The Yeo report

Readers may be interested in the report of Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, into the allegations against Tim Yeo.

I'm particularly interested in the Commissioner's acceptance that Yeo saying he had coached a witness who appeared in front of his committee was a joke. Having reviewed the video, I have to say that this meek acceptance does Ms Hudson no credit.

I gather that that she has

raised concerns about whether the public viewed lawmakers who chair...committees as acting impartially when examining policy in a subject area in which they were also involved commercially.

Well, yes.

Comments

[John B]

The only joke here is on the public when we have regulators like Hudson accepting any old nonsense these MP's tell her. She is part of the problem with this country not part of the solution. If she can't, or won't do the job, then she needs to be removed.

[Mike Jackson]

Unlike her predecessor who MPs had removed because they were doing the job.
The parliamentarians that I grew up with from Manny Shinwell through Jo Grimond to Ian McLeod must be turning in their graves!

[MD]

It's our Parliament and our democracy that's the joke!

[sandyS]

A bit of scepticism from the likes of Hudson is sorely needed.

[stewgreen]

- Twisted political decision.
- Now what would motivate such a decision that is exactly what the $$multibillion GreenHedgeFunds & EcoBiz want ?

[jferguson]

Hudson: "raised concerns about whether the public viewed lawmakers who chair...committees as acting impartially when examining policy in a subject area in which they were also involved commercially."

Are we seeing an expansion of "tree falls in the forest" from emitting no sound if unheard to not having fallen if not noticed?

Do your legislative types often dabble in physics?

[Don Keiller]

And speaking of sheer incompetance This (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/796) from the Met Office takes some beating.

H/T to "Watts up with That" http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/ooops-met-office-decadal-model-forecast-for-2004-2014-falls-flat/#more-97939

[JamesG]

So we jail MP's for fiddling £12K in expenses but chairing a commitee whose decisions could benefit you by much, much more is ok?

[Allan M]

Maybe Mr (sic) Yeo has some serious dirt on some major (sic) political figures?

[Paul_K]

Steady on, guys. I would have been horrified if Yeo had been found guilty on the basis of the evidence as presented. The case against him was simply not proven. The 'sting' failed to produce any clear evidence of guilt, and Yeo's follow-up letter to the sting team was impeccable - so much so that I suspect rather cynically that he may have gained an inkling that he was being set up. Net result:- no clear evidence of guilt. Yeo, like the rest of us, must get the benefit of "reasonable doubt" in this instance. Quite simply, you can't eliminate corruption by application of corrupt process.

What is perhaps more interesting than the failed sting is the further investigation which has been instigated at the request of the Speaker.

Some months ago the Speaker wrote to the Chair of the Committee on Standards
saying
“Last November I mentioned to the Government Chief Whip and the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards my concern, on behalf of the House, about what many
might regard as an inherent incompatibility between chairing a Select Committee and
having commercial interests, even though fully transparently registered, in the sector
covered by that Committee.
At present, Chairs of Select Committees are required simply to register such interests,
but they are not prevented from having them. As I believe there is a reputational issue
for the House involved, I should be most grateful if your Committee would consider
this specific and important issue with a view to making a recommendation to the
House. Colleagues would then have the opportunity to decide whether to maintain the
status quo or to introduce a new rule on the subject.”

This was raised in Volume I of this report (and recall that this report is specific to Yeo). This report also included the following comment:-

14. Mr Speaker has already raised with us the question of whether there might be “an
inherent incompatibility between chairing a Select Committee and having commercial
interests, even though fully transparently registered, in the sector covered by that
Committee”. We delayed consideration of this issue until the current case was completed,
but are now ready to take it forward.

My reading of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct suggests to me that the rules are not quite as toothless as suggested in the Speaker's letter quoted above. In fact, Rule 83 has a very important bullet point which states:-

when a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial interest
which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a
personal interest may reflect upon the work of the Committee or its subsequent
Report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to
it.

