The Conduct of Lord Fink
Annexed to this report are reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards relating to a complaint against Lord Fink.
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 Lord Fink.
The complainant alleged that Lord Fink breached the rules on the use of facilities of the House in respect of a dinner planned to be held in the Attlee Room.
The Commissioner found Lord Fink not to have breached the Code of Conduct as he sought and followed the advice of the Director of Facilities, which satisfies fully the requirements of the Code.
In his report the Commissioner drew the sub-committee’s attention to an article in The Independent on 29 June 2010 which contained an extract of a letter from the Commissioner to the complainant, Jon Trickett MP, advising Mr Trickett that he would proceed to carry out a formal investigation of the complaint. In that letter the Commissioner drew Mr Trickett’s attention to paragraphs 107, 120 and 121 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct. These paragraphs make it clear that correspondence relating to an investigation should remain confidential until it has concluded. Mr Trickett acted in breach of those provisions. We think it important that the Commissioner is able to correspond with parties to an investigation without that correspondence being disclosed to the media. It is also not in the interests of natural justice for the complainant to reveal information about a case to the media during an investigation when the member concerned (and others involved in the case) is not entitled to. We regret that Mr Trickett acted with such disregard for the rules.
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
Mr Jon Trickett MP wrote to me on 19 June 2012 (appendix A), asking me to investigate Lord Fink on the basis of an article in The Independent newspaper. Specifically, Mr Trickett invited me to establish whether or not Lord Fink had breached the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords by reason of his seeking to host “a private corporate event”. Mr Trickett referred to “The Independent article published on 19 June 2012” (appendix B) which included the following paragraphs—
The treasurer of the Conservative Party was accused last night of breaking parliamentary anti-sleaze rules after arranging to host a private dinner in the House of Lords for paying American Express card-holders.
Lord Fink arranged the event, which was part of a $10,000-per-head “Wimbledon Championships” package available to AmEx Platinum and Centurion card-holders, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Independent has found.
I wrote to Lord Fink on 27 June 2012 (appendix C) advising him of the complaint made by Mr Trickett MP. I informed him that I was initiating an investigation and drew his attention to the relevant elements of the 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:
(c) act in accordance with any rules agreed by the House in respect of financial support for Members or the facilities of the House.
I also drew Lord Fink’s 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.
Key facts
In essence, the complaint is centred on a dinner planned to be held at the House of Lords in the Attlee Room on 25 June 2012.
On 14 June 2012 Lord Fink telephoned the Director of Facilities, who advised that he should cancel the booking, which he did that evening.
A further email exchange between the Director of Facilities and Lord Fink on 20 June 2012 records that Lord Fink had cancelled “all of the Stan Smith related events” and his intent to only hold strictly charitable events in the future.
Lord Fink responded to my letter of 27 June 2012 on 11 July 2012 (appendix D). In essence, his account of the planned dinner and his involvement with it suggests that he took over an event which had been held over several years at the House of Lords. He agreed to “sponsor” it for 2012 but emphasised his view that the event was an established one and he was “comfortable with this proposal because I was aware that the same dinner had been hosted for several years by Lord Taylor of Warwick (2005–2009) and by the Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Addington in 2011. I was not aware that they had encountered any issues of propriety in hosting these dinners and I had no reason to believe that I would either.”
Lord Fink then sets out the sequence of events leading up to his conversation with the Director of Facilities on 14 June 2012. It appears that various people contacted by, or on behalf of, Lord Fink raised no concerns about the appropriateness of the planned dinner. However, on checking with the Director of Facilities, Lord Fink was advised that the planned dinner was “not in accordance with rules on Refreshment Department functions”.
The rules governing the use of Refreshment Department functions are set out in the 3rd report of session 2008–09 of the House Committee (HL Paper 144). They state that “If Members are unsure whether a proposed function would comply with the guidance, they should consult the Director of Facilities. Members who proceed on the basis of his advice are deemed to have complied with the guidance.” (Explanatory note A) This guidance is also contained in the Handbook on facilities and service for Members (May 2010), pages 71 and 72.
Findings
Lord Fink sought the advice of the Director of Facilities about the dinner on 25 June 2012 and followed that advice. Therefore, he did not in my judgement breach the Code of Conduct. I feel it is important that I not only explain that judgement but also examine the circumstances surrounding the complaint.
