APPENDIX
Memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Complaints against Mr Nigel Griffiths
I Background
Mr Griffiths' Register entry
1. Mr Nigel Griffith's entry in the Register
of Members' Interests published on 26 November 2001 read 'Nil'.
II First complaint by Mrs Jacqui Lait MP
2. On 31 October 2001 Mrs Jacqui Lait, MP, Shadow
Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote to me asking me to investigate
a claim that Mr Nigel Griffiths MP, Member for Edinburgh South,
had used his office as a campaign base without informing the Fees
Office. She acknowledged that he had apologised for this in relation
to the 2001 General Election campaign but suggested he had used
it for political purposes on other occasions and asked whether
financial reparation was due (Annex A).
3. On 31 October 2001 articles appeared in The
Scotsman and The Edinburgh Evening News alleging that
Mr Nigel Griffiths had been using his constituency office, in
respect of which he claimed from the House of Commons Office Costs
Allowance, for election campaigning, and that in so doing he had
breached the rules of the House of Commons.
4. The Evening News made the following
comment on 31 October 2001:
"By reimbursing the House of Commons fees
office he has kept within the rules, but politics is as much about
perception as it is reality and these claims expose how easily
the present rules can be misinterpreted..."
and The Scotsman on the same date published
the following:
"A senior official in the Fees Office explained
yesterday: 'The Office Cost Allowances has to fund the setting-up
and running costs of an office.
It doesn't include party political activities
such as campaigning or fund-raising, and it doesn't include personal
business..."
5. On the same day, Mr Griffiths issued a statement
as follows (Annex B):
"The House of Commons Fees Office funds only
a portion of Nigel Griffiths' constituency office costs. Mr Griffiths
has spoken to the Fees Office this morning and they have confirmed
that in the last financial year he paid the Fees Office over £10,000
from his salary towards the running costs of his constituency
office - equivalent to over half of the office's actual non-staff
cost for the year. Mr Griffiths will be making a contribution
again this year, as he has done in previous years.
Mr Griffiths' contribution towards the running
costs of his constituency office is more than sufficient to cover
the cost of its use for short periods of political activity. Mr
Griffiths has apologised for not notifying the Fees Office in
advance of its use on that basis."
Preliminary inquiries
6. On 5 November 2001 I wrote to Mr Griffiths
to inform him of the complaint and requested his response (Annex
C):
7. My office asked Mr Griffiths if he would like
the complaint letter to be faxed to him and he immediately telephoned
me to say that he was aware the matter had been run in The
Scotsman and that he had "given information to the
press which made his position clear".
8. On 5 November 2001 Mr Griffiths wrote to me
to give me information about this matter and a draft response.
He asked me to let him know if I needed further information to
be included in his letter. He enclosed a copy of his press statement
of 31 October 2001 (Annex D).
9. On 7 November 2001 Mr Griffiths telephoned
me saying that the Fees Office records older than three years
would take time to retrieve and asking me if I would like an interim
answer. I told him that he should urge the Fees Office to make
the retrieval a priority as he needed to provide me with a complete
answer. He also asked me to consider if there was anything else
he needed to include in his draft beyond what was already there
and I undertook to look carefully at the draft and let him know
(Annex E).
10. Later that day Mr Griffiths telephoned me
again and I suggested that when he finalised the draft he addressed
the question of whether the contributions he had made covered
all the years in which he used his office for political activity,
and make clear on what basis and for what purpose he made the
contribution (Annex E1).
Mr Griffith's response
11. On 9 November 2001, Mr Griffiths replied
to me (Annex F). He:
— reiterated that he had apologised to
the Fees Office for using his constituency office during the election
without their permission
— said that in almost every year since
he was elected he had contributed several thousands of pounds
to the costs of running his office
— drew my attention to the Fees Office
approval of his press statement and said that Mr Cameron, head
of the Fees Office of the House of Commons (which administers
Members' allowances) had confirmed that a substantial proportion
of his non-staff costs in the last year had been met by him and
not by Parliament and that he himself was confident that his own
contribution to the office costs allowance in previous years included
all occasions when the office had been used for political work
— accepted that he had used the office
for political work without informing the Fees Office
— rejected the allegation that he had failed
to reimburse the Fees Office for political use of his constituency
office, explaining that to cover 1999, 2000 and part of 2001 he
had paid £21,392 towards the cost of his office and had contributed
thousands of pounds in previous years
— explained that the Fees Office had no
set formula for splitting political costs from non-political costs
with reference to office costs
— said that he considered it impractical
to disaggregate the costs involved but that he was confident that
his contribution covered a fair proportion all the costs associated
with running his office and that he had indeed over-contributed
— invited me to verify the information
with the Fees Office.
12. On 12 November 2001 I wrote to Mrs Lait sending
her copies of Mr Griffiths's statement and letter in response
to my inquiry and saying that unless she had information which
was at variance with that provided by Mr Griffiths I was not of
the view that any investigation was warranted in this instance
(Annex G). I copied the letter to Mr Griffiths.
13. On the same day I also wrote to Mr Griffiths
saying that unless Mrs Lait had further information to provide
I was not of the view that any investigation was warranted in
this instance (Annex H).
14. On 19 November 2001 Mrs Lait wrote to me
to say that she welcomed the reassurance my letter had provided
and that she was sure that Mr Griffiths would inform the newspaper
which had raised the allegations of my view (Annex I).
15. I acknowledged Mrs Lait's letter on 21 November
2001, and wrote to Mr Griffiths copying Mrs Lait's letter to him
and saying him that in the light of her response I regarded the
matter as closed.
Mr Griffith's new Register entry
16. On 8 December Mr Griffiths wrote to the Registrar
of Members' Interests as follows (Annex J):
"I am writing to seek your guidance. In 1997
I purchased an office at 31 Minto Street as a base for my constituency
office on one of Edinburgh's busiest bus routes in the constituency.
The purchase was registered in my name and available publicly
as is required the law in Scotland.
The House Commons has been paying me a commercial
rent.
Is there a requirement to register this as an
interest, and if so, in what form?
Since 1999, my local Member of the Scottish Parliament
has been paying me the equivalent of approximately £1,200
per year in return for displaying details of his surgeries and
activities, a telephone for his exclusive use and storage space.
I also have received occasional payments of small sums when a
room is used by local trade union committees.
Again, I welcome your guidance on whether there
is a requirement to register these, and if so, in what form?"
III Second complaint from Mrs Jacqui Lait
MP and complaint from Mr Pete Wishart MP
17. On 10 December 2001 I received two letters
drawing my attention to articles which had appeared in the Scottish
press over the weekend suggesting that Mr Griffiths owned the
premises he used as his constituency office but claimed rent on
it from the Office Costs Allowance of the House of Commons and
paid this into a bank account for the benefit of his disabled
sister.
18. Mrs Jacqui Lait wrote to me again on 10 December
2001 about Mr Griffiths as follows: (Annex K)
"Further to your letter of 12 November regarding
Nigel Griffiths, you will remember that you felt that no further
investigation was warranted but asked me if I had anything further
to put to you regarding this matter.
I enclose an article from the Sunday Herald which
is representative of many newspaper reports in Scotland over the
weekend."
