Jeremy Hunt is facing a parliamentary investigation for breaching parliamentary rules by providing access to the House of Commons to raise money for schools.
Parents at his child’s school were able to pay for a “traditional English tea for two to four people in the House of Commons” with the prime minister and his wife Lucia.
The award, presented by the Prime Minister for the third consecutive year, was aimed at raising money for the children’s primary school in south-west London.
However, the MP’s rules expressly prohibit providing access to the commons for auction or raffle prizes. He faces formal reprimand and an apology in the House of Commons.
In response to the contact from I Armed with evidence of breaches of the rules, he introduced himself to the council’s standards commissioner.
Auction lots that Mr. and Mrs. Jeremy Hunt have sold at three school fundraising events since 2021.
Since 2019, four other MPs have been reprimanded by the Standards Committee and forced to apologize to the House of Commons for offering similar auction prizes, which are prohibited by the Parliamentary Code of Conduct.
Item number 54 in the latest auction, held in November 2023, was described as a “traditional British tea for the Prime Minister and his wife and two to four members of the House of Commons.” The listing for the auction program added that the prize was “donated by the Hunt family” and “will be arranged at a mutually convenient time.”
The award has been advertised on the same terms in the school’s previous two ‘commitment auctions’, once in November 2022, a month after he became president, and again when he was a backbench MP. It was held in October 2021. I.
It is unclear how much the Hunt family’s lottery tickets raised, but the 2023 event overall raised £40,783 (105 lots), excluding Gift Aid, and more than £50,000 (98 lots) in 2022. This equates to about 12 to 14 per year. cents of the annual total of school fundraisers and voluntary donations.
The auction will include resources such as interactive whiteboards, iPads, after-hours clubs, art and cooking materials, additional reading and science books, ICT programmes, play and sports equipment, music education and specialist dance. Raise funds for the Creative Classroom program. teaching.
Jeremy Hunt and his wife Lucia entertain the winning bidders of a school auction of ‘traditional English tea’ in the House of Commons (Photo: Isabel Infantes/AFP via Getty Images)
The rules of the House of Commons provide that MPs are provided with a range of facilities and services to assist them in their work, and that their costs may be fully subsidized or subsidized by public funds.
Members of Congress are not permitted to use these facilities or services for any purpose other than supporting the work of Congress. The Commissioner can initiate investigations in response to complaints or self-inquiries by members and decide on sanctions for violations of the Code.
It is understood Mr Hunt paid for the tea with the successful bidder but did not claim the cost as public money.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “Mr Hunt was not seeking personal gain, he was simply trying to support his child’s primary school.”
“He referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Committee and apologized for any inadvertent breaches of rules.”
A detailed handbook provided to MPs with the code of conduct, along with provisions against misuse of facilities and resources, states: “Members should not offer tours of the House of Commons in raffles, auctions, etc. Tours of the Houses of Parliament, which would otherwise be free, should not be offered as prizes in raffles or auctions under any circumstances. .”
Since May 2019, the Parliamentary Standards Committee has reprimanded four MPs – Ruth Cadbury, George Freeman, Caroline Lucas and Kate Osamor – for offering access to the House of Commons and its facilities as auction prizes. Ta.
The auction of “traditional British tea” in the House of Commons, even for the benefit of a charity or school, appears to break the rules in two ways.
Firstly, this means some form of tour of the premises in exchange for money, and secondly, it means that the catering facilities provided to MPs on the basis of the grant are not intended for carrying out parliamentary duties. This means that it is used to collect funds for parliamentary activities, rather than for the purpose of External organization.
While MPs may argue, as Conservative MP George Freeman did in 2020, that supporting school funding in their constituency is related to their parliamentary duties, Mr Hunt The constituency of Southwest Surrey is 60 miles from the school.
The brochure for last November’s event told bidders: Fundraising events like the Promise Auction make a huge difference to the curriculum and experiences we can offer our children. ”
Over the years, the school’s annual auction has included prizes such as the Henley Royal Regatta, horse racing at Windsor, a swim and tea at the exclusive Hurlingham Club, lunch or dinner at the three-star Michelin Fat Duck in Berkshire, and a five-night stay. Ticket included. Breakfast in a chalet in the French Alps, a champagne breakfast for two at the Tiffany Blue Box Cafe in Harrods, 250mg of Exmoor caviar that retails for £350 in stores.
During the 2022/23 financial year, the school generated £340,000 in donations and voluntary funding.
The school is a self-supporting state school and parents have been told that their fundraising support is essential to enriching the school’s curriculum, which is not possible with core funding alone.
A Labor Party spokesperson said: “Whether the Prime Minister breached parliamentary rules is for parliamentary authorities to decide.” It is welcome to hear that the Prime Minister has self-reported to Parliament. ”
The standards director declined to comment.
Other examples of legislators being punished for paying bounties
The Green Party’s only MP, Caroline Lucas, was reprimanded for breaching parliamentary rules in 2020 (Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty)
Between May 2019 and June 2020, there were three cases in which the Parliamentary Standards Committee publicly reprimanded MPs for offering access to the House of Commons and its facilities as auction prizes.
– In May 2019, Labor MP Ruth Cadbury and Kate Osamor (now independent) were auctioning off a tour of the House of Commons and tea on the terrace for the latter at a local fundraiser for Mr Cadbury. He received disciplinary action for providing the information to Labor Party.
– In March 2020, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was disciplined after promoting a tour of the House of Commons as a prize in an online crowdfunder event designed to raise campaign funds during the 2019 general election. .
– In July 2020, Conservative MP George Freeman revealed that during a separate investigation into the misuse of House of Commons-issued stationery, Mr Freeman offered local people “Afternoon Tea and a Tour of Parliament” as raffle prizes. The commissioner discovered that he had been providing the service on a regular basis, and he was disciplined. charities and causes in his constituency;
In his findings for Mr Cadbury and Mr Osamor, the Commissioner found that: “Both members acted in breach of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct, which states that ‘Members shall ensure that the use of public resources is always in support of Parliament’s responsibilities.’
“It must not confer an unfair personal or economic advantage on itself or others, or confer an unfair advantage on any political organization.” Tour of the Palace of Westminster and terrace tea raffles and auctions involve the use of publicly provided resources and provide economic benefits to the recipients of the funds raised.”
Secretary Lucas wrote in his letter: “You were able to offer the tour only because your status as a member of Congress gives you and your visitors access to the Capitol.
“Such tours could have been made available free of charge…The detailed regulations do not attempt to provide a complete list of tours that cannot be entered into draws or auctions…These regulations The regulations must be read in light of the overarching requirement that the use of publicly-funded resources by members must not confer an unfair personal or economic advantage on themselves or others. The action of “I won’t.”
The Commissioner told Mr Freeman: “Because your status as a Member of Parliament grants you and your visitors access to Parliament House, which is maintained at public expense, we could only offer the tour as a prize in a lottery.
“The Code of Conduct has long prohibited the use of public funds to “obtain unfair personal or economic advantage to oneself or others.”
“It is my opinion that your actions gave an unfair financial advantage to third parties who were able to raise funds by lottery for access to Parliament. I find this contrary to the Code of Conduct. I’m satisfied.”
As the in-house writer for GallantCEO.com I prefer to remain anonymous as I do not seek anything from my writing only the self gratification of writing for a good cause such as this.
Want to benefit from our PR Services?
PR Services for business professionals to make an impact
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.