendums and Elections Act 2000, while avoiding duplication of what must be registered and what must be declared to the Electoral Commission. We have since been advised that our proposals did not entirely succeed in this aim.[10] Accordingly we revise our recommendation to take into account the provisions of the Act, which require declaration of donations of over £1000 from one source, whether as a single donation or as multiple donations of more than £200 in the course of a calendar year.

13. We recommend that the rules and guidance relating to category 4 be amended to read as follows:

Category 4: Sponsorships

    (a)  Any donation from a single source totalling £1000 or more, whether as a single donation or as multiple donations of more than £200 during the course of a calendar year, received by a Member's constituency association which is linked either to candidacy at an election or to membership of the House.

    (b)  Any other form of financial or material support as a Member of Parliament of a value greater than 1 per cent of the current parliamentary salary.

21. This category deals with sponsorship or other forms of support by companies, trade unions, professional bodies, trade associations, other organisations and individuals.

22. Subsection (a) deals with financial contributions to constituency associations. Any contribution for the personal benefit of a Member should be entered under Category 5 "Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)". Support should be regarded as "linked" directly to a Members's candidacy or membership of the House if it is expressly tied to the Member by name, e.g. if it is a contribution to the Member's fighting fund or a donation which has been solicited or encouraged by the Member.

23. Category 4(b) covers any support of a value greater than 1 per cent of the current parliamentary salary from which the Member receives any financial or material benefit in support of his or her role as a Member of Parliament. The types of support which should be registered under this Category include the services of a research assistant or secretary whose salary, in whole or in part, is met by an outside organisation or individual; the provision of free or subsidised accommodation for the Member's use, other than accommodation provided by a local authority to a Member for the sole purpose of holding constituency surgeries or accommodation provided solely by the constituency party; and financial contributions towards such services.


14. We recommended that potential or actual interests in overseas trusts should be registered. We do not regard this as an unnecessary infringement of the personal privacy of Members, and stand by our view that "the existence of such a trust might reasonably be thought by others to be a potential source of influence on a Member's actions in Parliament".[11]

15. We recommend that The Guide to the Rules be amended as follows:

    paragraph 31: insert, after "children" in line 4, "Members should also include identifiable holdings of overseas trusts of which they are actual or potential beneficiaries."

    after paragraph 33: insert a new paragraph, as follows: "Members should register under this category potential or actual interests in overseas trusts, except where these have been registered under category 9."


16. We recommended that the advocacy rule be tightened to prevent Members from making approaches to Ministers where they have a relevant financial interest.[12] The responses we received from Members on this point were helpful—one pointed out that where Members had commercial interests unconnected with their membership of the House, they might come across a matter of legitimate public interest where communicating with Ministers or officials would be of real help to government. The Leader of the House and others all pointed out the usefulness of informal conversation with knowledgeable colleagues.

17. The purpose of the advocacy rule is to prohibit lobbying for reward or consideration by any Member in the House. It should prevent any body or individual from remunerating or otherwise rewarding a Member for doing, or in anticipation of their doing, something in their capacity as a Member that would benefit that body or individual. It is reasonable to categorise approaches to Ministers in the same way as "parliamentary proceedings" as Members of the House have much greater and easier access to Ministers than members of the public have. While any member of the public can write to a Minister, it can be assumed that letters from Members receive greater attention than those of the public. For these reasons we stand by our judgement that approaches to Ministers ought to be covered by the advocacy rule. We recommend that the Resolution of the House on advocacy be amended by adding the words "or any approach, whether oral or in writing, to Ministers or servants of the Crown".

18. It is not our intention—nor the intention of the Resolution of the House—to deprive Ministers of access to sources of knowledge that could help them in their work. Nor do we wish to prevent Members from approaching Ministers where they wish to communicate information which they have gained outside Parliament, but which is in the public interest. The guidelines on the advocacy rule, which will have to be amended to include approaches to Ministers in the list of parliamentary proceedings, should make this clear. We recommend that the following be added to the list of parliamentary proceedings which Members must not initiate where they have a relevant financial interest in paragraph 58.1 (initiating a parliamentary proceeding) of The Guide to the Rules:

     —  approaches to Ministers, except in cases where a Member has, as a result of an outside interest, a duty to communicate matters of legitimate public interest.