19. Mr Peter Wishart MP, Scottish National Party
Chief Whip, also wrote to me on 10 December 2001 as follows (Annex
L):
"I am writing to you requesting a full standards
investigation by your office into the failure by Edinburgh South
MP and DTI Minister Mr Nigel Griffiths to register his interest
in the ownership of his constituency office, and allegations of
misuse of House of Commons allowances.
I enclose the newspaper articles from the Scottish
Mail on Sunday and Scotland on Sunday (9/12/01), detailing this
latest problem of Labour MPs and their expenses."
20. On 11 December 2001 I wrote to Mr Griffiths
drawing his attention to the further complaints I had received
and asking for his response (Annex M).
Advice from the Registrar
21. On 11 December 2001 Mr Griffiths telephoned
the Registrar of Members' Interests about his letter of 8 December.
The Registrar advised him that the property and the rental income
he received from the Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) were
registrable, though his claim against the Office Costs Allowance
was not. The Registrar explained that any complaint would be examined
by me and decided on by the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Mr Griffiths was further advised to check the terms of his rental
agreement with the Fees Office and he confirmed that he had already
done so.
22. The Registrar wrote on the same day to Mr
Griffiths confirming that the rules required the registration
of "any land or property, other than any home used for
the personal residential purposes of the Member or the Member's
spouse, which has a substantial income or from which a substantial
income is derived". The Registrar advised that the property
should be registered, suggested a suitable form of words for the
entry and confirmed that Mr Griffiths had said that he had already
discussed the rental arrangements with the Fees Office (Annex N).
23. On receipt of this letter by fax, Mr Griffiths
telephoned the Registrar giving further details and offering to
fax a copy of his agreement with the Member of the Scottish Parliament,
which he then did.
24. The Registrar replied by a second letter
later that day thanking Mr Griffiths for the copy of the agreement
with the MSP (Annex O) and explaining that a one-off payment was
regarded as rental income and was therefore registrable, and suggested
an alternative form of words making clear the nature of the payment.
25. On the same day, 11 December 2001, Mr Griffiths
wrote to me (Annex P) in response to my letter of the same day,
acknowledging his failure to register the ownership of property
or rent in the Register of Members' Interests. He said that in
compliance with the law of Scotland the ownership had always been
in the public domain but the rental income had not, and that he
had consulted the Registrar and that day amended his entry accordingly.
He added that he had been discussing the matter with the Fees
Office and had given the Head of the Fees Office a full explanation
(Annex Q). He said he hoped to have a response from the Head of
the Fees Office the next day and would wish to meet me thereafter.
26. The Fees Office sent Mr Griffiths a summary
of the payments made by the Fees Office and his contributions
from 1997-2001.
27. On 11 December Mr Griffiths wrote to the
Head of the Fees Office as follows:
"I am grateful to your staff for sending
me the summary of payments made by the Fees Office and additional
financial contributions from me covering 1997 to 2001. These confirm
that from 1996/7 to 2000/01 I funded from my own income, the Office
Costs Allowance by £31,392.14p.
Further to our discussion earlier today, I am
faxing separately the valuation undertaken by Shepherds for me
of the rental value of 31 Minto Street. Shepherds is one of the
largest chartered surveyors in Scotland. This gives an estimated
rental value of £12,000 pa from 1997 on a five year lease.
Can I remind you that I bought the office from my own personal
funds at no charge on the Fees Office. The purchase price was
funded entirely by myself—from a legacy left by my late
father.
The charge to the House of Commons was £2,000
below this, so the saving to the taxpayer for this arrangement
over a standard five year lease period is approximately £10,000.
I hope this makes clear the level of rent was
not excessive.
I am also faxing the details of the payment of
£5,500 in March 2000 and the agreement with my Member of
The Scottish Parliament to cover the Scottish Parliamentary term.
This was what he submitted to his authorities at the time. Part
of this sum has already been spent on the area being used by the
MSP and the remainder is to contribute towards a major refurbishment
of the property planned for the new year.
Taken in full, my contribution of £31,000,
the sums for interim repairs and up to £15,000 for major
repairs, gives a contribution of more than £45,000 from 1996/7.
To sum up, I have received the sum of £40,000
from the fees office in rental for my constituency office, approximately
£8,000 less than what would have been the commercial rental
charge for a similar property in the area.
I also received the one-off payment of £5,500
from the Member of the Scottish Parliament. During the same period,
I have contributed from my own income £31,392.14p towards
my office costs and I am about to embark upon a major refurbishment
estimated two months ago at £12,000-£15,000. I have
no plains to increase the rent of this property following refurbishment.
I hope this outlines the position and that I bought
the office accommodation from my own personal funds with no charge
to the Fees Office, that the rental claimed is below normal market
rent and that I have already personally contributed £31,392.14p
to my office costs and I therefore hope you can conclude that
the arrangements I have outlined are satisfactory, but would like
take this opportunity to apologise for not outlining them in detail
earlier."
28. On 12 December 2001, following a visit to
the Fees Office, Mr Griffiths came to see me (Annex R). He told
me that he had talked to one of the members of the Fees Office
staff, to whom he had provided information about the rental arrangements
and the independent valuation, and who had told him that he was
entitled to charge rent and that the rent levels in relation to
the valuation "were fine".
29. Mr Griffiths asked me how long it would take
me to deal with the complaint and I explained that that would
depend on whether the letter he wrote me in response was in sufficient
detail and whether the Fees Office provided me with a letter to
say that they were satisfied with the arrangements and that the
matter had been dealt with satisfactorily. I could not decide
in advance.
30. Mr Griffiths made it clear that he was not
sure that the Fees Office would be able to say that it had all
been dealt with satisfactorily. I advised Mr Griffiths to write
to me dealing with all the matters that had been raised by the
complainants and if necessary by the press. I said that if I thought
the matter had not been dealt with satisfactorily at any point
or there were other reasons why I should make a report to the
Committee I would inform him that was my view. I said that if
I was able to dismiss the matter having completed the preliminary
inquiries I would try to do that before Christmas.
31. In a telephone call later the same day Mr
Griffiths asked me whether he might make a statement. I said that
was a matter for him and that he might wish to say that he had
made a Register entry following advice and that he had put the
matter in the hands of the Fees Office, who had reviewed the situation.
I said that he might also wish to say that he had referred the
Fees Office letter to me and that I was now considering whether
I needed to take the matter further. I explained that whether
he released the Fees Office letter was a matter between him and
the Fees Office but advised caution as the press might suggest
he was trying to forestall my inquiry. He said he understood that.
32. On 12 December 2001 the Head of the Fees
Office wrote to Mr Griffiths (Annex S):
"I note that you own your constituency office
and claim rental for its use from your Office Costs Allowance.
The rent is £10,000 and you have provided proof of a fair
rent of £12,000 as assessed by independent surveyors. I confirm
that on the basis of the information you have provided, the rental
figure is acceptable. You may continue to charge rent at that
rate for the time being, pending any further advice and guidance
to Members which may be issued by this office."
33. On 13 December 2001 Mr Griffiths wrote to
the Registrar accepting her suggested form of words for inclusion
in the next edition of the Register and confirming the advice
he had received that it was not necessary to include a claim against
the Office Costs Allowance.