I accept Lord Fink’s evidence and believe he has sought to be open and honest in his response. He did not actually hold the dinner in question, thus he did not breach the rules agreed by the House in respect of the facilities of the House. I am also of the view that he actively sought to act on his personal honour.
This case does, though, highlight several issues which have wider application. It is important that members recognise that the obligations set out in the Code of Conduct are personal obligations and that it is not acceptable to rely on the advice of unqualified others, or on the fact that there is a precedent. The Handbook referred to above and the “Rules Governing the Use of Facilities” (2nd report of session 2009–10 of the House Committee (HL Paper 47)) are quite explicit and highlight the availability of authoritative advice from nominated officers of the House. Advice received from the Director of Facilities, Black Rod, the Director of Information Services and Librarian or the Clerk of the Printed Paper Office in their respective fields and acted on “satisfies fully the requirements of the Code of Conduct in that regard” (paragraph 101 of the Guide). This case illustrates the desirability of obtaining such advice when a member is unclear about an intended course of action. I am not questioning the good faith of others who provide advice but advice from the nominated officers ensures absolute security for the member. In this case Lord Fink might well have breached the Code of Conduct if he had relied on the advice provided by others. Fortunately, once he had spoken with the Director of Facilities and accepted his advice, then he was able to ensure compliance with the applicable rules.
I advised Mr Trickett MP in a letter dated 27 June 2012 (appendix E), that I was initiating an investigation on the basis of his complaint. I respectfully drew his attention to paragraphs 107, 120 and 121 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct. These provisions make it clear that a specific allegation should not be publicised until the complaint has been finalised. The complaint is covered by parliamentary privilege and must remain confidential unless and until it is published by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. In this case Mr Trickett MP provided The Independent (appendix F) with an extract from my letter to him, despite my highlighting the relevant guidance. I acknowledge that a question from the media, asking whether or not I was conducting an investigation, would have received a factually accurate answer from my office. Nevertheless, I regret that Mr Trickett MP acted without any apparent regard for the guidance agreed by the House of Lords, of which he was made fully aware. However, I would welcome the Sub-Committee’s views on the scope and strength of the relevant paragraphs in the Guide.
I dismiss the complaint against Lord Fink for the reasons set out above. However, I reiterate my view that members must satisfy themselves as to their individual compliance with the Code of Conduct and should seek authoritative guidance, whenever appropriate.
Paul Kernaghan CBE QPM
Commissioner for Standards
Appendix A: Letter from Jon Trickett MP to the Commissioner, 19 June 2012
I am writing to ask you to investigate the conduct of Lord Fink in light of the recent allegations in the Independent newspaper and subsequent allegations across a range of media.
In particular, I am contacting you to ask you to investigate whether Lord Fink, in his position as both a Member of the House of Lords and as the Conservative Party Treasurer, breached the House of Lords Code of Conduct when he sought to use the access his position in the Lords gives him to taxpayer funded property to host a private corporate event.
The Independent reported yesterday that Lord Fink had arranged “to host a private dinner in the House of Lords for paying American Express card-holders”. The dinner was advertised on the AmMex website as a “one-of-a-kind opportunity to advance you lifestyle”, and “the $9,391 (£6,000) package offered two full days of tennis, accommodation in the Dorchester, a drinks reception with John McEnroe – and the House of Lords dinner’”.
These allegations are very worrying as it appears that Lord Fink may have been using his position to provide access to the House of Lords as part of a paid-for-corporate package, potentially giving the damaging impression that you can buy access to the House of Lords and bringing Parliament into disrepute as a result of his actions.
The House of Lords Code of Conduct, point 9(a) states:
Selflessness: Holders of public office should not take decisions solely in terms of public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
In addition, the room booking guidelines in the House of Lords state:
With the exception of launches of books written by Members or books primarily about them, such rooms may not be used to promote Members’ outside interests.
It is clear that Lord Fink was promoting outside interests.
I hope that you will now examine these significant allegation and any subsequent disclosures to ensure that an investigation is carried out as fully as possible.
Appendix B: Article by Melanie Newman and Oliver Wright in The Independent, 19 June 2010
DAVID CAMERON’S FUNDRAISER CAUGHT IN £6,000 CORPORATE DEAL FOR HOUSE OF LORDS DINNER
The treasurer of the Conservative Party was accused last night of breaking parliamentary anti-sleaze rules after arranging to host a private dinner in the House of Lords for paying American Express card-holders.
