3 Investigating Complaints
3.1 As the preceding sections of this report have
shown, investigating complaints is not the sole, nor even the
primary function of my office. Nevertheless it is the aspect of
the work which catches most public attention, and clearly it is
of major importance that both the public and Members can be assured
that the process of consideration of complaints is rigorous, fair
and impartial.
3.2 Complaints may be received from both MPs and
members of the public. Whoever they come from, they are subjected
to the same initial tests:
· Are they submitted
by letter and signed? (Anyone e-mailing a complaint is asked to
send in a signed copy.)
· Do they indicate
at least a prima facie breach of the Code of Conduct or related
Rules of the House?
· Are they supported
by sufficient evidence to warrant at least a preliminary enquiry?
3.3 The table below shows a reduction during 2004-05
in the overall total of letters of complaint received by my office
from 152 to 137 but a rise (from 96 to 118) in the number of specific
complaints against a named Member. The fluctuations illustrate
how the figures in any one year can be influenced by specific
factors. In 2003-04, the Iraq War and two well-publicised complaints
against two prominent Members generated a number of general letters
of complaint from the public. In 2004-05 the number of general
complaints fell but the number of specific complaints against
a named Member rose, particularly in the last two quarters of
the year. Three factors seem to have been behind this:
· A case involving
one Member of the House, in respect of which I received 14 separate
letters of complaint.
· The approach
of the General Election, which was inevitably associated with
an intensification of political debate. One reflection of this
appears to have been the receipt of a number of complaints about
Members' use of post-paid envelopes and House stationery to circulate
material to constituents (see below).
· The publication
of information about individual Members' spending from their allowances.
This last development led to a number of letters
calling for me to investigate the expenditure by the named Members.
However, these were unsupported by any evidence which indicated
wrongdoing, the mere size of the expenditure involved not in itself
being a sufficient indication that something was amiss.
3.4 As will be apparent, some complaints received
by my office are cast in very general terms (for example, a complaint
about anti-social behaviour and the alleged failure of Members
to help tackle it). Other complaints do name a specific Member
but concern types of complaint outside my remit. These include
complaints about:
· A Member's
handling of a constituency case.
· Policy matters.
· A Member's
views or opinions.
· A Member's
actions in their capacity as a Government Minister. (Complaints
of this sort fall to be considered under the Code of Conduct for
Ministers (the Ministerial Code), and are a matter for the Prime
Minister.)
· The funding
of political parties.
As the table below indicates, a significant proportion
of the complaints I receive each year are either general in character
or, although they name a specific Member, fall outside my remit.
Of the latter, most usually concern complaints about a Member's
handling of a constituency case.
3.5 The table shows that during the past year, all
but 9 of the 76 cases with which I declined to proceed fell outside
my remit. Most of those 9 cases failed to progress because they
were unsupported by sufficient evidence to justify the making
of even preliminary inquiries.
3.6 The table also shows a rise from 6 to 15 in the
number of complaints I dismissed following preliminary inquiry.
5 of these cases involved complaints about the content of newsletters
sent by Members to constituents but my inquiries disclosed that
the newsletters in question had been funded privately rather than
from the Members' parliamentary allowances. In each of the 15
cases - some of which involved very extensive inquiries over several
weeks or even months - the evidence available at the end of my
inquiries did not indicate that a breach of the Code had occurred.
In such cases, I offer the complainant a clear explanation of
my decision and make clear that if fresh evidence of a breach
of the House's rules is forthcoming, the case may be reopened.
3.7 As will be seen from the table, the total of
21 complaints which were the subject of reports to the Committee
concerned just three Members. 14 complaints focussed on one Member,
6 on another and one on a third. 6 complaints (all received in
the last quarter of the year) were still under investigation at
the end of the year, together with 2 others held over from the
previous year pending the resolution of associated legal proceedings.[7]
3.8 In paragraph 3.3 I mentioned the complaints I
had received in the run-up to the General Election (of which there
were 16 in the last two quarters) about the use by certain Members
of post-paid envelopes and House stationery. Typically these focussed
on a Member's use of these facilities to send circular letters
to their constituents. Such use is not sanctioned by the rules,
approved by Mr Speaker on the recommendation of the Administration
Committee, which govern these matters. These ban the use of these
facilities for, among other things, circulars or supporting the
return of any person to public office.
3.9 These rules are administered on Mr Speaker's
behalf by the Serjeant at Arms, who also investigates complaints
that they have been breached. I therefore forwarded all such complaints
received by my office to the Serjeant for consideration. They
form part of the figures in line 3(a) of the table below.
3.10 In its report to the House on the review of
the Code of Conduct, the Committee on Standards and Privileges
recommended that alleged misuse of the services and facilities
of the House should be brought within the Code and a single uniform
regime adopted which would cover both the alleged abuse of financial
allowances and of facilities and allowances in kind.[8]
The adoption by the House of this recommendation would, I believe,
simplify the handling of these matters for both Members and the
public.