34. Mr Griffiths' Register entry, dated 13 December
2001, now reads —
"I own a property at 31 Minto Street, Edinburgh,
which I use as my constituency office and in respect of which
I have received a one-off payment from a Member of the Scottish
Parliament for the use of office facilities during the period
of four years. I also received small payments for occasional use
by trade union committees."
35. On 13 December 2001 Mr Griffiths published
the letter from the Fees Office of 11 December with an accompanying
statement as follows (Annex T):
"Mr Griffiths said:
'I am pleased that the House of Commons Fees Office
have concluded that this arrangement is acceptable but I acknowledge
there was an error in failing to register these matters and notify
the relevant House authorities. I have apologised to House of
Commons authorities and have rectified my entry in the Register
of Members' Interests.'
The Small Business Minister Nigel Griffiths MP
today published a letter he has received from the House of Commons
Fees Office confirming that rental arrangements covering his constituency
office are acceptable under current rules.
The letter confirms:
1. the rent figure has been independently
assessed
2. that it is the correct figure
3. that they will continue to pay the rent."
and the notes include:
"— Following the statement from
the Fees Office, Mr Griffiths met Commissioner Elizabeth Filkin
to apologise for non-registration and to confirm that this has
now been rectified. The entry reads: 'I own a property at 31 Minto
Street, Edinburgh which I use as a constituency office and in
respect of which I have received a one-off payment from a Member
of the Scottish Parliament for the use of office facilities during
the period of four years. I also receive small payments for occasional
use by trade union committees.'
— Commissioner Filkin is conducting
her review as she is obliged by the House of Commons to do in
every case where she receives a complaint."
36. On 14 December 2001 Mr Griffiths telephoned
me to discuss the contents of his letter to me (Annex U). We talked
about the details about his register entry he might wish to include
in his letter in order to be clear, and I advised him to ensure
that his letter was comprehensive, reminding him that in due course
it would be made public if I carried out an investigation. I described
my options to him as
— being satisfied that there was nothing
further I needed to do
— asking him further questions
— making a report to the Committee following
an investigation.
Mr Griffiths' response
37. Following our conversation Mr Griffiths sent
me his response letter dated 14 December 2001 (Annex V).
38. On the complaint that he had misused House
of Commons funds, he wrote that he had supplied me with a letter
from the head of the Fees Office (see Annex Q) acknowledging that
he owned the property, confirming that the rent was £10,000
and that Mr Griffiths had provided proof of a fair rent of £12,000
and that, on the basis of the information he had provided, the
rent was acceptable to the Fees Office and the Fees Office would
continue to pay rent at that rate unless the House changed its
rules.
39. Mr Griffiths accepted that he had failed
to register an interest in the ownership of the property (though
he pointed out that the ownership was lodged in the public register
in Scotland according to Scottish law) and told me that he had
now taken advice from the Registrar and amended his entry accordingly
to reflect the ownership of the property and the rental income
he received from a Member of the Scottish Parliament and other
small occasional payments, but not the expenses claimed from the
House of Commons Fees Office.
40. Mr Griffiths added "I do not believe
there are any matters arising from non-registration on which I
could be accused of speaking to the House or outside, or lobbying
or any other Parliament or extra-Parliament activities to influence
the House or its policies in any way— improper or otherwise.
I repeat my regret at my failure to register these matters with
the House authorities at an earlier date and I have apologised
for this."
41. On 16 December 2001 The Mail on Sunday
carried articles referring to further matters concerning Mr Griffiths's
constituency office (Annex W[1])
which said:
"...his failure to disclose the GBP 227,000
fortune his late father left to him ... he was using parliamentary
expenses to benefit his sister ... On Thursday Mr Griffiths admitted
he had made an error and was forced to declare in the House of
Commons Register of Members' Interests that he owns the building.
He claimed the Fees Office had found the rental arrangements 'acceptable'..."
"... Shadow Scottish secretary Jacqui Lait
said: 'Thousands of people in Britain in a similar position are
forced to work hard and scrimp and save to make sure their loved
ones are well look after. They will be aghast that someone who
earns a ministerial salary is seemingly abusing his position.
Mr Griffiths is using smokescreens and mirrors
to benefit his family, however noble the cause. The more that
is revealed about his financial affairs, the more the public regard
the matter as murky.' Mrs Lait said she will be contacting Mrs
Filkin, who is already investigating the matter, to look at his
entry in the register."
42. I wrote to him on 17 December 2001 referring
to the article and asking him if there were any other matters
he would like me to consider when I was reviewing the case (Annex
X).
43. On the same day Mr Griffiths wrote to me
(Annex Y) saying:
"I note from yesterday's Mail on Sunday that
Jacqui Lait MP is referring a legacy I received from my father
to you.
The facts are plain: My father's estate was settled
in 1996 and he left his money to my wife and me, expressing a
desire that certain of [my sister's] needs are met. There is no
formal trust. I do not believe that a legacy from a
parent was or is declarable.
If you require any further information, please
do not hesitate to contact me."
44. I wrote to Mr Griffiths on 18 December 2001
(Annex Z) thanking him for his letter of 17 December 2001. I said
—
— that I had not received any further
complaint
— I was in the process of reviewing the
information before me and would need to make a report to the Standards
and Privileges Committee and would expect to do so early in the
New Year
— I would send him my draft report before
coming to any conclusions to allow him to make further comments
and suggest corrections of fact.
45. I received no further complaint from Mrs
Lait following the publication of the Mail on Sunday article
but for the avoidance of doubt I should say that there is no obligation
on Members of Parliament to register legacies as such. If a legacy
includes any item which is registrable, for example, some properties
or a qualifying shareholding, that interest is registrable in
accordance with the Rules. The significance of Mr Griffiths's
legacy from his father, for the purposes of this inquiry, is that
it enabled Mr Griffiths to buy the property he used as his office.
Because the property purchased with the legacy was not used for
his own, or his spouse's, residential use, it was registrable
once he had purchased it.
46. I wrote to Mr Griffiths on 28 January 2002
asking a number of further questions (Annex AA). Mr Griffiths
replied on 31 January (Annex BB). The questions, and the associated
answers, are set out below.
Q1. "When, and why, the question
of reimbursement to the Fees Office in respect of this use arose
in your mind and how you calculated the appropriate figure?"
A1. "I first
considered this when I was first elected to Parliament back in
1987 when it became clear that over the course of a Parliament
I would be responsible for making a substantial personal contribution
towards the cost of maintaining a front street office for the
first time in this constituency. All my 'research/political' staff
operate from the House of Commons so the Edinburgh office has
always been a 'constituency' office from which little 'political'
work is conducted. A rental charge of £10,000 was set at
£2,000 below the market rate. This allowed for any occasional
use for 'political' purposes like the election campaign. In addition,
in the last 5 years the Fees Office have confirmed that my net
contribution to the costs is £31,000[2],
and as we agreed in November, this alone was considered more than
sufficient to cover any costs associated with the occasional use
for political purposes."
Q2. "How much time did you estimate the
office was used for campaigning purposes?"
A2. "On average
- around 14 days a year. [eg 1997 - 4 weeks: 1999 - 4 weeks: 2001
4 weeks]"
Q3. "In which years you used your office
for campaigning purposes? In each year what sum did you reimburse
to the Fees Office for that use?"
