8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr
Anthony Steen
We spoke on the telephone yesterday about the complaint
made by Mr Clayton. As I said to you, I was mildly surprised by
the conclusion you reached, simply because I had been specifically
advised by the Fees Office that as far as they were concerned,
they would pay for Westminster Report as requested but
would reduce their contribution on a percentage basis if they
felt there was anything party political. In an eight page newspaper
with a party political caption on one page, this would entail
a 12.5% deduction in the contribution made from the Incidental
Expenses Provision (IEP).
With that specific guidance in mind, I was not troubled
when I produced my last Westminster Report. I certainly
don't believe it contained anything that could be construed as
party political activity or campaigning. Saying that the "Lib
Dem £100 cash back gimmick is no answer to our spiralling
council tax bills" is a matter of fact and the promised rebate
has never been paid. I have certainly not argued anywhere in the
newspaper that readers should vote Conservative. I still maintain
that the Lib Dem cash back gimmick is not party political activity,
but a political comment. There is a clear distinction here.
Furthermore, 60 per cent of the costs of producing
the newspaper is paid totally separately from public funds and
in view of the specific advice I received from the Fees Office,
I believe I acted in accordance with the guidance given. If the
front page was in infringement of the rules, I should have 12.5%
of my claim from the IEP refused, and the remaining 87.5?% from
the IEP. As it is, I fund 60 per cent separately from public funds,
and it is for this reason that I am at a loss to understand the
argument you make, unless of course split funding is not acceptable,
in which case the rule will need to be changed. From what you
said on the telephone, you inferred that split-funding may be
unworkable, but that isn't the ruling at the moment.
You say that had I submitted a text of my Westminster
Report in advance to the Fees Office, they would have objected
to the caption on the Lib Dems. I am not at all sure they would
have done, and, even if they had, the 12.5% discount is all that
could have happened.
I hope you won't think I am splitting hairs, but
I believe we are in danger of becoming obsessed by political correctness,
although I appreciate your position and the difficulty you are
placed in handling this complaint.
20 October 2004
|