Lord Fink arranged the event, which was part of a $10,000-per-head “Wimbledon Championships” package available to AmEx Platinum and Centurion card-holders, an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Independent has found.
Advertised on the AmEx website as a “one-of-a kind opportunity to advance your lifestyle”, the $9,391 (£6,000) package offered two full days of tennis, accommodation in the Dorchester, a drinks reception with John McEnroe – and the House of Lords dinner.
Yesterday, after being contacted, Lord Fink – who is David Cameron's chief fundraiser, and described as “the Godfather” of the hedge fund industry – said he had cancelled the booking after being made aware that it could break the rules. He said he had no financial interest in AmEx and had received no benefit from the booking. Lord Fink is one of a number of senior peers who have used their membership of the House of Lords to arrange events for private companies – some of whom do have a financial interest in the functions that are put on. They include:
The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who hosted a “customer event” for 140 people in the peers’ dining room for a private forensic science firm of which he is a non-executive director and shareholder.
The Tory peer Lord Sheikh, who booked the House of Lords Terrace overlooking the Thames for the launch of his own insurance broking firm.
The revelations form the first part of an investigation by the Bureau and The Independent into the workings of the House of Lords.
Lords rules state that banqueting facilities “are not to be used for the purposes of direct or indirect financial or material gain by a sponsor ... or any other person or outside organisation”.
Lord Fink booked the event in the Attlee Room to coincide with this year’s Wimbledon tournament.
He was nominated to the House of Lords last year, is one of the Tories’ biggest donors and has been a guest of David and Samantha Cameron at Chequers. He became sole treasurer of the Conservative Party earlier this year when his predecessor, Peter Cruddas, was forced to resign after being secretly recorded “selling” dinner in Downing Street with David Cameron in return for donations to the party.
The revelation that Lord Fink was prepared to “sponsor” the luxury AmEx package, which was marketed to wealthy Americans visiting London, will be embarrassing to the party.
A spokesman for the House of Lords said: “The House of Lords has clear rules on the use of banqueting facilities. A breach of the rules constitutes a breach of the House of Lords Code of Conduct. It is a Member’s own responsibility to ensure any event they sponsor does not contravene the rules in any way. There is also a robust mechanism in place for investigating alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.”
Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said: “This is further evidence of the urgent need for radical reform of the House of Lords. It has become as much a House of Lobbyists as a House of Lords. Our upper chamber has become packed with unelected political appointees who get £300 a day just for turning up.In the light of yet more scandal in our discredited political system, it is high time we introduced a smidgen of democracy and accountability into the upper house.”
Labour said that the episode left “a very nasty taste” and called on Lord Fink to consider his position as Tory treasurer. “This is an attempt to breach the rules of Parliament,” said Jon Trickett, the shadow Cabinet Office minister. “It leaves a very nasty taste to suggest that you can buy access to the House of Lords, and it cheapens democracy. Lord Fink, who is a major donor to the Tories, should consider his position as treasurer of the Conservative Party.”
After being contacted, both Lord Fink and American Express said that they were cancelling the event which they said had been booked in good faith.
Lord Fink said: “This event has been held in the Lords on several occasions in the past and I agreed to sponsor it this year in return for a sizeable charitable donation to a major hospital. I have no commercial interest in AmEx and there was never any question of me profiting from sponsoring it.” The donation to the hospital was £3,000.
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Lord Fink cancelled his sponsorship of the event at the beginning of last week as soon as he received advice that there might be an issue with it.”
American Express said: “We have re-examined the current House of Lords event and hospitality guidelines and consulted again with Lord Fink. We agreed that some of these guidelines are open to interpretation. In particular, the guidelines state, ‘events may not be used for ... commercial business, although events related to charities are permitted’. Although the dinner planned for the House of Lords did have a charitable component it was not a fundraising event. We have therefore mutually agreed to hold the dinner at another location.”
American Express said it would still make its planned charitable donation to St Thomas’s Hospital, of £3,000.
Asked about Lord Stevens’s sponsorship of the LGC reception, a spokesman said: “This was not a promotional event. Those attending would have no responsibilities for procuring our services.”
