Handling the Implications of the
Committee's Third Report
23. This further complaint by Mr Mann and Mr Jones
raises the question how best to handle the implications of the
Committee's conclusions in its Third Report. Since the publication
of that report the Registrar of Members' Interests and I have
been approached by many Members seeking advice on the report's
implications for bookings they already hold in the House's private
dining facilities. The advice we have given is as follows.
24. The Committee's report did not change the Banqueting
Regulations. A decision on changing the Regulations in the light
of the Committee's recommendation in that report (see paragraph
6 above) is a matter for Mr Speaker and the Administration Committee.
Unless and until the Regulations are changed, the formal basis
for using the private dining rooms remains unchanged.
25. However, the Committee's conclusions, in particular
that the distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' fund-raising
is unsustainable, indicates that it is likely to take a broader,
rather than a narrower view of what constitutes 'direct fund-raising'
in relation to future complaints.
26. With that in mind, Members sponsoring functions
in the House (who are personally responsible under the Regulations
for ensuring that the function is in compliance with them) would
from now on be wise to be fully cognisant of both the ways and
the full extent to which any outside interest might be benefiting
financially, and reach a decision on whether to sponsor it in
the light of that. They would also be wise to ensure that, where
a specific charge is levied, participants are only charged the
direct costs so there can be no basis for assertions that a profit
has been made from the use of House facilities and, where access
to the function is in effect conditional on payment of a subscription
to an organization (such as when the cost of attendance is included
in the subscription), satisfy themselves of the consistency with
the Regulations of any wider objectives and activities of the
organization.
27. In practice this has boiled down to advising
Members that where a body on whose behalf they are sponsoring
an event in the private dining rooms has made donations to a political
party, the Member may be vulnerable to a complaint if the event
proceeds. If they wish to avoid any risk of a complaint, they
should cancel their booking in the House and hold the event elsewhere.
28. In a number of instances, however, Members have
bookings which cannot be cancelled without incurring a financial
penalty. Paragraph 8 of the Banqueting Regulations provides for
an ascending scale of charges where an event is cancelled at 60
days or less notice, the amount charged being greater the shorter
the notice given. I do not think it reasonable, given the long
history of such events, to require Members to cancel events in
circumstances which would leave them with a personal financial
liability of this nature.
29. In my footnote to paragraph 193 of my memorandum
attached to the Committee's Third Report, I suggested that any
new guidance issued to Members, following consideration by Mr
Speaker and the Administration Committee of the Committee's recommendations,
should apply to all bookings made after the date on which the
guidance is promulgated to Members. The question remains as to
how to handle any further complaints relating to functions held
under the existing Regulations. I suggest that the Committee sets
a cut-off date, after which, in considering complaints that political
parties have benefited inappropriately from functions held in
the private dining rooms, it will:
i) look only at the consistency of the function
with the provisions of the Banqueting Regulations, and no longer
have regard to historic custom and practice in this matter; and
ii) assume that the sponsor of the function has
satisfied him or herself that, in acting as sponsor, they are
acting in a manner fully consistent with the strict requirements
of the Regulations.
30. Given that bookings may be made up to 18 months
ahead, the Committee may wish to set different dates for new bookings
and for events taking place, with the date for the latter being
such that no Member who acts reasonably promptly need incur a
financial penalty in canceling a function in the House. If the
Committee agrees with this approach, it may wish to decide that
it will adopt the approach set out in the preceding paragraph
in respect of complaints relating to (a) events booked from 18
June 2007 (i.e. following the likely date of publication of its
report on this case), and (b) events already booked but taking
place on or after 1 October 2007 (cancellation of which prior
to the beginning of August will not incur a financial penalty).
4 June 2007 Sir Philip Mawer
5 
