The Conduct of Baroness Cumberlege
Annexed to this report are reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards relating to a complaint against Baroness Cumberlege.
The Commissioner has dismissed the complaint, and we therefore make this report for information.
Annex 1: Report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
The Commissioner for Standards has submitted the attached report dismissing a complaint made against Baroness Cumberlege.
The complainant alleged that Baroness Cumberlege did not declare during debates on the Health and Social Care Bill last session an interest in an alliance bidding for contracts for the new clinical commissioning groups to be created by the bill.
The Commissioner found Baroness Cumberlege not to have breached the Code of Conduct as she had made appropriate declarations during debates.
We recommend that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct should make a report to the House on this case.
Annex 2: Report from the Commissioner for Standards
Summary of the complaint
On 26 June 2012 Mr Andrew Robertson wrote to me (appendix A) making a complaint against Baroness Cumberlege. Specifically, Mr Robertson alleged that Baroness Cumberlege had breached paragraph 10(b) of the Code of Conduct by failing to declare during debates on the Health and Social Care Bill her interest in an “alliance” led by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) which was tendering for contracts for the new clinical commissioning groups proposed under the Bill.
I wrote to Baroness Cumberlege on 10 July 2012 (appendix B) advising her that I was initiating an investigation on the basis of the above complaint. I subsequently met Baroness Cumberlege, at her request, on 18 July 2012, to explain the investigative process and the relevant rules and guidance agreed by the House.
Key facts
Baroness Cumberlege wrote to me on 20 July 2012 (appendix C), setting out the facts from her perspective.
Baroness Cumberlege runs a small commercial organisation entitled Cumberlege Connections. This company works almost entirely with the NHS and is primarily a training company. Baroness Cumberlege said the company does not engage in lobbying or public relations activities. Her involvement with Cumberlege Connections is registered in the Register of Lords’ Interests. The complainant acknowledges that fact. However, he suggests that the involvement of Cumberlege Connections in a wider “alliance” should also have been declared during debates on the Bill in accordance with the rules on declarations of relevant interests.
I suggested to Baroness Cumberlege that it would be helpful if she provided examples of her recent participation in the House with regard to declarations of interest. In her response she provided extracts of her last five contributions. She accepted that she only declared her interest twice, both occasions being during debates on the Health and Social Care Bill. She did not make such a declaration during her other three interventions, which were on oral questions, though she says that on all three occasions her interventions could not have benefited her company in any way.
Findings
I am clear that Baroness Cumberlege has properly registered her interest in Cumberlege Communications in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Anyone reading the Register would see that she has an interest in Cumberlege Connections. She has not registered the involvement of that company with a wider “alliance” led by PwC and I see no reason why she should do so. The complainant mentions that the “alliance” has recently won contracts worth some £1.61 million from the NHS. However, Baroness Cumberlege has stated that her company was not part of the winning bids, despite being part of the “alliance” for other bidding purposes.
I dismiss the complaint as I am satisfied that the involvement of Cumberlege Connections with the PwC-led alliance does not require additional registration or declaration by Baroness Cumberlege. She has rightly registered her directorship in Cumberlege Connections as a category 1 interest, and declared that interest during debates on the Health and Social Care Bill. In my opinion that declaration was sufficient to encompass any arrangements that Cumberlege Communications has entered into.
My investigation and Baroness Cumberlege’s response have revealed that on occasions she may have failed to declare a relevant interest when participating during oral questions. However, these omissions were not the subject of the complaint so I am not required to make a ruling on them. I have no doubt, though, that Baroness Cumberlege will redouble her efforts to ensure she always complies with her obligations under the Code of Conduct.
This case has highlighted the importance of declaring relevant interests and I would respectfully draw the attention of all concerned to paragraphs 86 and 90 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct.
Paragraph 86 highlights that in relation to voluntary participation in the proceedings of the House, members must recognise that the duty to declare relevant interests is broader than the duty of registration. Thus, members should consider the issue of declarations of interest on every occasion they consider speaking in the House or writing to a minister or public servant.
Paragraph 90 sets out the requirement to declare relevant interests at each stage of a bill’s progress, with an obligation on members to consider an additional declaration where such a step might be appropriate. The example used to illustrate appropriate circumstances is an interest which is tangential to the bill as a whole [but] nevertheless has a strong relevance to a particular amendment. Baroness Cumberlege declared her interest at the start of her speech during the second reading debate on the Health and Social Care Bill (HL Deb, 11 October 2011, col 1538) and during her first intervention at committee stage (HL Deb, 25 October 2011, col 745). However, I can find no evidence that she declared her interest during the report or third reading debates on the Bill, though she participated in them. Paragraph 90 of the Guide suggests she would have been well advised to declare her interests during her first contribution at those stages. That said, the fact that she made a full declaration at earlier stages of the Bill suggests to me that it was an oversight not to declare at report and third reading, rather than a deliberate omission.
I reiterate my finding that Baroness Cumberlege did not breach the Code of Conduct, but the complaint did highlight the importance of members making appropriate declarations, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct.
Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Commissioner for Standards
Appendix A: Letter from Andrew Robertson to the Commissioner, 26 June 2012
I am making a complaint for Baroness Cumberlege under Rules of Conduct; in particular:
10. In order to assist in openness and accountability Members shall: (b) declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers or public servants, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion;
Baroness Cumberlege is the sole owner, chairman and managing director of a company called Cumberlege Connections. The company runs training programmes across the NHS spectrum for consultants, GPs, NHS managers, Directors and chief executives. In addition to this service, part of their training programme covers ‘Politics, Power and Persuasion’, a tailored two-day programme which includes topics such as: ‘Managing the markets, the challenges of commissioning’, ‘who's who’, and ‘brokering deals with other independent sector providers’.