Lord Sheikh said the launch of MacMillan Sheikh at the House of Lords was a social gathering which was “in no way intended as a source of business development in any shape or form” and that business was not discussed. He also denied that he had received payment from MacMillan Sheikh, despite being a director and chairman of the company.
THE RULES: NO ACCESS FOR PROFIT
House of Lords rules on the use of its premises and facilities for outside events are clear.
The rules say functions must not be used for the purposes of “direct or indirect financial or material gain by a sponsor ... or any other person or outside organisation”.
This means that members of the Lords should not receive payment or any other kind of benefit, such as an offer of employment based on the ability to provide access to House of Lords.
Companies or organisations must not use functions to drum up business or as a perk for existing clients or shareholders.
Members may not sponsor promotional functions for companies in which they have a direct financial interest, such as a paid directorship or a substantial shareholding.
But it is acceptable to sponsor social functions primarily aimed at the workforce of a company in which they have a direct pecuniary interest.
Appendix C: Letter from the Commissioner to Lord Fink, 27 June 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 having contravened the rules agreed by the House in respect of the facilities of the House.
I attach for your information a copy of the letter I have received from the complainant (Mr Jon Trickett MP). I also attach a relevant copy press article from The Independent.
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:
(c) act in accordance with any rules agreed by the House in respect of financial support for Members or the facilities of the House.
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 18 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 D: Letter from Lord Fink to the Commissioner, 11 July 2012
Thank you for your letter dated 27 June with enclosures. Please accept this letter and its enclosure as the response you have requested. I hope my statement speaks for itself. However, if you have any questions, I shall be happy to meet you to answer them or to answer them in writing.
I do not consider I have breached either Article 8(a) or (b) of 10(c) of the code of Conduct. I have considered the seven principles of the conduct and, having-double checked the position with a specialist law firm, consider that I have not breached any of them.
Please remember that I have not hosted any dinner. There has been no dinner. I did agree to host one, on the basis that the same dinner had been hosted in the past by at least two Peers over several years and providing that my hosting it was compliant with the Code and the rules.
I would be mortified if I though nay action I had taken would breach the code. Indeed, when I was advised by the Director of Facilities that there was a risk that my hosting of the dinner could be interpreted as a breach, I withdrew that offer to host it immediately. Before I had been given the advice, I had been either led to believe or actually told that it was appropriate to host the dinner by those who had experience of it before. Of course, if I had carried on heedless of that advice by the director of Facilities, than that may have been different. But I did not.
For your information, I have for many years been engaged in a large number of philanthropic projects in the United Kingdom. While I maintain commercial interests and political ones, I now spend a great deal of time in philanthropic activity.
Because of a long career in the City (free from any blemish of reputation) and extensive experiences as a trustee of various charitable trusts, I am very familiar with the need for proper regulation and propriety and I have considerable experience of dealing with regulators. My wish to conduct myself properly as a member of the House of Lords is as great as my wish to behave properly in business and charitable work.
With this in mind, I have considered Article 17 of the Guide to the Code of conduct. My prime incentive for agreeing to host the dinner was to obtain for the Evelina Children’s Hospital a significant donation which otherwise it would not have received. I certainly obtained no commercial or other benefit from the decision, and neither do I need or want one. I would be very disappointed if I were not able to further philanthropy in the country when properly using my position as a Peer, particularly at this difficult economic time.
As to acting with personal honour, I consider that I have done this. My provisional agreement to host the dinner was in the knowledge that other Peers had done so before me (no doubt on their personal honour), stretching back several years, without complaint. I checked the propriety of the occasions; initially, I was informed that it was acceptable for me to proceed; on the last, I was told it would be better if I did not proceed, and I acted on that advice.
I also believe that the letter of complaint, and even the highlighting of my case by The Independent, was because of my profile as Treasurer of the Conservative Party. Sadly, Labour and left wing journalists have in the past systematically attacked many of the Party’s donors and targeted previous Conservative Party Treasurers personally. It is perhaps informative that of the three cases listed in The Independent’s article that you have shown to me, my understanding is that mine is the only one that has given rise to any complaint, notwithstanding that the other two cases were alleged to have led to some personal benefit, whereas mine did not (even The Independent was prepared to accept that I had made no personal gain). I regret that the complaint against me has very probably been politically motivated and provoked by an inaccurate press article, rather than by any serious and credible belief, supported by reliable evidence, that I have misconducted myself.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.
