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