The Baroness has registered Cumberlege Connections and declared this interest, but did not say anything about the alliance she joined. This appears to be in breach of the rules.
While debating, voting and making amendments on the Health and Social Care bill in the Lords, she moved her company into an alliance led by PricewaterhouseCoopers that were tendering for and winning contracts for commissioning the new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which were a key part of the bill. She joined the Alliance from at least November 2011 - http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/leadership/ccg framework.html
The framework for the CCGs to choose from for their development is split into 4 separate areas called Lots. Each Lot has a series of ‘approved providers’, and falls into these categories:
Lot 1 – Setting up and leading a high performing Clinical Commissioning Group
Lot 2 – Working collaboratively and across boundaries - promoting partnership working
Lot 3 – Managing and influencing local and national politics
Lot 4 – Engaging and leading colleagues in primary care through distributed leadership - ensuring that the organisation is clinically led
PwC Alliance, of which Baroness Cumberlege’s company is a part, is listed in all four groups. The PwC alliance has won at least £1.61 million worth of contracts. NHS Barnet announced that the NHS Harrow Clinical Commissioning board had chosen PWC Alliance for their organisational development. PwC also worked with the North-East London cluster of CCGs.
When speaking in debates on the Health and Social Care bill after the date of her joining the alliance, Baroness Cumberlege failed to declare her interests in the alliance she had joined. The debates included topics on Clinical Commissioning Groups, in which she made amendments as well as debated on the topic.
Thank you for your time.
Appendix B: Letter from to the Commissioner to Baroness Cumberlege, 10 July 2012
I am writing to you in my capacity as the Commissioner for Standards. I have to advise you that I have received a complaint against you. Namely, that you have breached the Code of Conduct by reason of your failure to declare a relevant interest when speaking in the House.
I attach for your information a copy of the letter I have received from the complainant (Mr Andrew Robertson).
It appears on the basis of the complaint that you may have breached the following provisions of the 2010 Code of Conduct:
8. Members of the House:
(a) must comply with the Code of Conduct;
(b) should always act on their personal honour ...
10. In order to assist in openness and accountability Members shall:
(b) declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers or public servants, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion.
11. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties: in the case of registration, the Member’s parliamentary duties in general; in the case of declaration, his or her duties in respect of the particular matter under discussion.
12. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member’s actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether a reasonable member of the public might think that this might be the case. Relevant interests include both financial and non-financial interests.
I would also draw your attention to the seven general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and incorporated in to the Code of Conduct.
I have conducted a preliminary assessment of the complaint and believe it is appropriate and in the interests of all concerned that I investigate it. Therefore, I now invite you to respond in writing with a full and accurate account of the matters in question. A response by 31 July 2012 would greatly assist me in investigating this matter in a timely fashion.
I attach for ease of reference a copy of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords and Guide to the Code of Conduct.”
Appendix C: Letter from Baroness Cumberlege to the Commissioner, 20 July 2012
Thank you for your time and for your explanation of the process concerning complaints made against Members of the House of Lords.
In my case the complainant Mr. Andrew Robertson (of whom I have no knowledge), alleges that I should have declared an interest in joining an alliance for work commissioned by the NHS. In order for small companies to get onto national frameworks they join with others to provide a full set of skills which the commissioners of work require. (Attached the King’s Fund’s press release from which Mr Robertson quotes)
The alliance in question is formed by a number of companies PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the Kings Fund, Common Purpose, Practive, Wragge and Co and my company Cumberlege Connections. Mr. Robertson does not complain about four of the five companies involved, only PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Disappointingly since joining the alliance Cumberlege Connections has not earned any income through the alliance.
Cumberlege Connections Ltd. is a small commercial organisation that works almost entirely for and with the NHS. It is a training company and does not get involved with lobbying or public relations activities. It specialises in ensuring that those working in the NHS understand how the NHS is constituted and how the management systems operate. With the new Health and Social Care Act it is important that those working in the NHS should understand what difference this will make to existing organisations and how the new bodies will operate. As a company we are well informed and specialise in informing participants of the political consequences including how to work successfully with local Government, understand the influence of the media, and work with patients and the public as services are changed. We strive to be open and transparent and have a web-site accessible to the public (print out given to you when we met). All our commercial activity is kept totally separate from the House of Lords, different e-mail address, stationery, a separate office, separate staff etc.
We began working in an alliance with the Kings Fund and Frontline about five years ago. Together we have run successful programmes for the East of England Strategic Health Authority (SHA); without Frontline but still with the Kings Fund we joined forces to design and deliver courses for South Central and the North West SHAs. We also work with Oliver and Co: in an alliance with David Thornton Co and the Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management, Warwick Medical School and others. Some of the programmes run for months, others for a day. Regardless of whom we are working with our offering is the same and provides for a niche contribution which is why people invite us to join with them.
You invited me to state the last five times I spoke in the House of Lords and to state whether I declared an interest. Out of the last five occasions twice I declared my interest. Both of these were in the context of the Health and Social Care Bill. It is in this particular context that Mr. Robertson has framed his complaint concerning involvement with the alliance. (Attached Hansard excerpts) The three which I should have declared an interest were all during oral questions the content of which could not have benefited my company in any way. Nevertheless I know I should have mentioned my interest. I apologise and will ensure that in future before speaking I will draw attention to my statement on the register of Members’ interests.