Hunt faces probe for auctioning 'Tea in Commons' to parents at children's school

Jeremy Hunt faces a Parliamentary investigation for breaking MPs’ rules by offering access to the House of Commons for school fundraising.

Parents at his children’s school could pay for “traditional English tea for 2-4 people in the House of Commons” with the Chancellor and his wife Lucia.

The prize, which the Chancellor offered three years in a row, was intended to raise money for his children’s primary school in south-west London.

However MPs’ rules explicitly forbid the offering of Commons access for auction or raffle prizes. He faces a formal reprimand and having to apologise to the House of Commons.

After being contacted by i with evidence of the rule breaches, he referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Since 2019, four other MPs have been reprimanded by the standards commissioner and forced to apologise to the Commons after offering similar auction prizes, which are forbidden in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.

Item No.54 in the most recent auction, held in November 2023, was described as a “traditional English tea for 2-4 people in the House of Commons” with the Chancellor and his wife. The listing in the auction programme added that the prize was “donated by the Hunt family” and would be “arranged at a mutually convenient time”.

The prize was advertised under the same terms in the school’s previous two “promise auctions”, held in November 2022 a month after he became chancellor and in October 2021 when he was a backbench MP, according to further brochures seen by i.

While it is not known how much the Hunt family’s lots fetched, the 2023 event as a whole raised £40,783 minus Gift Aid (with 105 lots) and more than £50,000 in 2022 (with 98 lots), which is around 12 to 14 per cent of the school’s annual totals for fundraising and voluntary donations.

The auctions raise funds for the school’s “Creative Classrooms” programme including resources such as interactive whiteboards, iPads, out of hours clubs, art and cooking materials, extra reading and science books, ICT programmes, play and sports equipment, music teaching and specialist dance teaching.

House of Commons rules state that, in order to support them in their jobs, MPs are provided with various facilities and services, the costs of which are either met in full or subsidised by public funds.

MPs are not permitted to use those facilities and services for purposes other than to support their parliamentary duties. The commissioner begins investigations in response to complaints or self-referral by MPs and can decide on sanctions for breaches of the code.

It is understood that Mr Hunt paid for the teas with the winning bidders and did not claim for the costs on his official expenses.

A spokesman for the Chancellor said: “Mr Hunt was simply trying to support his child’s primary school for no personal gain.

“He has referred himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and apologised if any inadvertent breach of the rules took place.”

The detailed handbook provided to MPs alongside the Code of Conduct spells out that, in line with the stipulations against misuse of facilities and resources: “Members must not offer tours of the House … in raffles or auctions. Tours on the parliamentary estate which would otherwise be available at nil cost … should under no circumstances be offered as raffle or auction prizes.”

Since May 2019, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has reprimanded four MPs – Ruth Cadbury, George Freeman, Caroline Lucas and Kate Osamor, for providing access to the House of Commons and its facilities as an auction prize.

Auctioning “a traditional English tea in the House of Commons” – even for the benefit of a charity or a school – appears to fall foul of the rules in two ways.

Firstly, it implies some form of tour of the estate exchanged in return for money and, secondly, it involves using the catering facilities provided to MPs on a subsidised basis, not for the intended purpose of exercising their parliamentary duties, but to raise money for an external organisation.

An MP might claim that helping to raise funds for a school in their own constituency is related to their Parliamentary duties – as Conservative MP George Freeman did in 2020 – but Mr Hunt’s South West Surrey constituency is 40 miles away from the school.

The brochure for last November’s event told bidders: “We do not have the funds to pay for the many extra resources and experiences we wish to provide our children as part of their educational experience. Fundraising events, such as the Promises Auction, make a real difference to the curriculum and experiences we can offer our children.”

Over the years, other lots at the school’s annual auction have included tickets for the Henley Royal Regatta, Horse Racing at Windsor, swimming and tea at the exclusive Hurlingham Club, lunch or dinner at the three Michelin-starred Fat Duck in Berkshire, five nights in an alpine chalet in the French Alps, a champagne breakfast for two at Tiffany’s Blue Box Café in Harrods, and 250mg of Exmoor Cavier that sells for £350 in stores.

During its financial year 2022/23 the school generated £340,000 in donations and voluntary funding.

The school is a voluntary-aided state school, where parents are told that their support for fundraising efforts is essential to provide enrichments to the school curriculum that would not be possible through core funding grant alone.

A spokesman for Labour said: “Whether the Chancellor has breached parliamentary rules is a determination for the parliamentary authorities. It is welcome to hear that the Chancellor has self-reported to Parliament.”

The Standards Commissioner declined to comment.

Other examples where MPs were punished over paid for prizes

Between May 2019 and June 2020, there were three cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards publicly reprimanded MPs for providing access to the House of Commons and its facilities as an auction prize.

– In May 2019, Labour MPs Ruth Cadbury and Kate Osamor (now an independent) were reprimanded after the former offered up a tour of the House of Commons and tea on the terrace with the latter as an auction prize at a fundraiser for Ms Cadbury’s local Labour party.

– In March 2020, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was reprimanded after advertising a tour of the House of Commons as a prize in an online Crowdfunder event designed to raise funds for her campaign during the 2019 general election.

– In July 2020, Conservative MP George Freeman was reprimanded when – during a separate investigation into his misuse of House-provided stationery – the Commissioner found that Mr Freeman had regularly offered “Afternoon Tea and Tour of Parliament with George” as raffle prizes for local charities and good causes in his constituency.

 In his conclusion on Ms Cadbury and Ms Osamor the Commissioner found: “Both Members acted in breach of the Code of Conduct for Members which says that ‘Members shall ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties’.

“It should not confer any undue personal advantage or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else, or confer undue advantage on a political organisation. Raffling or auctioning a tour of the Palace of Westminster and tea on the terrace entails the use of publicly provided resources and results in financial advantage to the recipients of the funds raised.”

In a letter Ms Lucas, the Commissioner wrote: “You were able to offer the tour only because your status as a Member allows you, and your visitors, access to the parliamentary estate.

“You could have made such a tour available without charge … The detailed rules do not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of tours that cannot be raffled or auctioned … These rules must be read in light of the over-arching requirement contained in the Code of Conduct, which is that a Member’s use of publicly funded resources ‘should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else’.”

The Commissioner told Mr Freeman: “You were only able to offer the tour as a raffle prize because your status as a Member allows you, and your visitors, access to the parliamentary estate, which is maintained by the public purse.

“The Code of Conduct has long prohibited using publicly funded resources to ‘confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else’.

“It is my opinion that your actions have provided an undue financial benefit on third parties who were able to raise funds by raffling access to Parliament. I am satisfied that this is contrary to the Code of Conduct.”