Statement by Lord Fink
I, LORD FINK of the House of Lords, Westminster, WILL SAY:
1. I make this statement in response to a notification dated 27 June 2012 from the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards that he intends to investigate a complaint made against me brought by Jon Trickett MP. Mr Trickett has apparently read an article “in The Independent newspaper and subsequent allegations across a range of media”. I have been shown a copy of The Independent’s article but I have not been told what the “subsequent allegations” are, of the “range of media” they are meant to have been made in. As requested, I am responding “with a full and accurate account of the matters in question”. The “matters in question” I understand to be confined to the letter of complaint and its enclosure on which I have been shown by the Commissioner. I cannot, of course, comment on allegations of which I am unaware and I note that the Commissioner has not asked for details of those from Mr Trickett.
2. I took my seat in the House of Lords in February 2011. In September 2011, I was approached by an American sporting events company called Stan Smith Events to enquire whether I would host an event in the House of Lords to be held during Wimbledon fortnight (25 June–8 July 2012). In fact, the dinner was part of a corporate event package having as its theme Wimbledon Fortnight and, indeed, the main element was two days hosted at Wimbledon by Stan Smith (a former Wimbledon Champion) and also included John McEnroe. A dinner in the House of Lords was a small stand-alone feature of that event. It was to be accompanied by a tour of the House as well. Stan Smith Events’ client was American Express; the event I was asked to host was a dinner in one of the dining facilities of the House of Lords for some of its executives and some of its customers.
3. I believe I was approached because I know Stan Smith, although I do not know him very well; he is really a friend of a friend and I have played golf with him twice and met him at Wimbledon once in the company of some mutual friends. I was comfortable with his proposal because I was aware that the same dinner had been hosted for several years by Lord Taylor of Warwick (2005–2009) and by the Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Addington in 2011. I was not aware that they had encountered any issues of propriety in hosting these dinners and I had no reason to believe that I would either.
4. My core motive for agreeing to host the event, however, was the opportunity to obtain a charitable donation from American Express for the Evelina Children’s Hospital in London. I am the Honorary President of that hospital for which I receive no remuneration or financial benefit of any kind. This position allows me to raise charitable monies for that hospital which is channelled through the Guys’ and St Thomas’ Charitable Trust. American Express originally agreed to make a donation of £5,000 to the charity although it was later reduced to £3,000. However, this was better than nothing and was money for a charity which I could usefully enable by hosting the dinner. The dinner was not “a charity” dinner and was not “a charity event”.
5. I did not seek, or ever obtain, any financial gain or personal advantage by agreeing to host this dinner. I do not need or want to. I have no financial or corporate interests in American Express. (With thousands of other around the country, I have been an American Express cardholder for many years, on normal commercial terms and these were unaffected by my agreement to host the dinner.)
6. Having been approached, I contacted my Parliamentary PA in the House of Lords, Sheila Williamson. I “inherited” Sheila when I became a Peer and I knew her to be knowledgeable and experienced in the way the House functioned. She was also aware of the history of this dinner over the years and knew how it was run and organised. She informed me, based on her own experience, that it was in the ordinary course to host the dinner. She also contacted an official in the facilities booking office, who did the same. I was not relying on Sheila or an official to approve what I was doing, and I did not ask them to do so. My point is that I knew the dinner had been hosted by two different Peers for many years in the past without a problem, and nothing that Sheila or the official said when they began to make the 2012 booking gave me any warning or any reason to doubt that this year would be any different. It was business as usual.
7. Sheila wrote to Gary Neibur of Stan Smith on 30 September 2011, as follows: “with reference to a conversation we had, together with Lord Fink, you mentioned possibly wanting to do something extra next year. As you know, space books up very quickly, and because you normally like something for the first Monday of Wimbledon and the Atlee Room was free on the evening of 25 June 2010 [sic], I have held it provisionally in case. This puts us under no obligation at the current time. I have no idea what date you were looking at, if any, but just started with this one ... I have not spoken to Lord Fink’s office about it because there is no point at the moment in checking his availability in case you are not interested in that date.”
8. Stuart Makinson of Stan Smith replied to Sheila on 6 February 2010: “I saw from the email [referred to above, from Sheila] that you are holding Monday 25 June for our Amex group. We are coming back for sure! Could you please check with Lord Fink to see if he is available to host our group that evening?”
