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 complaints against Lord Willoughby de Broke.
The Commissioner has partially upheld the complaints, in respect of Lord Willoughby’s failure to register and declare certain relevant interests. Lord Willoughby has accepted the Commissioner’s finding and apologised; the matter has therefore been dealt with by means of remedial action and is now closed.
We make this report for information.
Annex 1: Report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
The Commissioner for Standards has submitted the attached report upholding in part complaints made against Lord Willoughby de Broke.
The complainant alleged that Lord Willoughby failed (i) to register his interest as a director of 77 Warrington Crescent Ltd (which was concerned with the maintenance of four flats); (ii) to register his interest in Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Company; and (iii) to declare in debates an interest as a recipient of farm subsidy payments.
On (i) the Commissioner found Lord Willoughby to have breached the Code of Conduct. On (ii) the Commissioner found Lord Willoughby not to have breached the Code. On (iii) the Commissioner found Lord Willoughby to have breached the Code on two occasions.
Lord Willoughby accepted the findings that he was in breach and the Commissioner agreed with him remedial action in the form of letters of formal apology to the chairman of the sub-committee (which are reprinted as an appendix to the Commissioner’s report).
We welcome Lord Willoughby’s acceptance that he breached the Code of Conduct and his apologies for those breaches. We do not consider that any further sanction is appropriate.
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 complaints
Mr Tom Watson MP wrote to me on 16 May 2012, requesting that I launch an investigation in to his allegation that Lord Willoughby de Broke had failed to register directorships in two companies as required by the Code of Conduct (appendix A). Mr Watson then wrote to me on 18 May 2012 claiming that Lord Willoughby de Broke had also repeatedly failed to declare farm subsidy payments when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers, when such interests were relevant (appendix B).
On the basis of the complaints it appeared that there might have been breaches of 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 matters 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 financial and non-financial interests.
13. Members are responsible for ensuring that their registered interests are accurate and up-to-date. They should register any change in relevant interests within one month of the change.
Key facts
Lord Willoughby de Broke wrote to me on 18 May 2012 (appendix C), responding to the allegations contained in Mr Watson’s letter dated 16 May 2012. This response was initiated because he had already had sight of Mr Watson’s first letter. On 24 May 2012, I wrote to Lord Willoughby de Broke (appendix D) advising him that I was undertaking an investigation into Mr Watson’s allegations and providing him with full details. Lord Willoughby de Broke replied on 31 May 2012 (appendix E); in that letter he primarily addressed the allegation that he had failed to make appropriate declarations and highlighted that his letter dated 18 May 2012 contained his substantive response to the allegations about any failure to declare relevant directorships.
In essence, the complainant made three specific allegations against Lord Willoughby de Broke—
Complaint 1: failure to register interest in 77 Warrington Crescent Ltd.
Complaint 2: failure to register interest in Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Company Ltd.
Complaint 3: repeated failure to declare interest in farm subsidy payments in the course of speaking in the House.
The key test in relation to registering interests is set out at paragraph 33 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct—
Relevant interests may be financial or non-financial. The key consideration in determining relevance in respect of both registration and declaration of an interest is that 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, this means the Member’s parliamentary duties in general; in the case of declaration, his or her duties in respect of the particular matter under discussion.
Lord Willoughby de Broke stated that the company (77 Warrington Crescent Ltd) was concerned solely with the maintenance of four flats at 77 Warrington Crescent and that he received no salary or expenses arising out of his directorship. He specifically rejected the complainant’s suggestion that the company’s primary purpose was the letting of property. He explained that the primary and sole purpose was the maintenance of four flats at 77 Warrington Crescent and that his activity was limited to occasional dialogue with a fellow director “who does all the legwork”. He was of the view that this directorship had no bearing on his activities in the House of Lords. However, he offered to amend his registration details to include that directorship, if I felt that was appropriate. He also advised that he had never taken any part in a House of Lords debate on London property.
In relation to the Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Club Company Limited, he advised that he had been the unpaid chairman of the club for 29 years, after which he was made President, a purely honorary position. He went on to state that he hadn’t attended the court or a board meeting for at least the last ten years. He also advised that he had never taken part in a House of Lords debate on real tennis.
Rule 10(b) of the Code of Conduct and paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct set out the requirements and guidance which govern declarations of interest—
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.