Investigating complaints
Complaints in 2004-05
| Apr-June
2004
| July-Sept
2004
| Oct-Dec
2004
| Jan-Mar
2005
| Totals: April 04- March 05
| Totals:
April 03 -March 04
|
| 1. All Matters of Complaint received
| 14 | 18
| 48 | 57
| 137 | 152
|
| 2. Specific complaints against a named Member
| 9 | 17
| 45 | 47
| 118 | 96
|
3. Not proceeded with: reason (a) outside remit;
(b) other
| (a) 7 | (a) 12
| (a) 22 | (a) 26
| 67 | 76
|
| (b) 1
| (b) 2 | (b) 6
| (b) 0 | 9
| 6 |
| 4. Complaints proceeded with
| 1 | 4
| 17 | 20
| 42 | 14
|
| 5. Complaints subject of preliminary inquiry then dismissed
| 1 | 2
| 3 | 9
| 15 | 6
|
| 6. Complaints subject of further investigation
| 0 | 2
| 14 | 11
| 27 | 7
|
| 7. Complaints dealt with by rectification procedure
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
|
| 8. Complaints subject of a report to Committee on Standards and Privileges
| 0 | 2
| 141 | 52
| 213
| 6 |
1 All
14 of these were about the same Member
2 All 5 of these
were about the same Member, who was also the subject of one of
the complaints in the second quarter.
3 6 complaints,
all received during the last quarter of the year, were still the
subject of inquiries at the end of the year, along with 2 carried
over from the preceding year which were the subject of an interim
report.
3.11 Readers may also find it helpful to see the
number of Members involved in relation to the number of complaints
considered at each key stage of the process. (As this material
has not previously been presented in this way, comparative figures
for 2003-04 are regrettably not available.)
Members the subject of complaints
in 2004-05
| April - June 2004
| July - Sept
2004
| Oct - Dec
2005
| Jan - March
2005
| Total April 04 - March 05
|
| 1. No. of Members the subject of a specific complaint
| 9 | 16
| 29 | 39
| 93 |
| 2. No. of Members involved in complaints proceeded with
| 1 | 4
| 4 | 14
| 23 |
| 3. No. of Members involved in complaints the subject of further investigation
| 0 | 2
| 1 | 6
| 81
|
| 4. No. of Members the subject of a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
| 0 | 2
| 1 | 1
| 31
|
1 One of the Members
who was the subject of a complaint in the second quarter was also
the subject of complaints in the fourth quarter.
Reports to the Committee in 2004-05
3.12 I made 4 reports to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges during 2004-05, which between them covered a total
of 21 complaints. 2 complaints (both relating to Mr George Galloway,
now the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow) which remained under
investigation at the end of the year, were also the subject of
a further interim report which was published by the Committee
on 6 April 2005.[9]
3.13 Each of these reports has been published and
I do not therefore need to repeat the substance of them here.
Certain general points arose, however, which it may be helpful
to mention.
3.14 The first report concerned a newsletter issued
by a Member to his constituents and brought into focus the guidance
issued by the House's Department of Finance and Administration
relating to such publications.[10]As
a result of the case, the Committee on Standards and Privileges
suggested that the guidance should be revised to make clearer
what is and is not allowable.[11]I
understand that the Department has such a revision of the guidance
in hand and that it intends formally to consult the Committee
and me about it later this year.
3.15 The third and fourth reports principally involved
allegations that the Member concerned had abused his privileged
access to the facilities of the House by using it to further a
private commercial interest.[12]
In the light of my investigation, the Committee on Standards and
Privileges found that the Member's conduct had fallen well below
the standards the House expects, and risked damaging its reputation.
In a further report the Committee responded to criticisms by the
Member of its earlier report and considered the result of inquiries
I had made into five further complaints against the Member, which
primarily related to his use of House stationery and post paid
envelopes, and of other resources provided by the House, for party,
rather than parliamentary purposes.[13]
The Committee agreed with my finding that the Member had breached
the Code of Conduct in this respect and recommended that he apologise
to the House by way of a personal statement. This the Member subsequently
did.
Use of the Rectification Procedure
3.16 None of the cases considered during the year
were resolved by use of the rectification procedure, which allows
me, by agreement with the Member concerned, to dispose of minor
cases of inadvertent breach of the Rules on registration or declaration
of interests through a corrected entry in the Register or, in
the case of non-declaration, an apology to the House.[14]
Frivolous and Vexatious Complaints
3.17 Nor did I have occasion to refer any complaints
to the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the grounds that
they were either frivolous or vexatious.[15]In
one case, however, I drew the attention of those who had made
or instigated the making of several allegations against a Member
- which upon examination proved groundless - to the existence
of this procedure.
7 These two complaints were the subject of the Committee's
Sixth Report of Session 2004-05 (HC509) Back
8
Fourth Report of Session 2004-05 (HC 472) Back
9
Sixth Report of Session 2004-05, HC 509 Back
10
First Report of Session 2004-05, HC 71 Back
11
Ibid, paragraph 8 Back
12
Third Report of Session 2004-05, HC 233 Back
13
Fifth Report of Session 2004-05, HC 473 Back
14
For a full description of the procedure see Appendix 1 of my Annual
Report for 2002-03 Back
15
For a description of the procedure for handling such complaints,
see appendix 2 of my Annual Report for 2003-04 Back
| 
