APPENDIX 1
Memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Complaint against Dr John Reid and Mr John Maxton
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1. On 26 January 2000 I received complaints
from Mr Dean Nelson, a journalist, against Dr John Reid, Member
for Hamilton North and Bellshill and Mr John Maxton, Member for
Glasgow Cathcart.
The complaints
2. In his letter of 26 January (Annex 1),
Mr Nelson alleged that Dr Reid and Mr Maxton had "misled
the Fees Office and abused public money by using Westminster allowances
to pay full-time campaigners in Labour`s Scottish Parliament election
campaign". Mr Nelson said:
"I`m reliably informed that Reid then offered
to transfer his son Kevin to the campaign to help out. Kevin was
not doing much, he said. He could help the campaign and Reid `would
find a way of paying him`. Although the offer was made to McKinney,
the details of the arrangement were worked out between Alex Rowley
and John Reid."[53]
Mr Nelson also said:
"Chris Winslow was paid by John Maxton MP,
who also later paid Suzanne Hilliard".
And he added:
"I have spoken to many senior Labour officials
and politicians to confirm the truth of the arrangements described
above. I`ve agreed to protect their identities, but they will
give evidence in court if Reid or Maxton or if called by you [sic].
All the interviews were recorded on tape.
It is clear that the party officials named above
and Donald Dewar were all aware of these arrangements at various
times. It is important to establish when Donald Dewar, now First
Minister of Scotland but still a Westminster MP, knew about the
arrangement. It was he who signed the statutory order requiring
parties to submit all election expenditure, and secured funding
for the Scottish Election Commission which monitored election
funding. These arrangements were not declared to the SEC or to
the Secretary of State for Scotland who was responsible for monitoring
election spending. The Secretary of State at the time was John
Reid, clearly with a conflict of interest."
3. The campaigners referred to by Mr Nelson
are Dr Reid`s son, Mr Kevin Reid, Ms Suzanne Hilliard, and Mr
Chris Winslow. During the period covered by the complaint (which
corresponds roughly to the year preceding the elections to the
Scottish Parliament in May 1999), Mr Reid and Ms Hilliard worked
successively as Parliamentary researchers for Dr Reid, while Mr
Winslow fulfilled the same function for Mr Maxton. From June 1999
he was followed in that post by Ms Hilliard.
4. Specifically, Mr Nelson`s complaint was
that Dr Reid and Mr Maxton made an arrangement to draw upon their
House of Commons Office Costs Allowance to pay salaries to the
three researchers, knowing that they, in effect, would be paying
for at least some of the paid hours the researchers were working
for the Labour Party. Moreover, particularly during the formal
election campaign itself, the researchers` efforts on behalf of
the Party involved so many additional hours of work that they
could not (and in fact did not) fulfil the responsibilities to
the House of Commons for which they were paid. According to Mr
Nelson, therefore, Dr Reid and Mr Maxton were parties to an arrangement
to divert public money to party political purposes in breach of
the rules governing the use to which the Office Costs Allowance
may be put.[54]
5. Mr Nelson provided me with notes of his
own conversations with officials of the Labour Party in Scotland
without revealing their identifies. He also provided notes of
his conversation with Ms Hilliard and I listened to tapes of his
interviews.
6. I was satisfied, having studied Mr Nelson`s
letter and the information included with it[55],
that, in accordance with paragraph 69 of the Code of Conduct and
Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, "sufficient
evidence" had been "tendered in support of the complaint
to justify [my] taking the matter further." I asked Mr Nelson
to identify those who had answered his questions but, as a journalist,
he said he must protect their identities. In his initial letter
he said he was confident that, if I called for information from
those who had knowledge of the alleged arrangement, some of them
at least would tell me the truth. At my request he agreed that
he would provide me with the tapes of his interviews if I identified
any individuals who gave me what appeared to be information at
variance with the account they had given to him.
7. I have not thought it appropriate to
take up two aspects of Mr Nelson`s letter of 26 January, relating
respectively to the role of Mr Dewar in establishing the arrangements
for regulating the conduct of the Scottish Parliamentary elections
and to an alleged conflict of interest on the part of Dr Reid
in his function of "monitoring election spending". These
are not matters for me as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
but fall within the responsibilities of others, including the
Scottish Election Commission.
The initial responses of Dr Reid and Mr Maxton
8. In letters dated 14 February 2000 (Annex
8) and 2 March 2000 (Annex 40) respectively, Dr Reid and Mr Maxton
categorically rejected the complaint, claiming that it was groundless
and motivated by malice. In particular they maintained that the
three researchers had fully met their Parliamentary obligations,
whatever additional work they might have done for the Labour Party.