82. The Code of Conduct states that Members must “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.”
83. This provision should be interpreted broadly. Thus “speaking in the House” covers Members’ participation in the work of Select Committees of the House. “Public servants” includes servants of the Crown, civil servants, employees of government agencies or non-departmental public bodies, and Members, officers and employees of local authorities or other governmental bodies.
The complainant alleged that Lord Willoughby de Broke had spoken on at least 18 occasions in the House since March 2000 and had failed to declare a relevant interest, namely his receipt of farm subsidy payments. The complaint argued that “these extremely large payments might reasonably be thought to have had a general influence upon Lord Willoughby’s parliamentary conduct or actions”.
Lord Willoughby de Broke in his response highlighted that his interest in an arable and grass farm was registered as a category 5 interest in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
The complainant highlighted 18 contributions to debates in the House and one question for written answer, where he alleges Lord Willoughby de Broke did not declare a relevant interest. However, paragraph 111 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct restricts my remit to matters falling within four years of the complaint having been made. Thus, in this context I am only able to examine matters since 18 May 2008. This restriction narrows the contributions in question to three—
Debate on 25 November 2011: Lord Willoughby de Broke accepted that he should have declared an interest but he relied on his entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
Debate on 17 May 2011: Lord Willoughby de Broke pointed out that the Hansard entry which read “I am in the Highland stewardship scheme and I continually get letters from Defra saying that it is going to change the timing of payments because it conflicts with EU rules or that I cannot” should have read “I am in the Higher Level Stewardship scheme”. He ascribed that error to a mistaken transcription.
Question for written answer answered on 9 June 2011: a question was tabled by Lord Willoughby de Broke about the Common Agricultural Policy budget but was not accompanied by any declaration of interest. Lord Willoughby de Broke accepted that he should have made an appropriate declaration of interest.
Findings
I am satisfied that Lord Willoughby de Broke’s directorship in 77 Warrington Crescent Ltd might reasonably be thought not to affect his public duties. However, paragraph 79 of the Guide states that certain non-financial interests are always relevant and therefore must be registered. A directorship, albeit unremunerated, falls into that mandatory category. Thus, I am compelled to find that he did breach the Code of Conduct in relation to Complaint 1. In relation to Complaint 2, he did not consider it to be a relevant interest and, on the basis of his response, I believe that was a reasonable judgment.
In relation to Complaint 3 (and the three instances which fall within the provisions of paragraph 111 of the Guide), Lord Willoughby de Broke has accepted my judgment that he breached the Code on two occasions, as set out at (A) and (C) above. His failure to make appropriate declarations was in breach of paragraph 10(b) of the Code of Conduct.
I welcome Lord Willoughby de Broke’s acceptance that he was wrong not to make such declarations. He has also acknowledged that he should have registered his directorship in 77 Warrington Crescent Ltd and has advised me that he will alter his entry in the Register of Interests. I note that there are instances where he has properly made such declarations and that his Register of Interests’ entry correctly mentions his agricultural interests. Thus, I am satisfied that this matter is best dealt with by way of remedial action in accordance with paragraph 123 of the Guide. I have discussed remedial action with Lord Willoughby de Broke and he has submitted two letters of apology to the chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct (appendix F). I believe these letters set the record straight and highlight Lord Willoughby de Broke’s commitment to observe all the rules agreed on by the House. I feel it is appropriate to acknowledge that Lord Willoughby de Broke was extremely cooperative and established at the outset his willingness to provide all necessary information, with a view to ensuring that his actions were fully in compliance with the Code of Conduct. I would respectfully suggest that no additional action is required in this case.
Paul Kernaghan
House of Lords Commissioner for Standards
Appendix A: Letter from Tom Watson MP to the Commissioner, 16 May 2012
It has been brought to my attention that Lord Willoughby de Broke has breached the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords by failing to declare the directorships of two companies in the Register of Lords’ Interests. These companies are: 77 Warrington Crescent Limited (company number 03179274), and Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Company Limited (company number 00744669). Both these companies are registered as Private Limited with share capital.
In the case of 77 Warrington Crescent Limited, the primary function of the company appears to be the letting of property. My understanding is that Lord Willoughby de Broke should have registered this interest as a Category 1 requirement under directorships. However, I note from the most recent edition of the Register of Lords’ Interests that no such entry appears from Lord Willoughby.