A3. "1997,
1999, 2001. The estimation has always been projected over the
course of a Parliament. In 1996/7 the sum was £10,000; in
1999/2000 and 2000/01 the sum was £21,392 based over the
two financial years of the way the Fees Office operated."
Q4. "You say you bought the property
in 31 Minto Street for use as your constituency office in 1997.
Please would you let me know:
How much you paid for the property in 1997?"
A4. "£68,000
paid for by a legacy from my late father."
Q5. "What were your office arrangements
before you bought the property at Minto Street, and what were
the financial arrangements in respect of them?"
A5. "93 Causewayside
was leased from an Edinburgh property company. It was a full commercial
lease with all repair and maintenance obligations met by the tenant."
Q6. "For each year since 1997 to date,
what sums have you claimed from the Office Costs Allowance in
respect of Minto Street and what have you repaid?"
A6. "£10,000 pa in quarterly payments.
'Repayments:' 1996/7 £10,000; 1999/2000 and 2000/01 £21,392
- the figure covers both financial years."
Q7. "Why did you not register the property
in 1997 when you bought the office at Minto Street, and the rental
income you received from it since that date?"
A7. "The
property transaction and the ownership in my name was registered
publicly in 1997. I mistakenly believed that, since the transaction
involved no commercial third party and therefore could give rise
to no issues of advocacy in Parliament. The same applied to the
payments from an MSP, where I believed there were no possible
advocacy conflicts. The Registrar of Members Interests advised
me that the rental paid by the House of Commons is not registrable.
My latest entry in the Register reflects this and was agreed by
the Registrar."
Q8. "Whether you had read the Fees Office
guidance (in 'Parliamentary Allowances and Salaries') when you
first started claiming what you describe (in your letter to the
Registrar of 8 December) as a 'commercial rent' from the Office
Costs Allowance in respect of the property? At what date were
you first aware of this guidance?"
A8. "I read
the guidance from the Fees Office first in 1987 and I endeavour
to keep abreast of the changes in guidance."
Q9. "Whether you consulted the Fees Office
about what it was appropriate to claim from the Office Costs Allowance
where you owned the property? If so, what advice did you receive
and when did you receive it?"
A9. "I consulted
the Fees Office on 11 December. [Item A]. [See Annex Q] I
enclose the response from the Fees Office on 12 December confirming
their willingness to continue to pay rent. [Item B]. [See
Annex F]"
Q10. "The date you obtained the independent
valuation which gave the appropriate rent for the property? Did
you request the appropriate commercial rental value for the property?
If not, how was your request couched? What was the valuation figure
for the property at that date? Please provide a copy of the valuation
advice."
A10. "The
independent valuation was obtained in December [dated 12 December
2001]. It is based on 'a lease struck in 1997' as the letter
makes clear (para 6). The valuation was £12,000 per annum.
I enclose the letter from Shepherd Chartered Surveyors who are
one of the largest commercial property agents in Scotland. [Item
C]" [Annex EE]
Q11 "You have provided information about
your arrangement with your local Member of the Scottish Parliament.
Please would you let me know:
Whether you
consulted the Fees Office about your arrangement with your local
MSP? If so, what advice did you receive? If not, have you now
done so, and are they content?"
A11. "I set
out the position to the Fees Office on 11 December and it appears
from their letter of the following day, they found the position
satisfactory."
Q12. "You say that your arrangement with
your local MSP began in 1999. Did you have any financial arrangements
with anyone else in respect of their use of the property before
that time (other than the occasional payments from trades union
committees you describe in your Register entry). If so, please
list them by name and set out the sums involved and the period
or periods they covered."
A12. "No."
Q13. "How, and when, did you establish
the appropriate rental contribution from the MSP? Why was it decided
that he would pay you a lump sum to cover several years rather
than making annual payments? Please provide me with all the written
material about this arrangement."
A13. "The
details of the arrangement with the MSP covering both cost and
usage are set out in a letter of 30 March 2000. [Item D] [Annex
FF]. This letter is the only paperwork. My MSP is clear that
the Scottish Parliament authorities agreed it and have it on file.
Like me, the MSP operates over a Parliamentary term and we agreed
this as a fair contribution for the services requested."
Q14. "Did you take account of the payment
from the MSP when calculating the amount you repaid to the Fees
Office?"
A14. "I set
out the position in my letter to you of 9 November 2001[3]
and to the Fees Office on 11 December 2001[4]."
[see Annexes F & Q]
Q15 "You came to see me on 12 December
2001 to discuss these complaints. Please would you clarify one
point for me:
My note of our meeting on 12 December records 'Mr
Griffiths made it clear that he wasn't sure that the Finance Office
would be able to say that it had all been dealt with satisfactorily'.
What led you to say this? What did you think might be a problem
at that time? Have the Fees Office now confirmed that they are
satisfied? Please provide a copy of their letter."
A15. "To
the best of my recollection I advised you what the Fees Office
had told me verbally but undertook to provide you with a letter
confirming this which I did the following day [Item B]."
[see Annex DD]
Q16. "I am afraid that I need also
to ask you some questions about the arrangements you make to support
your sister, in as far as the complaints relate to them:
With their letter of complaints Mrs Lait provided
an article from the Sunday Herald and Mr Wishart those
from the Scottish Mail on Sunday and Scotland on Sunday
dated 9 December 2001. Those articles refer to statements to those
papers.
The quotations from the articles say that
you charge "a market rent to the fees office, payable to
him as owner of the office, for its legitimate use for an MP's
constituency work. He then takes that income and spends it through
the Hansel Village Trust which he jointly controls, on the care
needed for his autistic elder sister..." (Sunday Herald)
and
"He said: 'I sort of own the office but the
Hansel Village Trust has nominal control over it on behalf of
my sister. It generates income for her treats and so on.'
Griffiths confirmed that the money has been used
to send his sister on trips to Northern Ireland, the Scottish
Highlands, the Lake District and London, making use of 'the best
hotels'.
It has also paid for 'televisions and videos - what
creature comforts she needs'. He is now considering buying his
sister a house with the trust income which has also paid for physiotherapy,
a carer and night-classes." (Scotland on Sunday)
and
"...he admitted using Parliamentary expenses
to benefit his family..." "Mr Griffiths admitted the
Hansel Village Trust was set up for the sole purpose of supporting
his handicapped sister. According to strict parliamentary rules,
he should have declared in the House of Commons Register of Members'
Interests that he owned the property..." "last night,
Mr Griffiths said the rental money he received from the Fees Office
would be used next year to buy a house for his sister, who is
mentally handicapped. He also admitted that the money had been
used to pay for her to go on holidays with a carer." (Mail
on Sunday)
Please would you confirm that these quotations are
accurate in every respect and, if so, let me know the period of
time that you have operated this arrangement and the sums involved?
If you have been misquoted please would you let me know the details."
A16. "Scotland
on Sunday failed to report my comments that the rental income
supported both my parliamentary work in the constituency
and my sister via the nominal trust. The Sunday Herald and Mail
on Sunday copied from Scotland on Sunday. I made clear to Scotland
on Sunday that I owned the office. I certainly did not admit using
Parliamentary expenses to benefit my family—this is a distortion.
