House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Thereafter, the Commission issued a news release directed at the Islington media.[16] It told Cllr Allan later, in its e-mail of 3 March, that it sent a courtesy copy of the release to Ms Thornberry, as an electronic document.[17]

On 20^th February, the Liberal Democrat Office in Islington Town Hall received, by e-mail, from a local newspaper, a copy of what appeared to be an Electoral Commission news release, on which it was invited to comment.[18]

On examination, I and my political colleagues found the release offensive in that it quoted Ms Thornberry not merely repeating the error that the response rate was the same as the registration rate, but apparently in an official Electoral Commission news release, Accordingly Cllr Allan, the Executive Member for Customer Focus, which includes electoral registration matters, e-mailed the Commission on 28^th February, asking questions about the release, which he attached to his e-mail.[19]

He then received a telephone call from the Commission's head of communications, Stephen Rooney, telling him that the quotation had been added by Ms Thornberry and was not part of the authentic news release as issued by the Commission. This is confirmed in Mr Rooney's e-mail to Cllr Allan of 3 March.[20]

Mr Rooney told Cllr Allan in their telephone conversation that the Commission had taken the alteration up with Ms Thornberry, whose attitude was that she had not "doctored" the document but had merely added an appropriate quotation.

On looking at the electronic version of this document, I see that the "File/Properties/Statistics" function shows that the document was indeed amended on a Houses of Parliament computer.

These events lead me to the conclusion that:

1. Ms Thornberry or someone in her office, altered the electronic version of the Electoral Commission news release of 20 February, to insert a quotation from her;

2. She then forwarded it to the Islington press, without the document itself giving any hint that the quotation from her was not in the authentic document issued by the Commission; and

3. Her motivation in doing so was to assist the local Labour party campaign on our record on electoral registration, for party political advantage.

My Complaint

I would like to put this complaint against Ms Thornberry as follows:

1. Ms Thornberry has not upheld the general law of the land, or acted in accordance with the public trust accorded to her, contrary to paragraph 5 of the Code. The alteration of documents without authority and attribution comes close to forgery. The public is entitled to expect a basic level of honesty and integrity in its MPs. I am astonished that any MP—let alone one who is a lawyer by profession—could consider that this is an acceptable thing to do.

2. The alteration was intended for her personal political advantage, and shows that in a situation of conflict between her short-term political objectives and the standing of the Electoral Commission, she preferred her short-term political objectives, contrary to paragraph 9.

The Commission is a non-party-political body dedicated to upholding democracy and ensuring fair play and integrity in the electoral process. Its communications should be treated with absolute respect. Ms Thornberry could have issued her own press release, commenting on the Commission's, and containing her own quote. She clearly hoped that incorporating her quote into an apparently authentic press release from the Commission would give her views an endorsement, and obtain press coverage, beyond that which she could achieve by her own efforts.

Her conduct has brought Parliament into disrepute because it has undermined the standing of both MPs and the Commission. Anyone elected under democratic processes supervised by the Commission owes, in my opinion, a particular duty to uphold the integrity of those processes and of the various public bodies dedicated to upholding them.

The fact that her quotation repeated an untruth about our electoral registration rate is in my view contrary to all three paragraphs. It was dishonest, in that she was aware that it was untrue. She nevertheless sought to give the appearance of the Commission's endorsement of it; and it undermines public confidence in the electoral process in Islington by implying that the elections are taking place on a register we know to be only two-thirds complete.

I would therefore be glad if you would investigate these complaints.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Ms Thornberry, Hilary Armstrong MP and the Prime Minister.

16 March 2006

2. Letter from Cllr Steve Hitchins to the Prime Minister, 16 March 2006

I am writing to ask what action you plan to take in relation to the behaviour of Emily Thornberry MP, who has tried to misuse the Electoral Commission for party political advantage, thereby compromising its integrity and independence.

I am asking the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to inquire into the circumstances in which it appears that Ms Thornberry tampered with the text of an official News Release issued by the Electoral Commission, by inserting a quotation from herself, before sending it on to the press as if it were still an official Electoral Commission news release. A copy of my letter is enclosed.[21]

If that were not enough, the quotation itself repeated an untruth, that only 67% of Islington's eligible adults were registered to vote. This was part of a misinformed campaign she and the local Labour party appear to be running. In fact, we estimate that 90% of eligible adults are registered to vote, and the figure she was quoting was merely a response rate to electoral canvassing activities. This error had been repeatedly pointed out to Ms Thornberry.