With regards to Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Company Limited, there also appears to be a Category 1 breach. Even if the directorship is not remunerated, this interest should, at the very least, be declared as a Category 10 interest (non financial interests). Again, it is difficult to explain why no such entry appears from Lord Willoughby in the most recent edition of the Register of Lords’ Interests.
I believe that both these anomalies place Lord Willoughby in breach of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, and would, therefore, urge you to launch a thorough investigation. It is extremely important that Members record all relevant interests in order to make clear anything that might reasonably be thought to influence their parliamentary actions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Appendix B: Letter from Tom Watson MP to the Commissioner, 18 May 2012
Breach of the Code of Conduct
I write further to my letter of 16 May in which I raised with you my concerns that Lord Willoughby de Broke has breached the Code of Conduct for the House of Lords by failing to declare the directorships of two companies in the Register of Lords’ Interests – 77 Warrington Crescent Limited and Moreton Morrell Tennis Court Company Limited.
It has now been brought to my attention that Lord Willoughby has breached the Code of Conduct on a third point by having repeatedly failed to declare farm subsidy payments received under the Common Agricultural Policy for one of his other business interests, Ditchford Farm. I am told that the farmsubsidy.org lists Lord Willoughby as having received €682, 736 in subsidies from the European Union between 2000 and 2005. It is unclear whether these payments continued after 2005.
Lord Willoughby has spoken on the Common Agricultural Policy at least 18 times since March 2000 in the House of Lords (see Appendix 1). As far as I can ascertain, at no point did he declare, when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers, this interest which was relevant in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion.
Clearly, these extremely large payments might reasonably be thought to have had a general influence upon Lord Willoughby’s parliamentary conduct or actions.
I would urge you to investigate this further claim in conjunction with the allegations raised in my letter of 16 May. I look forward to hearing from you.
Appendix 1
Debates:
HL Deb, 25 November 2011, c1233
HL Deb, 17 May 2011, c1339
HL Deb, 12 May 2008, c875
HL Deb, 4 June 2008, c184
HL Deb, 6 December 2007, c1842
HL Deb, 30 March 2006, c909
HL Deb, 6 June 2005, c703
HL Deb, 11 February 2004, c1168
HL Deb, 8 September 2003, c97W
HL Deb, 27 June 2003, c556
HL Deb, 9 January 2003, c1143
HL Deb, 7 January 2003, c948
HL Deb, 20 November 2001, c1064
HL Deb, 1 November 2001, c1588
HL Deb, 5 February 2001, c1007
HL Deb, 17 March 2000, c1851
HL Deb, 8 March 2000, c1105
HL Deb, 25 November 1999, c596
Written Parliamentary Questions
HL Deb, 9 June 2011, c148W
Appendix C: Letter from Lord Willoughby de Broke to the Commissioner, 18 May 2012
Breach of the Code of Conduct
I have today received a copy of the letter sent to you by Tom Watson MP. I am writing immediately to let you know that these charges have no merit.
Let me deal first with Warrington Crescent; Mr. Watson is quite wrong to state that the “primary function of the company appears to be the letting of property.” The company was set up by four freehold owners of the flats at 77 Warrington Crescent solely to manage the maintenance of the property. I am indeed a director of the company, but my activity is limited to discussing maintenance problems occasionally with my fellow-director Stephen Cole (who does all the legwork) and agreeing the accounts, of which I enclose the relevant page for your information. I receive no salary or expenses. I therefore do not consider that this has any bearing at all on my activities in the House of Lords. If it is your opinion that I should register this then I will of course do so.
I now turn to Moreton Morrell Tennis Club Company Limited. This again is a complete red herring. I was unpaid chairman of the Tennis Court Club for 29 years; when I retire in 2002 I was made President- a purely honorary position- in recognition of my spell as chairman. I have not attended the court or a Board meeting for the last ten years. This has absolutely zero bearing on my activity in the Lords.
I am happy if necessary to answer any queries you may have on these alleged breaches.
Enclosed with letter:
77 WARRINGTON CRESCENT LIMITED
Registerd number: 3179274
Directors’ Report
The directors present their report and accounts for the year ended 30 June 2010.
