Annex 205
Letter to the Registrar of Members` Interests
from Mr Andrew Walker, Director of Finance and Administration,
House of Commons
Thank you for your letter of 4 May concerning the
factual information the Commissioner requires to enable her to
carry out her investigation into the allegations against Dr John
Reid MP and John Maxton MP. For ease of reference I am responding
in the same order as your questions in the second page of your
letter.
(i) The salary payments made by the Fees Office,
in accordance with the written authorities from the Members concerned,
between the months of April 1998 and June 1999 were as follows:
Chris Winslow
£550 per month in respect of John
Maxton MP for the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999.
Kevin Reid
£850 per month from 1 April 1998 to
31 October 1998 working for Dr John Reid. (Reid was also employed
by Dr John Reid on several occasions prior to this period. Please
let me know if you require information about these.)
The amounts paid to Winslow and Reid coincide with
the tabular information supplied with your letter. Both of the
employments were supported by standard contracts of employment
indicating that they were part-time researchers working 20 hours
per week.
(i) and (ii) The extant Resolution
of the House on the OCA—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,
should be known as the office costs allowance;"
The Green Book (Parliamentary
Salaries, Allowances and Pensions) states, at page 15, that:
"To qualify for OCA,
any expenditure must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily
in the performance of parliamentary duties. This is a strict
and long-established rule approved by successive Speakers. You
cannot therefore claim for expenditure that is personal or party-political."
(iv) It is not unusual to include a payment in lieu
of notice provision in a contract of employment used by Members
e.g. the standard form of employment contract provided by the
Fees Office contains such provision, and this is the contract
under which both Reid and Winslow were employed. Even where there
is no such specific provision in the employment contract (eg as
in the case of the contract recommended by the T and G union)
that does not necessarily prevent such a payment being made. Where
the provision does apply it could result, for a short period,
in a researcher drawing salaries in respect of more than one Member
at the same time. This would not be unusual in that it is perfectly
acceptable for an individual employee to work for more than one
Member at one time. Each is viewed as a separate employment.
(v) As we have not seen any of the documentation
from the SLP, it is difficult to hazard a guess as to the reason
for the differences. It is possible, for example, that one set
of figures includes employers` NICs and/or pension contributions,
and the other does not.
(vi) Other than the fact that the details of the
salaries which Reid and Winslow received from their part-time
employment with John Reid MP and John Maxton MP appear in SLP
documents, we have seen no evidence about any assumptions that
the SLP might have made about taking advantage of their OCA salaries
to "top up" their Labour Party salaries.
Kevin Reid`s Labour Party salary in October 1998
appears to have been calculated as follows: half a month at the
lower rate and half at the higher (ie {£333/2} + {£1510/2}
= £921.50). If the "top up" principle existed then
the SLP would surely have used this to reduce their salary payment
to Kevin Reid in October to £660, rather than pay £922.
Winslow`s Labour Party salary doubled in November
1998, suggesting that whatever hours he was contracted to provide
for the Party prior to this time had been doubled. Our records
show that he continued to work a 20-hour week for John Maxton
until the end of May 1999. These were two separate employments
and although it might be that he was working long hours, this
does not in itself lead to the conclusion that his salary from
the Member was a "top up".
As you may be aware, Archie Cameron has spoken to
Dr Reid and Mr Maxton about these employments in the last two
or three months. In early January he was telephoned by a journalist
seeking specific information about Kevin Reid, Chris Winslow and
Suzanne Hilliard, and their employment by Dr Reid and Mr Maxton.
As is normal practice with such enquiries from the media, the
information was refused and it was suggested to the enquirer that
he contact the Members directly. Archie Cameron contacted both
Members and made them aware of the journalist`s interest in their
employment of Reid, Winslow and Hilliard and to expect him to
make contact with them in due course about he information he was
seeking. In late January Dr Reid contacted the Fees Office to
request copies of the contracts of Reid and Winslow, which were
supplied. He subsequently requested a copy of the Office Costs
Allowance rules. Archie Cameron recalls that he gave Roger Willoughby
a brief outline of these events and that it was possible that
they might result in a formal complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards in due course.
In summary, the evidence we have seen from our own
records and our dealings with Dr Reid and Mr Maxton is consistent
with the proper and acceptable use of the Office Costs Allowance.
8 May 2000
| 