9. Sheila checked my availability and responded positively to Gary Neibur on 8 February. At this stage, I still had absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that anything was remiss, and this dinner was anything other than annual routine business for the Lords’ refreshment outlets in Wimbledon fortnight. The booking went ahead and I agreed to provisionally host the dinner. The dinner was scheduled to take place on 25 June 2012.
10. As the event drew nearer, American Express advertised the event on its website, which, unusually to my mind (as it was uncontroversial in previous years), provoked some press interest. This press interest prompted American Express to want to issue a press statement; I was sent a draft for comment, via Stan Smith events. I read the draft and made some amendments and edits. I also asked that it not be issued to the press until I had had the opportunity to double-check the position with the House to ensure that the dinner could properly be held. However, American Express issued the press release before I had had the chance to do so because, I understand, they were under time-pressure of their own. I did, however, double-check the position with the House.
11. I was out of London on business at the time, and so called Flora Coleman, who is a Special Advisor to the Leader of the House, to double-check. She read the applicable rules and told me that she thought it was in order to proceed. However, we both agreed that it would be prudent to triple-check and she would speak to Carl Woodall, the Director of Facilities. Much to everyone’s surprise, and mine, Mr Woodall advised that the dinner) and, by implication, previous similar dinners) was not in accordance with the rules on Refreshment Department functions.
12. I spoke to Mr Woodall on 14 June 2012, and he told me that he would prefer that the dinner did not take place.
13. In light of this, on 14 June 2010, I immediately cancelled my hosting of the dinner and arranged for Stan Smith events to be told.
14. About five days later, on 19 June 2012, The Independent published its article about which Mr Trickett bases his complaint.
15. Given that the only evidence supporting the complaint against me is an article in a newspaper, I think it would be helpful to comment on the facts of The Independent article specifically. Some of its facts are inaccurate and some of what is implied in the article is untrue. I note that the source of the information is from a highly political, University-based, journalistic source.
16. I am not aware of any accusations made against me on 18 June or at any other time “of breaking parliamentary anti-sleaze rules”. It is alleged that I arranged “to host a private dinner in the House of Lords for paying American Express card-holders”. I did not arrange to host the dinner. I agreed to host the dinner (as Peers had done in the past) and American Express would make a generous contribution to charity. The possible insinuation that I was somehow involved in the receipt of payments from the guests to the dinner is untrue.
17. It is alleged that I arranged the event which was part of a $10,000 per head Wimbledon Championship package. It is correct that the dinner was part of the package (albeit a small part) but it is untrue that I arranged the dinner (Stan smith Events did that); the clear insinuation that I arranged the Wimbledon event is also untrue. I understand from American Express that the alleged cost of the dinner was exaggerated in the article – the cost was less than $10,000 per head.
18. I am not “David Cameron’s chief fundraiser”. I do not raise funds for David Cameron personally. I am currently the Treasurer of the Conservative Party, a position I took up (again) on 26 March 2012 after I had originally retired from the post.
19. The article omits to state that this self-same dinner was hosted without complaint for many years by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers and that until I had triple-checked the position I had either been led to believe or had been expressly told by administrative staff of the House of Lords or the Leader’s Office that the dinner was proper. It was only when, on my own initiative, I arranged for the position to be triple-checked that I was informed that it that it would be preferable for the dinner not to proceed. In the circumstances, I erred on the side of caution, acted upon that advice and cancelled the event at once.
20. The quotation on the first page of the article from the Third Report of Session 2008-2009 from the House Committee on “Refreshment Department Functions” is incomplete, misquoted and misleading as a result.
21. It is also worth commenting on the various inaccuracies contained in the complaint letter of Mr Trickett dated 19 June. Article 9(a) of the Code of Conduct, on which Mr Trickett relies, refers to the first general principle of selflessness which warns Members of the House gaining “financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family of their friends”. I have not gained, or tried to gain, any such benefit. I do not need to or wish to do that. Given that my sole intention was to benefit an NHS hospital charity and that I have no commercial connection with it or with American Express, I cannot see how that principle can be relevant
22. Mr Trickett then (omitting its title), incorrectly and incompletely, I believe, quotes from rule 3 of the Second Report of Session 2009-2010 “Rules Governing the Use of Facilities”. Rule 3 is headed “Committee and meeting rooms” which applies to only those types of rooms. He then moves seamlessly to argue from this (inapplicable) rule stating that committee and meeting rooms “may not be used to promote Member’s outside interests” to conclude that “it is clear” that I was “promoting outside interests”. This is incoherent and plainly incorrect.