Principle activities
The company’s principle activity continued to be the maintenance of the property at 77 Warrington crescent, Lonodn W9 1EH
Directors
The following persons served as directors during the year:
S. Cole
Lord Willoughby de Broke
Small company provisions
This report has been prepared in accordance with the provisions in Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 applicable to companies subject to the small companies regime.
This report was approved by the board on 6 August 2010 and signed on its behalf.
S.Cole
Director
Appendix D: Letter from the Commissioner to the Lord Willoughby de Broke, 24 May 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 properly register relevant interests and that you also failed to declare relevant interests when speaking in the House.
I attach for your information copies of the letters (16 May and 18 May 2012) which I have received from the complainant, Mr Tom Watson MP. I note that you have already written to me (18 May 2012) on the basis of Mr Watson’s letter, dated 16 May 2012. I am grateful for your letter which I will take in to consideration. However, you may additionally wish to incorporate that response in to a consolidated reply to the request outlined below.
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 matters 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 financial and non-financial interests.
13. Members are responsible for ensuring that their registered interests are accurate and up-to-date. They should register any change in relevant interests within one month of the change.
I would also draw your attention to the seven 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 14 June 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” (second edition: November 2011).
Appendix E: Letter from Lord Willoughby de Broke to the Commissioner, 31 May 2012
Breach of the Code of Conduct
I am replying to your letter to me of 24th May concerning the allegation by Tom Watson MP that I have breached the Lords Code of Conduct.
I have already replied to the allegations about Warrington Crescent and Moreton Morrell Tennis Club Court. I have nothing to add to that letter except to note that my financial interest in Warrington Crescent has always been properly declared in my Register of Interests, of which I enclose a copy for your information. I suppose that for completeness I should add that I have never taken part in a debate either on London property or real tennis, nor is it likely that I will do so.
I turn now to the allegation that I have breached the Code of conduct by not declaring my farming and agricultural interest. This is not the case; my interest has always been declared in my Register of Interests; when I was a member of the EU Select Committee from 1994-2000 I always declared my interest on the relevant page of each Report of the Committee. I have examined the Hansard records as far as I was able to check the references in the Appendix paper which was attached to the letter sent to you by Mr. Watson. I enclose a copy of the relevant extracts from Hansard with my [handwritten] comments. I have been unable to locate the 30/03/06 and 6/6/05 references online, but can easily do so from the Library records if necessary.
To sum up; I have been an active participant in the Lords for 23 years and have always tried to be open and scrupulous about declaring my interests when speaking in debate, whether on farming, the rural economy, the Hunting with Dogs Bill, Equitable Life, the EU or any other subject. It is thanks to Mr. Watson that I have only now realised how many contributions I have made in those years. I can only find two instances (12/5/08 and 4/6/08) from the appendix he sent you – which covers 13 years – where I accept that I should in the interests of clarity have declared my interest while speaking in a debate. But again I would remind you that my farming and agricultural interests are declared and open to public scrutiny in the Lords Register of Interests.
I hope that this response meets your concerns.
Appendix F: Letter from Lord Willoughby de Broke to Baroness Manningham-Buller, chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, 28 June 2012
Following a complaint made against me by Mr. Tom Watson MP concerning my declaration of interests in Lords’ debates I have received a letter from the Lords’ Standards Commissioner, Mr. Paul Kernaghan, recommending that I write to you to apologise for the two lapses in question.
The two occasions were firstly in a debate on the EU on 25th November 2011, when in discussing the CAP I omitted to declare my interest as a farmer in that debate – although that interest is properly declared in my register of interests. The second occasion was my failure to declare my farming interest in a Written Question on 9th June 2011. While I fully appreciate that ignorance is no defence, I can only say that I was not aware that from June 2010 it became a requirement to declare an interest in a Written Q.
I therefore apologise unreservedly for these lapses and also undertake to be properly vigilant in the future about declaring any interest I may have when speaking in debates or Oral Qs, as well as when asking any Questions for Written Answer.
Letter from Lord Willoughby de Broke to Baroness Manningham-Buller, chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, 11 July 2012
Declaration of interests
Following my letter to you of 28th June I have received a notification from Mr. Kernaghan that my directorship in ‘77 Warrington Crescent Ltd.’ should have been registered. Para 79 of the Guide to the Code makes such registration mandatory, notwithstanding that my directorship would fail the reasonableness test in respect of how I discharge my public duties. I will therefore amend my register accordingly.