Dr Reid added that the complaint was "an assertion by a person
without direct knowledge and without access to the means for direct
knowledge". He added "[Mr Reid and Ms Hilliard] were
paid for work for me which they did to my satisfaction. Indeed,
at a time of some considerable personal difficulties, I went out
of my way to try to ensure that not only were the proprieties
observed, but were seen to be observed".
Approach and methodology of the investigation
9. Although Mr Nelson`s complaint was supported
by notes and tape recordings of his own conversations with a number
of people involved in the Labour Party`s campaign for the Scottish
Parliament elections, I have relied (except where otherwise indicated)
only on the first-hand evidence of witnesses whom I myself interviewed
or who supplied me with information in writing.
10. In the course of investigating the complaints
I wrote to: Dr Reid and Mr Maxton; Mr Kevin Reid, Ms Hilliard
and Mr Winslow; Mr Alex Rowley (General Secretary of the Scottish
Labour Party between May 1998 and May 1999); Mr John Rafferty
(Labour Party Campaign Co-ordinator between January 1999 and May
1999); Mr Paul McKinney (Labour Party Director of Communications
in Scotland in April and May 1998); Mr Willie Sullivan (Scottish
Development Officer for the Labour Party between August 1998 and
December 1999); Ms Lesley Quinn (General Secretary of the Scottish
Labour Party since June 1999); Ms Annmarie Whyte (Office Manager,
Scottish Labour Party headquarters); Mr Jonathan Upton (Director
of Personnel for the Labour Party); Mr Donald Dewar (First Minister
in the Scottish Executive); Mr John McLaren (a senior member of
staff at Scottish Labour Party headquarters until May 1999); and
Northern Rock plc. I also obtained information from the House
of Commons Director of Finance and Administration and from the
Accountant.[56]
11. The procedure laid down by the House of Commons
for the investigation of complaints requires me to establish the
facts on the basis of the evidence submitted to me and to report
those facts, together with my conclusions on them, to the Standards
and Privileges Committee. The procedure is not an adversarial
one: there is no prosecution and no defence. By the same token,
the standard of proof I have adopted is the balance of probability
which the Committee in the past has considered appropriate for
a Parliamentary, as opposed to a judicial, inquiry.
12. Formally, Mr Nelson`s allegations constitute
separate complaints against two individual Members. Each of the
two Members has expressed concern that during the course of my
enquiries some personal information about him has been disclosed
to the other and Mr Maxton has requested that two separate reports
should be compiled on the complaints relating to Dr Reid and himself.
I have concluded, however, in view of the common background and
the intertwined nature of much of the evidence—involving
essentially the same set of witnesses—that I should make
a single, combined report to the Committee. However, to avoid
any perception of injustice to either Dr Reid or Mr Maxton I have
provided separate conclusions in summary form in relation to each
Member.[57]
The relevant rules and guidance
13. The Resolution of the House of Commons relating
to the Office Costs Allowance (OCA), passed on 21 July 1987, states
that:
"the allowance payable to a Member of this
House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for
his parliamentary duties—
(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred
in the purchase of office equipment),
(ii) on secretarial assistance, and
(iii)on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper
performance of such duties,
shall be known as the Office Costs Allowance."
14. The Green Book (Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances
and Pensions), which is issued to all Members, states at page
15:
"To qualify for OCA, any expenditure
must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the
performance of parliamentary duties.[58]
This is a strict and long-established rule approved by successive
Speakers. You cannot therefore claim for expenditure which is
personal or party-political".
15. The Code of Conduct for Members contains
the following provision:
"No improper use shall be made of any
payment or allowance made to Members for public purposes and the
administrative rules which apply to such payments and allowances
must be strictly observed."
16. According to the House of Commons Fees Office,
all Members` staff paid through the Office Costs Allowance are
required to have a contract of employment and a job description,
both of which are available in a standard form (Annex 203), though
Members are not obliged to use these forms.
17. In its Fifth Report of Session 1999-2000,[59]
the Committee stated:
"Members have a duty of accountability under
the Code of Conduct and `must submit themselves to whatever
scrutiny is appropriate to their office`. The Commissioner can
only perform her duty, which is to investigate complaints against
Members thoroughly and impartially, if she is in possession of
a full and frank explanation of the relevant circumstances. This
may involve the disclosure in confidence to the Commissioner of
relevant details of a Member`s personal and financial arrangements
which the Member in question would prefer to remain private."
53 For a list of all the persons mentioned in this memorandum,
see Attachment 1. For a chronology of events, see Attachment
2. Back
54 See
paragraphs 13 and 15. Back
55 See
paragraph 2. Back
56 See
Attachment 1. Back
57 See
paragraphs 287 and 288. Back
58 Emphasis
added. Back
59 HC
260 Back
| 