23. In fact, the applicable rules are those pertaining to Refreshment Department functions, as set out in the House Committee’s Third Report of 2008/2009 and approved by the House on 20 October 2009. As that report says, “Members who proceed on the basis of his [the Director of Facilities’] advice are deemed to have complied with the guidance.”
Conclusion
24. First, it is worth repeating that I never hosted the dinner. It did not take place. I had agreed to host the dinner provided it was proper for me to do so. I took advice to see whether it was.
25. Second, in any event, it would have been a dinner in which I had no commercial interest. I had tried to obtain a charitable donation from the company involved (not the actual people who would be attending the dinner itself). Even then, as an added precaution, I had already disclosed that charity in the Register of Members’ Interests.
26. Third, I took advice from the Director of Facilities (see paragraphs 11, 12 and 13) about hosting the dinner and I followed that advice. In accordance with the House Committee’s Third Report of 2008/2009, I am deemed to have complied with the Guidance, and thus the Code of Conduct.
27. For all these reasons, I disagree with not only with what Mr Trickett says, but the way he has said it.
Dated this 11th day of July 2012
Appendix E: Letter from the Commissioner to Jon Trickett MP, 27 June 2012
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter of complaint dated 19 June 2012. I have now completed a preliminary assessment of your complaint and have decided that a formal investigation is appropriate. I will in due course submit a report to the House of Lords’ Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct. I will ensure that you are advised of the outcome of my investigation. I would respectfully draw your attention to paragraphs 107, 120 and 121 of the “Guide to the Code of Conduct”.
Appendix F: Article by Oliver Wright in The Independent, 29 June 2012
TORY FUNDRAISER LORD FINK FACES INQUIRY INTO LORDS DINNER FOR AMEX CLIENTS
The Conservative Party treasurer is to face a full Parliamentary inquiry into allegations that he broke anti-sleaze rules.
The Independent and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed earlier this month that Lord Fink, who has given more than £2m to the Tories, sponsored a private dinner in the House of Lords for paying American Express cardholders.
Up to 60 paying guests were due to take part in the money-making dinner as part of the $10,000 Wimbledon Championships package available to AmEx Platinum and Centurion card holders. Under House of Lords rules members cannot sponsor functions designed to make money for private enterprises.
The dinner was cancelled after Lord Fink was contacted by the Bureau.
Lord Fink admitted that he had offered to sponsor the American Express dinner, part of a money-making package for the company. But there was never any possibility of him profiting, he said, and American Express planned to make a charitable donation.
Lords rules state that banqueting facilities “are not to be used for the purposes of direct or indirect financial or material gain by a sponsor ... or any other person or outside organisation”. Yesterday House of Lords Commissioner for Standards Paul Kernaghan wrote to Labour’s shadow Cabinet Office Minister Jon Trickett to confirm that he was to carry out a full investigation into the breach.
He wrote: “I have now carried out a preliminary assessment of your complaint and have decided that a formal investigation is appropriate. I will in due course submit a report to the House of Lords Sub-committee on Lords conduct. I will ensure that you are advised of the outcome of my investigation.”
The House of Lords Committee for Privileges and Conduct, can censure members who are found to have broken the code. Penalties can include a formal reprimand or, in extreme cases, suspension from the House of Lords until the following election.
Mr Trickett said the decision was the right one. “It is vital that Lord Fink’s actions are fully investigated in order to uphold the credibility and reputation of Parliament and prevent any potential further breaches of the House of Lords Code of Conduct,” he said. “It is vital that this formal investigation provides answers to key questions, in particular whether Lord Fink used his position to provide access to the House of Lords as part of a paid-for corporate package and giving the damaging impression that you can buy access to the House of Lords.
“I hope the Commissioner will use this formal investigation as an opportunity to shine a light on to the hidden and often murky world of business interests in the House of Lords.”
The Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Oakeshott added: “There is only one way to stop us being a house of donors and cronies and that is election by the people.”