The House Standards Committee might elect to use the Speaker's request solely to consider some rule tightening - which is the ostensible reason for the request. On the other hand, I take some heart from the fact that the matter is raised rather unnecessarily in this report. The report is supposed to be specific to the investigation of Yeo on two charges of breach of the House Code of Conduct. The two charges were influence-peddling and inappropriate coaching of a witness to his Select Committee. The issue raised by the Speaker is only of indirect relevance to the latter charge; its inclusion adds nothing to the investigation and seems therefore out of context. If it is there for a reason, then the reason must be...what? Somehow, I don't think that Yeo is out of the woods yet.

[mike fowle]

Paul K. But it's not a question of guilt or innocence as such. This is not a court of law, but I don't see how anyone watching the Sunday Times hidden camera footage can dispute that he brings the reputation of Parliament into disrepute. He happily admits that he is not allowed to lobby openly but boasts that the same result can be achieved behind the scenes. I don't know how explicit the decision of the Parliamentary Commissioner has to be but are there not ample grounds to declare he is not a fit and proper person to be chair of a committee which is directly involved in what he's peddling?

[Paul_K]

Mike Fowle,
There is nothing in the rules that prevents an MP from using his influence behind the scenes. In fact, in a very real sense, that's what they are supposed to do. The rules state that he cannot be paid to use such influence and that he cannot use such influence when he has a financial interest in the outcome. When he has or might have a financial interest he is obliged to "stand aside" from any relevant decisions. (And he did do so very publicly according to the records when the GBRf Chief Executive appeared as a witness.)

The sting team invited him for lunch with a line that they had a technology which was "beneficial for the country". They are perfectly entitled to ask him to use his influence to help them to get it moving. There was no discussion of any reward or payment for services in the video or in the transcript. His follow-up letter was impeccable. A good test here is to imagine that the topic of conversation had been different - say the subject had been about trying to counter the exaggerated dangerous image of shale-gas fraccing - would you still feel that the video proved him guilty of something?
The most damaging thing in the video was his statement that he had told the GBRf CE what to say as a witness before the Select Committee. He claimed it was a jocular remark - which it does look like in context. The investigation looked very hard to find any evidence that he had coached the witness, and could find not a scrap.

Don't think that I am a fan of Yeo's. I am certainly not. But the onus of proof of guilt by the House Standards Committee has to be at least as high as in a courtroom. Otherwise the House could not function. If found guilty of breach by the House Standards Committe, then he is exposed to criminal prosecution for "high crime and misdemeanour". Parliamentary privilege does not protect MP's from this.

[not banned yet]

"Corruption problem among some UK minorities", says MP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25062450

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm

Suppose you could call MPs a UK minority group.
//
Paul_K - please can you provide a reference for your claim that "using his influence behind the scenes [is] In fact, in a very real sense...what they [MPs] are supposed to do". It is the "behind the scenes" bit which I'd like the reference for. Thanks.

[mike fowle]

Paul, Thanks for your comments, which I take on board. I must admit am prejudiced against Yeo as he used to be my MP and I found him an arrogant so and so. (I then moved to where Gummer was my MP - hardly an improvement.) But you make a good case.

[Paul_K]

notbannedyet,
There is no rule which prohibits unofficial conversations among members or between members and ministers. Common sense will tell you that there are far more un-minuted conversations than formal conversations. So there is no rule against using influence behind the scenes. The restrictions only apply to using influence without declaring a financial interest or payment.
Rule 86 says:-

86. The requirement to declare a relevant interest at the appropriate time covers almost
every aspect of a Member’s parliamentary duties extending to correspondence and
meetings with Ministers and public officials. Frankness with colleagues is also important.
In 1975 the House agreed to the report of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests
(Declaration) which contained these words: “it should be a matter of honour that a
financial interest is declared not only, as at present, in debate in the House and its
Committees but also whenever a Member is attempting to influence his fellow Members,
whether in unofficial committees and gatherings or at any kind of sponsored occasion,
with or without entertainment, or simply in correspondence or conversation.

You are welcome to check the full rule suite here:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/1885.pdf

[not banned yet]

Paul_K - thanks for the reference. However, I must say it does not actually state that using influence behind the scenes is what an MP is supposed to do - what it really states is that, even in situations which are not on the formal record, MPs should act with full and proper disclosure.