I am sure you would agree with me that this behaviour is not acceptable from a Labour member of the House of Commons. I would be grateful if you could tell me what action you, as Leader of the Labour Party, plan to take about this.

16 March 2006

3. Original News Release from The Electoral Commission, 20 February 2006

News release The Electoral Commission

Embargo 20 February 2006

NB PHOTOGRAPH AVAILABLE

Three weeks left to register for May elections.

Islington MPs remind voters of 13 March registration deadline.

Voters in Islington have until 13 March - just three weeks - to register so that they can vote for their local council representatives at elections on 4 May 2006.

With the registration deadline looming, Islington MPs Emily Thornberry and Jeremy Corbyn and Cllr Catherine West today helped the Electoral Commission launch a campaign urging all those people who are eligible to vote to make sure they are on the electoral register (see photograph "Emily Thornberry MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Cllr Catherine West and the Electoral Commission remind voters to register by 13 March for local elections in May").[22]

Names can be added later to the electoral register on a monthly basis but anyone not registered to vote by 13 March will not be able to vote in the 4 May local elections. An online electoral registration form can be downloaded from www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, said, "Many people assume that they'll be automatically registered, but that isn't the case. So if you haven't already received and returned a registration form from your local council, download one at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

Politics affects every aspect of our lives, from rubbish collection and road safety to education and care for the elderly. We want to remind people in Islington that they must be registered by 13 March so they don't lose their right to vote."

A recent report by the Electoral Commission found that up to 3.7 million people in England and Wales, between 8-9% of the eligible population, did not register to vote in 2000.

You can find out more about elections in your area by going to www.aboutmyvote.co.uk or by contacting your local council to check whether you are registered.

Ends

4. News release from the Electoral Commission with Emily Thornberry's additional paragraph,[23] 20 February 2006

News release The Electoral Commission

Embargo 20 February 2006

NB PHOTOGRAPH AVAILABLE

Three weeks left to register for May elections

Islington MPs remind voters of 13 March registration deadline.

Voters in Islington have until 13 March - just three weeks - to register so that they can vote for their local council representatives at elections on 4 May 2006.

Names can be added later to the electoral register on a monthly basis but anyone not registered to vote by 13 March will not be able to vote in the 4 May local elections An online electoral registration form can be downloaded from www.aboutmyvote.co.uk

Emily Thornberry, Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, said 'It's extremely worrying that only 67% have registered for Islington's May council elections as voting is the only way to have your voice heard." [Emphasis added].

A recent report by the Electoral Commission found that up to 3.7 million people in England and Wales, between 8-9% of the eligible population, did not register to vote in 2000.

You can find out more about elections in your area by going to www.aboutmyvote.co.uk or by contacting your local council to check whether you are registered.

Ends

5. E-mail from Cllr George Allan to the Electoral Commission, 28 February 2006

I am the member of the Executive of Islington Council responsible for electoral registration matters.

I am minded to make a complaint about the Commission's recent press release "Three Weeks left to register for May Elections: Islington MPs remind voters of 13 March registration deadline" embargoed to 20th February (WE4). Before I do so, however, I would like to ask you some questions which arise from this press release.

The release was issued not long after the local Labour party, and the leader of the (opposition) Labour Group on the Council, Cllr Catherine West, launched a series of political attacks on the Liberal Democrat administration of Islington for its alleged failure to do enough to increase voter registration. Needless to say, we strongly refute this suggestion and have in fact recently achieved a very creditable increase in the response rate, over the previous year, to 67%.

We are of course mindful that this is low by comparison with other boroughs, so the further measures we are taking to increase the 67% figure are:

1. sending a letter and registration form, again, to every address in the borough,

2. canvassing, again, the 15 areas of the borough with the lowest registration rates,

3. sending posters to 80 community groups plus libraries and area housing offices,

4. putting advertisements on lampposts throughout the borough,

5. putting an advertisement in the residents' magazine delivered to every residential address in the borough,

6. putting an advertisement on in local cinemas, and

7. collaborating with the Commission in its own campaigns to increase registration

My first question, therefore, is why you enlisted the two Labour MPs and the leader of the (opposition) Labour Group to take part in your campaign, rather than the Leader of the Council or any member of the Islington administration? In how many other London boroughs did you run this campaign, and associate the opposition leader with your campaign, while excluding the Leader or administration of the Council?