19. We remind Members that a Minister is not precluded from approaching a Member known to have specialist knowledge in an area under consideration; although the Member concerned should declare any interests during such a conversation.


20. We expressed concern in our last Report that the rule on delegations was "virtually unenforceable" because of the way it was stated.[13] We recommended a redraft to preclude Members' participation in delegations "where the issue to be raised relate[d] specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of the body from which [they had] a paid interest". As in the case of the rule on approaches to Ministers, the rule on delegations is not intended to prevent Members from sharing their expertise with Ministers. In the light of the comments we have received, we now regard our previous suggestion as unnecessarily restrictive. We recommend that the Resolution be amended to read " ... a Member should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation which has as a specific or significant purpose the advancement of an economic interest of the Member or the interests of an organisation or company in which the Member has a registrable interest; or where it could reasonably be assumed that an outcome of the delegation would be the advancement of those interests."


21. None of the respondents dissented from our suggestion. Accordingly we recommend that the following sentence be inserted after paragraph 12 of The Guide to the Rules:


22. We have received no objections to our recommendation[14] that the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme be added to the list of exemptions from registration at sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 28 of The Guide to the Rules. We also recommend that we should have power to add similar schemes to the list from time to time.


23. We wished to clarify the basis on which Members are required to register any land or property other than their homes; currently there is an obligation on them to do so where the property has a "substantial" value or provides "substantial" income, but these terms are not defined. We recommended that land and property should be registered if its value was greater than or equal to 50% of the parliamentary salary, or if income derived from it was greater than or equal to 10% of the parliamentary salary.[15] Submissions we have received from Members, and further discussion, have led us to believe that this suggestion was too severe. We consider that the value of the total portfolio, or the income from it, should be taken into account. Accordingly we recommend that "substantial value" should be defined as a total property portfolio of a value equivalent to, or greater than, 100% of the parliamentary salary, and "substantial income" as an income from all property holdings equivalent to, or greater than, 10% of the parliamentary salary. Lesser amounts may still be declarable if they are relevant to a Member's contribution to a debate.


24. Since the existing rule on registration of shareholdings relates to their nominal value, which often bears very little relationship to their actual value, we recommended that it be altered to a requirement for registration of shares with a market value of at least £25,000 at the time of acquisition.[16] In the light of representations we have received from Members, we have rethought this conclusion and now propose a higher threshold for registration.

25. We recommend that the rule relating to category 9 be amended as follows:

    Category 9: Shareholdings

    Interests in shareholdings held by the Member, either personally, or with or on behalf of the Member's spouse or dependent children, in any public or private company or any other body, which are greater in value at the time of acquisition than the current parliamentary salary. The nature of the company's business should be registered.

26. The House should decide whether or not shareholdings which are greater than 1% of the issued share capital of the company or body, whatever their market value at the time of acquisition, should also be registered.

27. We recommend that the guidance to category 9 be amended to bring it into line with the rule.[17]


28. We reminded Members in our last Report that journalism or broadcasting which relates to parliamentary or public affairs, if undertaken by a Member, is held to arise directly from membership of the House, and that the same consideration applies to speaking engagements and media appearances (and, for that matter, to training). Matters which "relate to parliamentary or public affairs" include, but are not limited to, domestic and international politics, economics, political thought and parliamentary history. We remind Members that all commitments are covered by the rule except those wholly unrelated to parliamentary or public affairs.

29. Some of our witnesses attempted to draw comparisons between such work and the external employment of Members who are also lawyers, and not required to declare their outside income (though they are, of course, required to declare their employment under category 2 of The Guide to the Rules). The crucial difference here is that external work as a lawyer—or as a scientist, an engineer or many other professions—is unrelated to membership of the House.

30. Mr Major believes that the lectures he gives are not related to his membership of the House; as he pointed out, many of his audiences are not aware that he is still a Member, and he is booked for engagements well after his announced departure from the House at the next election[18]. Mr Clarke was of the same view.[19] We can see why they hold this view, but we do not agree with it. We must balance the disquiet felt by these Members, amongst others, against our statement in our previous Report that the requirement to register:

    ... applies to all Members, as it would be invidious and in many cases impossible to determine whether a commitment had been obtained owing to, for example, previous Ministerial office rather than present membership of the House.[20]

For that reason we continue to view all speaking arrangements &c. on subjects not wholly unrelated to parliamentary affairs as subject to the rule if they meet the conditions for registration.