In summary, I consider that my arrangement a reasonable
one, which provides my constituents with a first class facility
and service, saves the taxpayer £10,000 over the five years
and enables me to fund and provide a higher level of service to
constituents than under the previous arrangement at 93 Causewayside,
and which was not on the main road or disability-friendly."
Q17. Finally, please would you let me know if
there is anything else that, on reflection, you would like to
tell me about your office arrangements, your claims from the Office
Costs Allowance, or indeed any other aspect of your Register entry
so that I may provide the Standards and Privileges Committee with
a complete and accurate account."
A17. Mr Griffiths
made no response to this question.
IV Analysis
The Office Costs Allowance
47. Mr Griffiths claimed rent for his office
from the Office Costs Allowance. The rules governing claims from
this are set out in the Fees Office publication Parliamentary
Salaries and Allowances (known as 'the Green Book'). The allowance
is to be used for office, secretarial and research costs
and may not be used to cover personal or party political expenses
(paragraph 4.5.1).
48. The provisions of the rules regarding claims
for accommodation under the Office Costs Allowance specify that
claims may be made for
— "Cost of equipping an office
including purchase, rental or maintenance of equipment"
— "Day to day running costs, such
as heating, lighting, rates & cleaning"
— "Rental of office accommodation.
Purchase of an office is not regarded as an admissible expense."
(Paragraph 4.5.1)
49. There was at the time of the alleged breaches
of the House's rules by Mr Griffiths no rule prohibiting members
from claiming rent from the Office Costs Allowance for property
they own, though such a rule was promulgated by the Fees Office
to Members on 22 January 2002 and will be in force from March
2003.
50. The Green Book advises Members that "if
there is any doubt about whether an expense may be met from the
allowance" they should contact the help line numbers
for advice (paragraph 5.4.2).
51. During the course of my inquiry earlier in
this session into complaints against Mr Roy Beggs[5]
the Fees Office made it clear that it would be inappropriate for
a Member to claim a commercial rent in relation to property he
or she owned because that would be in effect allowing a Member
to claim a profit from the public purse.
52. Where a Member claims rent from the Office
Costs Allowance the Fees Office ask for a copy of the rental agreement
with the landlord but these are not always provided.
53. Members may claim from the Office Costs Allowance
at such intervals as they choose and must certify the expenses
claimed as being "wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred on parliamentary business". The Fees Office
sends each Member a monthly statement showing actual expenditure
and known commitments.
54. In the current financial year, 2001-02 the
Office Costs Allowance amounts to £52,760.
55. The Green Book includes the advice that "the
Office Costs Allowance is taxable and must be included in your
tax return, but expenses that are wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred in the performance of your duties as an MP are eligible
for tax relief' (paragraph 4.3.1).
56. If a Member wishes to spend more on his or
her office than is available from the Office Costs Allowance,
he or she may supplement the allowance. Some Members choose to
do this on a regular basis, by deduction from salary. In other
cases a Member may choose to repay the Fees Office for overspend
in arrears.
57. The cost of political activity may not be
met out of the Office Costs Allowance. The Green Book says "You
cannot claim for anything that has a personal or party political
content. For further information please contact us." (para.
4.5.1). It also states that "Any part of the content
of newsletters, websites etc which is of a party political or
campaigning nature, or appealing for funds or party membership
will reduce the total of expenses which may be claimed"
(paragraph 4.8.2).
58. Nonetheless, Members may make a certain amount
of use of their offices for party political or campaigning purposes
as long as they inform the Fees Office accordingly and make an
appropriate adjustment to their office expense claim from the
Office Costs Allowance.
59. On 22 January 2002 the Green Book was supplemented,
and in some respects amended, by new Fees Office guidance, setting
out arrangements which are to come into force in March 2003. Under
these, Members may not rent property from themselves or close
associates, and should not sublet. Limits are set on the amount,
and terms, of any use of Members' offices by other parties. Advice
is given on sharing arrangements between Members and with Members
of devolved bodies and the European Parliament.
The complaints against Mr Griffiths
60. The original complaints I received were that
Mr Griffiths
— had used his constituency office for
political purposes without clearing this arrangement with the
Fees Office
— that he had failed to reimburse the
Fees Office for the political use of his office.
61. Mr Griffiths agreed that he had made a mistake
in not informing the Fees Office and remedied the matter. The
Fees Office confirmed that Mr Griffiths' contribution to his office
costs covered its use for political purposes. I wrote to Mrs Lait
and Mr Griffiths to say that no further investigation by me was
warranted in the light of Mr Griffiths' action and the information
he had provided.
62. I subsequently received further complaints
that Mr Griffiths
— had failed to register property and rental
income
— had misused House of Commons allowances
63. In the light of these further complaints
I decided I should include in this memorandum the two initial
complaints although, on their own, I had not regarded them as
requiring further investigation.
Use of constituency office for party political
purposes without telling the Fees Office
64. The original article in The Scotsman referred
to alleged use by Mr Griffiths of his office for campaigning purposes,
specifically in the 2001 General Election. Mr Griffiths's statement
of 31 October 2001 concentrated on this election, saying he had
contributed £10,000 from his salary to the running costs
of his constituency office in the year 2000/01.
65. Mrs Lait's complaint alleged that Mr Griffiths
had made political use of the office without Fees Office permission
in previous years also. In his letter to me of 9 November 2001,
Mr Griffiths accepted that he had done so, saying "The
Scotsman newspaper published a story remarking that I had used
my constituency office during the election without the permission
of the Fees Office. I accept this and have apologised for not
alerting the Fees Office in this instance and for its use in the
past without alerting them".
Failure to reimburse the Fees Office for the use
of his office for party political purposes
66. In response to Mrs Lait's original complaint,
Mr Griffiths wrote to me on 5 November 2001 saying "I
reject this [the complaint that he had failed to reimburse
the Fees Office for political use of his office] and submit
both the statement I agreed with the Head of the Fees Office on
Wednesday and the summary of the Office Costs Allowance balance
for 2000/01 which Mr Cameron supplied me with. For your information,
the amounts I have contributed to the Office Costs Allowance are
as follows: 2000-01 £21,393.14."
67. The statement Mr Griffiths had agreed with
the Head of the Fees Office read as follows:
"The House of Commons Fees Office funds only
a portion of Nigel Griffiths' constituency office costs. Mr Griffiths
has spoken to the Fees Office this morning and they have confirmed
that in the last financial year he paid the Fees Office over £10,000
from his salary towards the running costs of his constituency
office—equivalent to over half of the office's actual non-staff
cost for the year. Mr Griffiths will be making a contribution
again this year, as he has done in previous years.
Mr Griffiths' contribution towards the running
costs of his constituency office is more than sufficient to cover
the costs of its use for short periods of political activity.
Mr Griffiths has apologised for not notifying the Fees Office
in advance of its use on that basis."
68. The summary of Mr Griffiths's office cost
payments lists "Receipts to date" shows payments
by Mr Griffiths of £21,392. For the financial year 2000/01
payment was made by two cheques, the second of which was sent
to the Fees Office on 7 March 2001.
