Labour peer Doug Hoyle has been cleared of deliberate misconduct by an inquiry into the circumstances in which he introduced Michael Wood, an advisor to the arms industry, to Lord Drayson, the Minister responsible for arms procurement. Hoyle failed to declare that he was receiving money from Michael Wood, but defended himself saying that the payments were not related to the meeting.
Although the Lords inquiry cleared him of deliberate misconduct,
The group did not interview any witnesses about the allegations, nor did it take evidence from Drayson or the Ministry of Defence.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat frontbench MP, said: “The peers are living in a parallel universe”. (The Guardian)
Rather strangely the inquiry’s report both says
It is not possible on the basis of the evidence that we have received to know whether Lord Hoyle did disclose his relationship with Whitehall Advisers to Lord Drayson at the meeting. But if he did not do so, then to that extent he was in error, because the House’s code of conduct requires Members to disclose relevant interests when communicating with ministers (para. 8(b)).
yet also says
We are satisfied that no further investigation is needed.
So, the inquiry didn’t have enough evidence to conclude if the code of conduct had been broken, but also decided that it didn’t need to try to get any more evidence. Hmm…
Share:
5 Comments
Speaking of crazy conduct by peers, what do we think of the decision by Lib Dem peers to abstain on Tuesday when voting on an in/out referendum on the EU? Wasn’t this the same measure the Cleggie ordered his troops to back, and sacked frontbenchers who didn’t comply?
PB fails to point out that the said vote was on a UKIP amendment and only 7 Peers in the entirety of the House that voted for it. I believe that Clegg didn’t sack anyone and those who did resign went because they could not comply with his decision to abstain on a Lisbon treaty referendum, which is nothing to do with in/out.
But Doug, it doesn’t really matter who put the amendment down? Listening to Ed Davey et al in the Commons, they were arguing about the principle of an in/out referendum. If this principle is so important, why didn’t Lib Dem peers vote for it?
If you look at the draft of the UKIP amendment it is total nonesense and would not have had the support of Nick Clegg or his Lib Dem MP colleagues. The amendment actually says that a referendum would take place within six months of the Lisbon Treaty be signed and is frankly unconstitutional as it would have a binding impact if there was a “no” vote.
i wonder when the liberal going to appoint new peers in the lords. do we wait and see if the ethnic minority will be given chance or if it is just PR to go with the time.
i will wait and see what is next .