31. We heard from a number of witnesses that they regarded as unnecessary and onerous the duty laid upon them to register their income from speaking engagements, and in particular to deposit an "employment" agreement where they undertook frequent engagements using the services of a particular agency. The Leader of the House suggested that:

    "what is relevant is surely whether the Member is being paid by the employing company. Where, however, a Member is employing the agency to manage his or her engagements and pays them a fee ... it seems frankly bizarre to require the Member to register the arrangement as an employment agreement for the Member."[21]

32. We can see the semantic difficulty involved. It was for this reason that we came to the following conclusion in our earlier Report, which we continue to recommend to the House: the description of employment agreements in the Guide to the Rules should be changed to "agreements for the provision of services".[22]

33. Both Mr Major and Mr Clarke told us that they had no strong objection to registering those speeches they had made where they received more than £500, although they could not, in Mr Clarke's view, "see what bearing that is meant to have on [their] activity as a Member of Parliament".[23] We agree that the requirement for an agreement to be deposited could be modified in the case of speeches and other media work. We recommend that where Members register any form of media work under category 2 (Remunerated Employment, Office, Profession, etc.), unless that work is wholly unrelated to parliamentary affairs, or falls below the threshold for registration, they should deposit a declaration that they did no lobbying for reward or consideration on behalf of their employer and declare the remuneration, or value of the reward, they receive for each commitment, or group of commitments for the same organisation or audience in the same calendar year, in bands of: up to £1,000; £1,001-£5,000; £5,001-£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000. This would obviate the need, in the case of media work, for the deposit of an agreement for the provision of services, which would only be required for a parliamentary consultancy or for any other arrangement involving the provision of parliamentary services in the capacity of a Member.

34. We continue to recommend that the Resolution of 6 November 1995 be amended to allow the reproduction of deposited agreements.[24]

35. Current advice given by the Commissioner is that speaking engagements do not require the deposit of an "employment" agreement where fees received in the course of a calendar year, either singly or cumulatively from a single source, amount to less than £500.[25] If the House were to decide[26] that the threshold for the registration of tangible gifts be set at 1% of the parliamentary salary, this could soon lead to a situation in which the threshold for depositing agreements is lower than that for registering gifts. This would be nonsensical. We recommend that a "no lobbying for reward or consideration" declaration and declaration of remuneration should not be required in any case where in the course of a calendar year total remuneration received from an employer or client, or through an agency, amounts to less than the threshold for the registration of a tangible gift under category 5.[27]


36. We suggested minor changes to guidance on the advocacy rule, to clarify the rule and to include recommendations that we had made in earlier Reports.[28]

37. We recommend that:

    —   membership of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Parliament and local authorities in the United Kingdom should not be taken into account when applying the advocacy rule.

    —   the restriction on initiating a parliamentary proceeding does not apply to the affairs and interests of clients of a body or individual outside Parliament from which a Member is receiving, has received or expects to receive a pecuniary benefit, if that client is not registrable.

    —   supplementary questions should be regarded as initiation of a parliamentary proceeding if asked by the Member who tabled the original question, and as participation in debate if asked by another Member.

    —   the restrictions imposed by the advocacy rule should not apply to Ministers when acting in the House as Ministers

    —   paragraph 62(4) of The Guide to the Rules be amended to remove the provision relating to the period between 15 November 1995 and the publication of the 1997 Register.

38. Lord Neill, writing on behalf of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, supported our recommendation but was of the view that the modification of the guidance on advocacy should be applied more generally to all interests:

the safeguard afforded by the ban on paid advocacy and by the requirement of openness, coupled with a further requirement that a Member should indicate an interest on the Order Paper (or Notice Paper), would be sufficient to protect against abuse.[29]

The Neill Committee suggested that we revisit this broader issue in the light of experience, should our recommendation about overseas visits be agreed by the House. We hope that our successor Committee in the next Parliament will look into the effect of any changes to the advocacy rule agreed by the House.

39. The Commissioner advises us that she considers some of the confusion surrounding the advocacy rule to arise from the terminology used. Beyond the scope of the Code and the rules, "advocacy"—that is to say, recommendation—may be a good thing; what the advocacy rule is intended to prevent is lobbying for reward or consideration. We recommend that The Guide to the Rules be amended to refer to "lobbying for reward or consideration" rather than "advocacy". This would have no effect on the substance of the guidance.