69. In his letter to me of 9 November 2001 Mr
Griffiths wrote "My contribution in the last year of £21,392
towards the costs of my Edinburgh office covers 1999, 2000 and
part of 2001. This supplemented the OCA."
70. As I understand it, Mr Griffiths would have
had to repay excess expenditure which he had already made to cover
legitimate office expenditure costs, but none of that money was
identified as recompensing the Fees Office for the use of his
office for party political purposes.
71. The Fees Office informed my office that Mr
Griffiths had repaid £21,392 as he had overspent his allowance
in 2000/01. I understand that this repayment was in respect of
other legitimate office expenses (mainly staff salaries).
72. In his letter to the Head of the Fees Office
of 11 December 2001 Mr Griffiths wrote "I am grateful
to your staff for the summary of payments made by the Fees Office
and additional financial contributions from me covering 1997 to
2001. These confirm that from 1996/7 to 2000/01 I funded from
my own income the Office Costs Allowance by £31,392.14."
73. Mr Griffiths added that he had bought and
repaired the office from his personal funds, charged less than
a market rent and put the money he received from a sublet into
a major refurbishment programme (after which he had no plans to
increase the rent).
74. Mr Griffiths told me on 9 November 2001 that
"the Fees Office has confirmed that there is no set formula
for splitting political costs from non-political costs with reference
to office costs. I am confident that my contribution covers a
fair proportion of all the costs associated with running my office.
I consider it impractical to disaggregate the costs and I believe
I have 'over-contributed' to avoid any question of funding political
activities out of public funds. I have also contributed thousands
of pounds in previous years."
75. I asked Mr Griffiths how much use he had
made of the office for party political purposes since 1997. He
replied "on average around 14 days a year. [eg 1997- four
weeks: 1999- 4 weeks: 2001 4 weeks]."
76. Until 22 January 2002 there was no guidance
available to Members as to how much occasional use other parties
might make of Members' offices and on what terms, but the new
guidance states: "you may charge for occasional use of
your premises by others (no more than 20 days per year)".
It also says that "the charge should be set at a level
which recovers at least a proportion of the leasing costs and
the cost of any services used"; full and proper
accounts must be kept.
77. Mr Griffiths says that if he had charged
a full commercial rent for the premises, he would have received
£8,000 more from the Office Costs Allowance since 1997 than
he did. Had he consulted the Fees Office, however, he would have
been told that they would not pay a full commercial rent.
78. As well as claiming rent from the Office
Costs Allowance, Mr Griffiths sublet part of his office to his
local MSP, Mr Angus McKay. From Mr McKay he received £5,500
in the year 2000/01 in one lump sum to cover the four year term
of the Scottish Parliament.
79. Mr Griffiths did not register the rent received
from Mr McKay, an issue I consider below. Nor did he return the
payment to the Fees Office or abate his claim against the Office
Costs Allowance by the same amount.
80. Had Mr Griffiths notified the Fees Office
of the payment from Mr McKay, the amount of rent he claimed would
have been reduced. There would have been no net effect on expenditure
from the allowance as the £5,500 not claimed in rent would
have been available to him and he could have claimed from it against
other allowable expenditure.
81. Mr Griffiths at no time drew the Fees Office's
attention to the suggestion that the money he repaid them included
reimbursement for the party political use of his office. I am
not of the opinion that Mr Griffiths has correctly recorded this
use and, if necessary, reimbursed the Fees Office. I do not see
how reimbursing the Fees Office for overspend on other legitimate
office costs necessarily covers use for political purposes. Mr
Griffiths would have had to make these reimbursements whether
or not he used his office for party political purposes.
Failure to register property
82. Until 13 December 2001 Mr Griffiths's Register
entries made no mention of his property at 31 Minto Street.
83. Mr Griffiths told me on 31 January 2002 that
he did not register the property because he mistakenly believed
that since the transaction involved no commercial third party
and therefore could give rise to no issues of advocacy in Parliament
it was not necessary to do so. He also said that his ownership
was registered publicly as the law of Scotland requires.
84. The rules of the House regarding the Register
of Members' Interests require the registration of property which
is not used for the personal residential purposes of the Member
or the Member's spouse which has a substantial value or from which
a substantial income is derived. Both ownership and, where appropriate,
income, should be registered.
Ownership
85. Mr Griffiths has owned a property in a desirable
location in Edinburgh since 1997.
86. A figure for substantial value has not been
decided. Nonetheless, there is some guidance.
87. In the Fifteenth Report of Session 1999-2000[6],
Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Rules relating to the
Conduct of Members, the Committee on Standards and Privileges
recommended that for the purposes of Category 8 (Land and Property)
of the Register "substantial value" should be
defined as 50 per cent of the current parliamentary salary and
"substantial income" as ten per cent of the current
parliamentary salary. In response to comments from Members, in
its Fifth Report of Session 2000-2001[7],
Proposed Amendments to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members,
the Committee changed this recommendation so that "substantial
value" should be defined as a total property portfolio
of a value equivalent to, or greater than, 100% of the parliamentary
salary.
88. The House has yet to decide on the Committee's
recommendation. Meanwhile, the Committee decided in its Sixth
Report of Session 2000/2001 that a Member should have registered
a property worth £20,000.[8]
89. Mr Griffith's property at 31 Minto Street
was purchased for £68,000 in 1997, when the current parliamentary
salary was £43,860. Since that date property prices in Edinburgh
have increased and Mr Griffiths has refurbished the office.
90. Whether on the basis of the recommendations
contained in the Fifth Report of 2000-01 or of the decision on
an individual case recorded in the Sixth Report of the same session,
the Minto Street property was, and remains, of "substantial
value".
Rental
91. In 1999 Mr Griffiths entered into an agreement
with Mr Angus McKay MSP under which the latter would rent part
of the Minto Street property from him in consideration of a lump
sum payment of £5,500. The terms of the agreement are set
out in a letter from Mr Griffiths to Mr McKay dated 30 March 2000.
Mr Griffiths told me that "like me, the MSP operates over
a parliamentary term and we agreed this as a fair contribution
for services requested". No period appears in the letter.
92. Just as with 'substantial value', 'substantial
income' has not been defined, but the Fifth Report of Session
2000-01 suggests as a threshold a total annual income from property
of 10% of the annual parliamentary salary (currently £49,882,
giving a registration threshold of about £5,000). The rental
received by Mr Griffiths spread over the years it covered, did
not approach that sum but it did so in the year he received it.
93. Mr Griffiths registered the property and
the rental income derived from it on 13 December 2001. In his
letter to me of 14 December 2001 he accepted that he had failed
to register his interest in the property and said "I repeat
my regret at my failure to register these matters with the House
authority at an earlier date and I have apologised for this."
Misuse of House of Commons allowances
94. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
specifies that "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".
95. I have set out the relevant rules and guidance
on claims for accommodation from the Office Costs Allowance in
paragraphs 47-59 above.
96. Mr Griffiths claims to the Fees Office for
office accommodation costs read simply "Office rent".
The Fees Office confirmed to my office on 23 January 2002 that
"the Fees Office did not know that Mr Griffiths owned
the building for which he was claiming rent until the matter appeared
in the press".
