Cryptopolitan
--
UK House of Lords member McNicol apologizes for promoting crypto project paying him to Treasury
A House of Lords member, Lord McNicol, has apologized through a letter addressed to the chair of the Lords conduct committee, Lord Kakkar, for breaking the rules of the House by promoting a crypto firm, Astra Protocol, to the Treasury.
Iain McNicol, a former general secretary of the Labour Party, has been found to have breached the rules of the House of Lords by accepting payments to promote a crypto firm, Astra Protocol, in June 2023.
Labour peer McNicol apologizes
Lord Iain McNicol, a Labour peer and the former party general secretary, has issued an “unreserved apology” after it was revealed that he breached the House of Lords code of conduct by accepting payment to promote a cryptocurrency company to the Treasury.
At the time of the incident, McNicol was working as a paid adviser to Astra Protocol. He wrote to officials at HM Treasury in June 2023 to promote the company’s skills in crypto regulation during a formal government consultation.
In the letter, McNicol praised Astra Protocol for assembling an “esteemed team of industry veterans and high-profile political advisers” and warned the Treasury against regulations that could “stifle innovation” in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space.
At that time, Astra Protocol had issued its cryptocurrency token, which later plummeted by over 99% in value. The company was actively seeking to position itself as a key figure in crypto compliance and regulation. McNicol, in his letter, suggested to the Treasury that Astra’s team was “uniquely placed” to advise them on emerging financial technologies and DeFi.
His actions came out after a months-long investigation by The Guardian into the commercial interests of Labour peers in the House of Lords. After his conduct was found out, Lords standards commissioner, Margaret Obi requested a formal inquiry.
Obi concluded that McNicol’s actions were the same as him providing a “paid parliamentary service” which is a clear violation of paragraph 9(d) of the House of Lords code of conduct that forbids peers from profiting from their parliamentary position through advice or services rendered for payment.
Though the breach was considered minor due to the limited nature of the correspondence, the commissioner emphasized that the letter “was a clear example of providing a parliamentary service in return for payment.”
Members of Parliament face stricter financial transparency rules, but Lords are not required to declare how much they earn from any external roles they take on unless they are being paid by foreign governments.
The Lords commissioner stated that while McNicol claimed he was not specifically compensated for the letter he wrote to the Treasury, his regular retainer from Astra implied that the letter was part of his paid services.
“Although the letter responded to the questions posed in HM Treasury’s call for evidence,” Obi wrote in her report, “it was also used to promote the work of Astra Protocol.”
House of Lords member issues letter of apology
Despite concluding that McNicol had breached the rules, the standards commissioner decided not to impose a formal sanction on him. McNicol was instead required to issue a written apology to the chair of the Lords conduct committee, Lord Kakkar.
The lax consequence is due to the commissioner determining that McNicol’s breach was not egregious. The commissioner also pointed out that there was a lack of evidence that McNicol used privileged access or his insider influence as a peer to secure favor for Astra.
In his apology letter, McNicol said, “I would like to offer my full and unreserved apology for breaching the code. I accept the commissioner’s findings in full.”
Many citizens are now debating the adequacy of Lords current conduct rules. They have also noted that the House’s rules are looser compared to those of the Commons.
The complaint against McNicol was submitted by Tom Brake, the director of the pro-democracy campaign group Unlock Democracy and a former Liberal Democrat MP and deputy leader of the House of Commons.
“This case underlines yet again that clearer and tighter rules over Peers’ interests are needed to clear up uncertainty over what is and is not permitted,” Brake said. He also called for reforms to better monitor the paid roles held by Lords and ensure stricter enforcement of transparency and conduct rules.
Two other peers, Lord Evans and Lord Dannatt, are also under investigation following The Guardian’s reporting on commercial links within the House of Lords. Both have denied any wrongdoing.
Your crypto news deserves attention - KEY Difference Wire puts you on 250+ top sites
Iain McNicol, a former general secretary of the Labour Party, has been found to have breached the rules of the House of Lords by accepting payments to promote a crypto firm, Astra Protocol, in June 2023.
Labour peer McNicol apologizes
Lord Iain McNicol, a Labour peer and the former party general secretary, has issued an “unreserved apology” after it was revealed that he breached the House of Lords code of conduct by accepting payment to promote a cryptocurrency company to the Treasury.
At the time of the incident, McNicol was working as a paid adviser to Astra Protocol. He wrote to officials at HM Treasury in June 2023 to promote the company’s skills in crypto regulation during a formal government consultation.
In the letter, McNicol praised Astra Protocol for assembling an “esteemed team of industry veterans and high-profile political advisers” and warned the Treasury against regulations that could “stifle innovation” in the decentralized finance (DeFi) space.
At that time, Astra Protocol had issued its cryptocurrency token, which later plummeted by over 99% in value. The company was actively seeking to position itself as a key figure in crypto compliance and regulation. McNicol, in his letter, suggested to the Treasury that Astra’s team was “uniquely placed” to advise them on emerging financial technologies and DeFi.
His actions came out after a months-long investigation by The Guardian into the commercial interests of Labour peers in the House of Lords. After his conduct was found out, Lords standards commissioner, Margaret Obi requested a formal inquiry.
Obi concluded that McNicol’s actions were the same as him providing a “paid parliamentary service” which is a clear violation of paragraph 9(d) of the House of Lords code of conduct that forbids peers from profiting from their parliamentary position through advice or services rendered for payment.
Though the breach was considered minor due to the limited nature of the correspondence, the commissioner emphasized that the letter “was a clear example of providing a parliamentary service in return for payment.”
Members of Parliament face stricter financial transparency rules, but Lords are not required to declare how much they earn from any external roles they take on unless they are being paid by foreign governments.
The Lords commissioner stated that while McNicol claimed he was not specifically compensated for the letter he wrote to the Treasury, his regular retainer from Astra implied that the letter was part of his paid services.
“Although the letter responded to the questions posed in HM Treasury’s call for evidence,” Obi wrote in her report, “it was also used to promote the work of Astra Protocol.”
House of Lords member issues letter of apology
Despite concluding that McNicol had breached the rules, the standards commissioner decided not to impose a formal sanction on him. McNicol was instead required to issue a written apology to the chair of the Lords conduct committee, Lord Kakkar.
The lax consequence is due to the commissioner determining that McNicol’s breach was not egregious. The commissioner also pointed out that there was a lack of evidence that McNicol used privileged access or his insider influence as a peer to secure favor for Astra.
In his apology letter, McNicol said, “I would like to offer my full and unreserved apology for breaching the code. I accept the commissioner’s findings in full.”
Many citizens are now debating the adequacy of Lords current conduct rules. They have also noted that the House’s rules are looser compared to those of the Commons.
The complaint against McNicol was submitted by Tom Brake, the director of the pro-democracy campaign group Unlock Democracy and a former Liberal Democrat MP and deputy leader of the House of Commons.
“This case underlines yet again that clearer and tighter rules over Peers’ interests are needed to clear up uncertainty over what is and is not permitted,” Brake said. He also called for reforms to better monitor the paid roles held by Lords and ensure stricter enforcement of transparency and conduct rules.
Two other peers, Lord Evans and Lord Dannatt, are also under investigation following The Guardian’s reporting on commercial links within the House of Lords. Both have denied any wrongdoing.
Your crypto news deserves attention - KEY Difference Wire puts you on 250+ top sites
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No financial advice. May include sponsored content. See T&Cs.