40. During the course of our inquiry other concerns were expressed and suggestions made about the rules for registration and complaints procedures.

41. Mr Major suggested that the rules governing Members' conduct should be set once a Parliament, and not be changed for the duration of that Parliament.[30] The idea is an appealing one. Frequent changes to the rules can be confusing to Members and we would not normally expect changes to be made without a significant reason. Mr Major's views echoed a perception we have detected among Members that the rules, or their interpretation, are sometimes changed by means of a report from this Committee, without Members being aware of any change.[31] The Leader of the House commented that:

    "Such a process of extension may well lead to Members inadvertently and in all innocence falling foul of a new interpretation of the rules".[32]

42. The rules relating to the conduct of Members are not always entirely intuitive and cannot cover all eventualities. They may require interpretation in the light of a complaint or query. We contest the suggestion that the rules are being "extended" or becoming more stringent incrementally; we simply provide interpretation of the rules in new contexts.

43. It is not our intention when making judgements to make the rules stricter or to change their interpretation; it would be arbitrary and unfair to do so. We work on the presumption that Members' private activities, those wholly unrelated to Parliament, should be beyond the scope of the rules. There can be some dispute over whether a particular activity is related to a Member's parliamentary duties—as in the case of speaking arrangements. Where there is doubt, registration is the correct option. This does not imply, as the Leader of the House suggested:

    "... in practice it is becoming rarely—if at all—that anyone approaching the registrar for advice is told there is no need to register".[33]

The Commissioner often gives such advice.

44. Members should not be concerned that they will be "caught out" by new interpretations of the rules. Any more detailed guidance provided by this Committee is not applied retrospectively. We will not uphold complaints where a Member has sought the advice of the Registrar or the Commissioner in good faith and has acted upon it.

45. On occasion we have taken the opportunity of a report on a complaint to provide new guidance for Members. We recommend that where she considers it appropriate, the Commissioner may at the end of an investigation decide not to produce a report dealing with the specific complaint. She may instead report to the Committee with a recommendation that the Committee issue a guidance note for Members on her intention to interpret the rules in a particular way on receipt of further complaints.

46. A number of Members expressed their concern about frivolous or vexatious complaints made to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is empowered to dismiss cases which she feels do not merit further inquiry; but there will be occasions when complaints that might be regarded as being malevolent in intent require investigation. We received suggestions that complaints made by Members were often politically motivated, with the Member complained about often finding this out from the press.[34] We do not have the power to prevent complainants from telling the media about the complaint they have made, nor do we have the power to ensure that these are not "reported in a fairly dramatic way", as Mr Clarke put it.[35]

47. It is a basic courtesy that a Member making a complaint to the Commissioner should at the same time send a copy of the letter of complaint to the Member concerned. We accept the suggestion that where we feel that a complaint from a Member is frivolous or has been made only for partisan reasons, we would expect to state this in any report we made about the complaint.[36]

48. It is right that the Commissioner should have the discretion not to pursue full investigation on minor issues where, during preliminary consideration, it is clear that the facts are not disputed and the Member immediately rectifies or apologises for a failure to declare or register. Where this rectification procedure is followed there should be a note to that effect in the Register.

49. It was suggested to us that Members who are the subject of an investigation should have legal advice or access to funding for legal representation. Recent experience has taught us that where lawyers have become involved in cases they may unnecessarily prolong the period of investigation of both the Commissioner and this Committee. Some Members, their lawyers, and even witnesses, have appeared to be operating under the misapprehension that an inquiry by the Commissioner can be equated with a prosecution. This is not the case. Members are not asked to prove their innocence but rather to give a prompt, truthful account of the events in question and provide the whole truth. The Commissioner's procedures are clearly set out in our report on Complaints against Members: the investigation process.[37]

50. We understand that Members who are the subject of a complaint will often feel that they wish to take legal advice. They are perfectly entitled to do so. As Mr Major put it:

    "The reason I took legal advice was to make sure that the answers I gave to questions the Commissioner was bound to put to me ... were clear and were accurate, and I did not through ignorance, or any other reason, provide a misleading reply ..."[38]

Mr Major provided his own answers to the Commissioner and the Committee. Members have a responsibility to answer queries in relation to inquiries by the Commissioner and the Committee honestly, fully and promptly. We expect Members to respond to inquiries themselves and not through legal intermediaries.