97. The Green Book on Parliamentary Salaries
and Allowances did not, in November 2001, make special reference
to the charging of rent to the Office Costs Allowance in respect
of a property owned by the Member him or herself. The nearest
approach to a discussion of such a claim is the statement that
the cost of buying an office may not be met from the Office Costs
Allowance (paragraph 4.5.1).
98. The Green Book advises Members who are in
any doubt about whether an expense may be met from the allowance
to contact the Fees Office (paragraph 4.5.2).
99. In the course of a previous inquiry I asked
the Fees Office what advice they would give to a Member inquiring
about the payment of rent against the Office Costs Allowance for
premises owned by him or herself. The response was that "All
OCA claims are subject to the certification by the Member that
they have been wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in
the course of their parliamentary duties. Therefore we do not
allow for notional rental costs for a Member who owned a property
but it would be perfectly proper to charge a proportion for the
running costs"[9].
In addition they would advise such a Member to obtain an independent
valuation.
100. In the course of the same inquiry, the Fees
Office explained that they would not allow a Member to claim a
commercial rent in respect of a property that he or she owned
because that would in effect allow a Member to claim from the
public purse a profit on his or her property.
101. Mr Griffiths, in his letter to the Registrar
of 8 December 2001, says "The House of Commons has been
paying me a commercial rent".
102. Mr Griffiths did not obtain an independent
valuation of his property until December 2001.
103. Mr Griffiths wrote to The Head of the Fees
Office on 11 December:
"Further to our discussion earlier today
I am faxing to you separately the valuation undertaken by me of
the rental value of 31 Minto Street. Shepherds is one of the largest
chartered surveyors in Scotland. This gives an estimated rental
value of £12,000 pa from 1997 on a five year lease. Can I
remind you that I bought the office from my own personal funds
at no charge on the Fees Office. The purchase price was funded
entirely by myself—from a legacy left by my late father.
The charge to the House of Commons was £2,000
below this, so the saving to the taxpayer for this arrangement
over a standard five year lease period is approximately £10,000.
I hope this makes clear the level of rent was
not excessive."
104. The head of the Fees Office wrote to Mr
Griffiths on 12 December 2001 "the rent is £10,000
and you have provided proof of a fair rent of £12,000 as
assessed by independent surveyors. I confirm that on the basis
of the information you have provided, the rental figure is acceptable".
105. The rules did not at the time prohibit Mr
Griffiths from claiming rent on a property he himself owned as
long the rent did not contain an element of profit.
106. On 22 January 2002 the Fees Office issued
guidance making clear that members may not claim rent for property
owned by themselves, members of their families or close associates.
Members are expected to conform with these new arrangements by
March 2003.
The Legacy and the Hansel Village Trust
107. Mrs Lait and Mr Wishart supplied me with
copies of newspaper articles from the Sunday Herald, the
Scottish Mail on Sunday and the Scotland on Sunday.
These suggested that Mr Griffiths had used a legacy to buy the
premises which he used as his constituency office, claimed a market
rent for them from the Office Costs Allowance and spent that rental
income through the Hansel Village Trust on the care needed for
his autistic sister.
108. Mr Griffiths was quoted as saying "I
sort of own the property but the Hansel Village trust has nominal
control of it on behalf of my sister. It generates income for
her treats and so on" and that "the rental money
he received next year would be used to buy a house for his sister
who is mentally handicapped".
109. If Mr Griffiths was accurately quoted he
would be admitting to claiming rent from the Office Costs Allowance,
certifying that the expenditure has been incurred wholly, exclusively
and necessarily in the performance of his duties as an MP and
in fact using it for something completely different. If this were
so, it would be a serious misuse of the allowance.
110. If, on the other hand, Mr Griffiths was
saying that his father had wished him to look after his disabled
sister and that he had used the legacy to buy property for which
he claimed allowance from the Office Costs Allowance as the rules
permitted and then gave an equal amount from another source to
support his sister he might be described as using language carelessly
in his statement to the press.
111. I asked Mr Griffiths if he had been accurately
quoted in the press. He replied "Scotland on Sunday failed
to report my comments that the rental income supported both
my work in the constituency and my sister via the nominal Trust.
The Sunday Herald and Mail on Sunday copied from Scotland on Sunday.
I made clear to Scotland on Sunday that I owned the office. I
certainly did not admit using Parliamentary expenses to benefit
my family—that is a distortion'.
112. Mr Griffiths said he used the rental income
from the MSP to refurbish the property. When he says that the
"rental income supported both my [his] work
in the constituency and my [his] sister
via the nominal Trust", he cannot be referring
to the rental income from the MSP. He thereby confirmed that he
used some of the Office Costs Allowance to support his sister.
113. This being his statement, I am not surprised
that it was understood by the complainants as confirming that
he used the rental income which he claimed from the Office Costs
Allowance to support his sister, thereby misusing the Office Costs
Allowance.
Other matters
114. I have already indicated that although the
Office Costs Allowance is taxable, expenses that are wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of an
MP are eligible for tax relief. I have seen Mr Griffiths's P11D
(Inland Revenue form relating to return of benefits) which shows
the money claimed by Mr Griffiths as an office expense rather
than rent. However, if it is deemed to be rent, there might be
tax implications as there would be for the rental income received
from the MSP, but this is a matter entirely for Mr Griffiths and
the Inland Revenue.
115. On 6 February 2002 I sent this memorandum
in draft to Mr Griffiths. I invited him to suggest corrections
and make further comments if he wished.
116. On 10 February 2002 Mr Griffiths telephoned
me. He said he was sending me his comments on my draft. His letter
dated 10 February 2002 followed (Annex GG).
117. Mr Griffiths said that:
— "the bulk of the rent paid under
the Office Costs Allowance went on" providing his "constituents
with a first rate service delivered from the main street in my
[his] constituency".
— the arrangement which I set out in paragraph
110 of this memorandum was correct, namely "that his father
had wished him to look after his disabled sister and that he had
used the legacy to buy property for which he claimed allowance
from the Office Costs Allowance as the rules permitted and then
gave an equal amount from another source to support his sister..."
— "The
contribution from the Member of the Scottish Parliament specifically
included the construction of separate secure storage areas and
window display areas". He argued that therefore "such
costs meant the rent should not have been reimbursed to the Fees
Office".
118. Mr Griffiths also said that he thought that
my "question whether the £31,000 sum was sufficient
to cover the cost of use for political reasons" seemed
to be "a reversal of my previous ruling" in relation
to the first complaint by Mrs Lait.
119. I explained in paragraphs 11-13 above that
in the light of the information provided by Mr Griffiths and the
Fees Office in response to Mrs Lait's first complaint, I had decided
that, unless further information was forthcoming, no further inquiries
were warranted in that instance. The two new complaints raised
other questions which I decided I should investigate. The investigation
has provided new information which has led me to my analysis on
these two matters.
120. I corrected the draft and came to my conclusions.
V Conclusions
121. Mr Griffiths acted swiftly when the complaint
was raised. He apologised to the Fees Office for not alerting
them to his use of his office for political campaigning, provided
them with financial information, obtained a rental valuation,
rectified his registration failures, and responded in detail to
my questions.
i Use of constituency office for party
political purposes without informing the Fees Office
122. Members' constituency offices, funded through
the Office Costs Allowance, may not be used for party political
purposes. They may be used for political campaigning during election
periods if the Fees Office is notified..
