2009 Cash For Influence Scandal - Findings of House of Lords Committees

Findings of House of Lords Committees

The House of Lords Sub-committee on Lords' Interests was asked to report on the matter. It found that:

• re. Lord Moonie "on the standard of proof that we have set, we do not find that Lord Moonie expressed a clear willingness to breach the Code by promoting amendments on behalf of lobbyists in return for payment."
• re. Lord Snape "We find that Lord Snape expressed a clear willingness to breach the Code of Conduct. The fact that he may have believed that moving a blanket amendment was legitimate does not excuse him because, as we have explained above, moving such an amendment in return for payment would breach the no-paid-advocacy rule."
• re. Lord Truscott "We conclude that Lord Truscott expressed willingness to breach the Code of Conduct's prohibition on paid advocacy, and failed to act on his personal honour, as required by paragraphs 4(c) and 4(b) of the Code."
• re. Lord Taylor "We conclude that Lord Taylor's conversations with the journalists display his clear willingness to breach the Code of Conduct by engaging in paid advocacy, and by failing to act on his personal honour, as required by paragraphs 4(c) and 4(b) of the Code."

The Lords' Privileges Committee considered the sub-committee's report and heard further evidence from Lord Snape. It published its findings on 14 May 2009
The Privileges Committee:

• agreed that Lord Moonie had not breached the code;
• disagreed that Lord Snape had breached the code: "We conclude that he did not express clear willingness to exercise parliamentary influence in return for financial inducement, and so fail to act on his personal honour";
• agreed that Lord Truscott had breached the code, and recommended that he be suspended;
• agreed that Lord Taylor had breached the code, and recommended that he be suspended.