51. The process of investigation is not an adversarial one. We do not believe it appropriate for the House to pay the legal costs of Members who are under investigation. Advice on the rules of procedure for investigations is always available from the Commissioner.

52. There is a case for making available, at the expense of the House, limited independent legal advice for Members preparing their own prompt, honest and full answers to the Commissioner and the Committee and assembling relevant papers. We invite our successors and the House to give consideration to suitable standing arrangements. The House should not pay for legal representation.

53. Mr Major and Sir Nicholas Lyell suggested that the Committee would benefit from more legal expertise amongst its members, and access to a legal adviser.[39] Under the Standing Order governing this Committee[40] the Attorney General, Advocate General and Solicitor General (when they are Members of the House of Commons) may attend our meetings, take part in deliberation or offer other assistance. This has not happened during this Parliament, except for one occasion on which we sought written advice on a point of law from the Solicitor General. In any case these Ministers are busy and likely to have little time to devote to the Committee.[41] During this Parliament one of the Members of this Committee has a legal background. It assists us in our work to have a legal perspective and we recommend that the House bear this in mind whenever it considers appointments to the Committee.

54. In our report on appeal procedures,[42] which has not been considered by the House, we recommended that Standing Orders be amended so as to permit the appointment of a legally qualified assessor to assist the Commissioner in serious cases. The House should now agree this.

55. The Committee on Standards in Public Life (then known as the Neill Committee) considered our report on appeals procedures[43] in its January 2000 report, Reinforcing Standards.[44] While we agreed with several of the Neill Committee's recommendations about this Committee's work, we did not agree with a number of others. The correspondence between Lord Neill and our Chairman is appended to this Report.

56. We were asked for guidance on Members' declaration of interests during debate. Concern was expressed that the action of a Member in merely drawing attention to the fact that he or she had a relevant entry in the Register, without specifying its nature, was insufficient to inform the listener of the interest. The Guide to the Rules states that "a declaration should be brief but sufficiently informative to enable a listener to understand the nature of the Member's interest".[45] In our view a simple statement referring to an entry in the Register is insufficient for this purpose. Members should be aware that not all listeners have easy or immediate access to the Register. Where Members have a number of different interests, and where it may not be immediately apparent to which interest they are referring, Members have a duty to ensure that their declaration is clear and unambiguous. The Guide to the Rules should be revised to read "a declaration should be brief but should make specific reference to the nature of the Member's interest."

6  Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 710, Session 1999-2000. Back

7  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 9. Back

8  ibid., paragraph 13. Back

9  ibid., paragraph 22. Back

10  Ev., p. xxiii. Back

11  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 24. Back

12  ibid., paragraph 26. Back

13  ibid., paragraph 45. Back

14  ibid., paragraph 28. Back

15  ibid., paragraph 29. Back

16  ibid., paragraph 31. Back

17  ibid., paragraph 30. Back

18  QQ 2, 24. Back

19  QQ 100-102. Back

20  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 35. Back

21  Ev., p. xxiii. Back

22  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 33. Back

23  QQ 10, 102. Back

24  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 37. Back

25   Complaint against Mr Ken Livingstone, Seventh Report, 1999-2000, HC 342, Appendix, paragraph 20. Back

26  Paragraph 6. Back

27  HC 710 (1999-2000), paragraph 36. Back

28  ibid., paragraphs 39-43. Back

29  Ev., p. xx. Back

30  Q34. Back

31  Q145. Back

32  Ev., p. xxii. Back

33  Ev., p. xxii. Back

34  QQ 5, 12, 81. Back

35  Q78. Back

36  Q18, Q82. Back

37  Ninth Report, 1999-2000, HC 403. Back

38  Q42. Back

39  QQ 3, 119. Back

40  S.O. No. 149. Back

41  QQ 16, 120 Back

42  Twenty-first Report, 1997-98, Appeal Procedures, HC 1191. Back

43  ibid. Back

44  Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 4557, http://www.public­ reports.htm#Sixth Report. Back

45  Paragraph 39. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 23 March 2001