123. Mr Griffiths agrees that he has used his
constituency office for political campaigning purposes in1997,
1999 and 2001 for a total of about eight weeks or an average of
fourteen days a year. He agrees that he should have told the Fees
Office of this and did not do so. He has apologised for this omission.
Complaint upheld
ii Failure to reimburse Fees Office for party
political use of offices
124. When Members, having duly informed the Fees
Office, use their offices for party political purposes, they are
required to reimburse the Fees Office accordingly.
125. Mr Griffiths has repaid the Fees Office
over £31,000 since 1997. He contends, and the Fees Office
concur, that his contribution to the running costs of his constituency
office was more than sufficient to cover its use for short periods
of political activity.
126. Mr Griffiths at no time drew the Fees Office's
attention to the suggestion that the money he repaid them included
reimbursement for the party political use of his office. Mr Griffiths
has not provided accounts or other records which clearly show
this use, nor has he reimbursed the Fees Office with identified
payments relating to such use. I do not see how reimbursing the
Fees Office for overspend on other legitimate office costs covers
use for political purposes. Mr Griffiths would have had to make
these reimbursements whether or not he used his office for party
political purposes. I understand that, had he alerted the Fees
Office and provided a repayment for that use, he might have claimed
other legitimate costs.
Complaint upheld
iii Failure to register property and rental
income
127. The rules covering the registration of property
require the registration of any property not used for the personal
residential purposes of the Member or the Member's spouse which
is of a substantial value or from which a substantial income is
derived.
Property
128. Mr Griffiths purchased a property for use
as an office at 31 Minto Street, Edinburgh, in 1997 for £68,000.
He did not register it until 13 December 2001.
129. Mr Griffiths has told me that he did not
consider that he needed to register the property since his ownership
was on the public register in Scotland and, as it involved no
commercial third party, he believed that there was no issue of
advocacy in Parliament. Mr Griffiths misunderstood the rules.
He should have registered this property in 1997.
130. Mr Griffiths registered the property in
December 2001 and apologised for not doing so earlier.
Rental income
131. Mr Griffiths received £5,500 in rental
income from a property in respect of a four-year agreement with
an MSP from 30 March 2000 for the period of the Scottish Parliament
elected in 1999. Whether or not Mr Griffiths owned his office,
he was required to consider whether the rental income was registrable.
132. Mr Griffiths did not enter this rental income
in the Register of Members' interests for the reasons he advanced
for failure to register the property itself.
133. The Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards
and Privileges of 2000-01 suggests as a definition of 'substantial'
in the case of income a sum equivalent to 10% of the current parliamentary
salary (the House has come to no decision).
134. While the rental income received by Mr Griffiths
in respect of the Minto Street property did not amount to substantial
value (by the criterion suggested above) if spread over four years,
it did so in the one year in which he received it.
135. Mr Griffiths has now registered the rental
income and apologised for not doing so earlier.
Complaint upheld
iv Misuse of House of Commons allowances
136. The allegation that Mr Griffiths had misused
House of Commons allowances included two elements. That he had
wrongly claimed from the Office Costs Allowance rent for a property
that he owned, and that he had used the allowance he claimed to
support his sister rather than using it to meet his office costs.
137. The Green Book states that the Office Costs
Allowance may only be claimed for "the setting up and
day to day running costs of your [a Member's] parliamentary
office, including parliamentary staff. You [a Member] cannot
claim for anything that has a personal or party political content".
138. Members claiming from the Office Costs Allowance
must certify that the expense has been incurred "wholly,
exclusively and necessarily in the performance of" the
Member's duties as an MP.
139. A Member inquiring about rent for a property
he or she owned would have been told that the Fees Office did
not allow for notional rental cost but that it would be proper
to claim a proportion of the office running costs. The Member
would be advised to obtain an independent valuation.
140. The Fees Office would have said that they
would not allow a Member to claim a commercial rent in respect
of a property he or she owned because that would allow the Member
to make a profit from the public purse.
141. Mr Griffiths did not tell the Fees Office
that he owned the property in respect of which he claimed 'rent'
and did not obtain an independent valuation until December 2001,
after the complaint had been raised.
142. The valuation obtained by Mr Griffiths in
December 2001 indicated that a fair rental, from 1997 onwards,
would have been £12,000 a year. Mr Griffiths has claimed
£10,000 a year for each of those years.
The legacy and the Hansel Village Trust
143. Mr Griffiths was reported in the Scottish
press as having bought the Minto Street property with a legacy
from his late father, claiming a market rent for it from the Office
Costs Allowance and spending that rental income on supporting
his autistic sister. Specifically he was quoted as saying 'I
sort of own the property but the Hansel Village Trust has
nominal control of it on behalf of my sister. It generates
income for her treats and so on' and that the rental income
would be used the next year to buy a house for her.
144. When I asked Mr Griffiths whether he had
been accurately reported in the press he replied 'Scotland
on Sunday failed to report my comments that the rental income
supported both my work in the constituency and my sister
via the nominal trust'. Having seen my draft memorandum, Mr
Griffiths said in his letter of 10 February 2002 that "the
bulk of the rent paid under the Office Costs Allowance went on"
his office.
145. In the light of the statement Mr Griffiths
has confirmed he made to the press and his letter of 10 February,
it appears that he set aside part of the money he received from
the Office Costs Allowance (which he had certified as being wholly,
exclusively and necessarily required for his parliamentary duties),
for the support of his sister.
Complaint upheld
146. I welcome the issue by the Fees Office on
22 January 2002 of the new guidelines for constituency offices.
These should help Members avoid creating a perception that public
money is being misused.
11 February 2002 ELIZABETH
FILKIN
1 Not printed. Back
2
The Fees Office have confirmed to me that Mr Griffiths paid them
£21,392 in financial year 2000/01 and £10,000 earlier
in the same Parliament. Back
3
Reads in part. "The Fees Office has confirmed that there
is no set formula for splitting political costs from non-political
costs with reference to office costs. I am confident that my
contribution covers a fair proportion of all the costs associated
with running my office. I consider it impractical to disaggregate
the costs, and I believe that I have 'over contributed' to avoid
any suggestion of funding political activities out of public funds.
I have also contributed thousands of pounds in previous years." Back
4
"Taken in full, my contribution of £31,000, the sums
for interim repairs and up to £15,000 for major repairs,
gives a contribution of more than £45,000 from 1996/7.
To sum up, I have received the sum
of £40,000 from the fees office in rental for my constituency
office, approximately £8,000 less than what would have been
the commercial rental charge for a similar property in the area.
I also received the one-off payment
of £5,500 from the Member of the Scottish Parliament. During
the same period, I have contributed from my own income £31,392.14p
towards my office costs and I am about to embark upon a major
refurbishment estimated two months ago at £12,000 - £15,000.
I have no plans to increase the rent of this property following
refurbishment." Back
5
Second Report, 2001/02, HC (2001/02) 319 Back
6
HC (1999-2000) 710 Back
7
HC (2000-01) 267 Back
8
HC (2000-01) 377 Back
9
Second Report, HC 2001/02; 319, Appendix 1, para. 62 Back
| 