Secondly, the Commission's press release quotes Emily Thornberry MP as stating that "it's extremely worrying that only 67% have registered for Islington's May Council elections as voting is the only way to have your voice heard".

This of course repeats the error that response rate is the same as registration rate, a mis-statement made in various Labour party communications locally before and since the Commission's press release, and in my view calculated to mislead the public. The Council's officers estimate that 90% of Islington's eligible voters are in fact registered to vote, as a result of this and previous responses. Why was this error committed in the Commission's own press release?

Thirdly, did you make any inquiries with these Labour figures which would have led you to realise that you were at risk of associating the Commission with the party-political campaign Labour had been running locally?

I note from your web site that your values are these:

We take pride in our independence.

We are passionate about the quality of our work.

We are open and honest about what we do.

We respect stakeholders and each other.

We value equality and diversity in everything we do.

We believe it's important to listen and work with others.

This press release appears to me to display none of these values.

I therefore invite you to respond to these questions and on the basis of your reply I will decide whether or not to make a formal complaint.

28 February 2006

6. E-mail to Cllr George Allan from the Electoral Commission, 3 March 2006

Further to your email of 28 February 2006 and our telephone conversation yesterday, please find enclosed the press release issued by The Electoral Commission following the recent photocall for MPs we organised.

As I explained when we spoke yesterday, the photocall was organised to help promote the Commission's national campaign to encourage voter registration ahead of the local elections in May. The event was cross-party and attended by representatives of all the main parties, and we issued press releases to local media in their respective constituencies. (As far as I'm aware, no local press in Islington have featured the story.)

As you will see, the release we issued did not include any mention of electoral registration issues specific to Islington, nor a quote from Emily Thornberry. The release was copied to her office for information and it appears a quote was added at that stage without our knowledge or permission. We have been in touch with Ms Thornberry to express our concern about this.

3 March 2006

7. Letter to Emily Thornberry from the Commissioner, 20 March 2006

I am writing about a complaint against you which I have received from Councillor Hitchins.[25] I understand that you should already have received a copy of the complaint and supporting material direct but enclose a further copy for ease of reference.

The essence of Councillor Hitchins's complaint is that you amended an electronic copy of a news release about voter registration issued by the Electoral Commission without the Commission's approval and then reissued it to the press to gain party political advantage.

Councillor Hitchins refers to a number of provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members which he alleges have been breached by you. I prefer to hear your own account of what has happened before reaching any view on whether his arguments in relation to the application of the Code to the circumstances he outlines are correct. However I am clear that, if what Councillor Hitchins alleges is correct, his complaint does appear to raise issues in relation to paragraph 15 of the Code, viz:

"Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute."

I enclose a note I send all Members who are the subject of a complaint.[26] In accordance with the procedure this sets out, I should be grateful if you will let me have your explanation of what has occurred. It would be helpful if this covered, among other things:

1. Whether you acknowledge amending the Electoral Commission press release as Councillor Hitchins alleges.

2. If you did so, why did you do so.

3. Whether you accept his charge that, in so doing, you were attempting "to associate the Commission with a party political campaign being conducted by [you] and local Labour Party members on the record of the Islington Liberal Democrat administration on electoral matters".

4. Whether you accept his criticism that you have deliberately muddled the response rate with the registration rate in your comment.

5. How Councillor West came to be associated with you and Jeremy Corbyn MP in the Electoral Commission exercise.

I am writing separately to the Electoral Commission inviting their comments on the complaint. If, having considered the complaint, you wish a word, please get in touch. Otherwise I look forward to receiving your reply. It will be helpful to receive this, if possible, before the House adjourns for the Easter recess.

20 March 2006

8. Letter to The Electoral Commission from the Commissioner, 21 March 2006

I enclose a copy of a letter of complaint against Ms Thornberry which I have received from the Leader of Islington Council, Councillor Steve Hitchins.[27] The essence of the complaint is that Ms Thornberry amended an electronic copy of a news release about voter registration issued by your Commission, without the Commission's approval, and then re-issued it to gain a party political advantage.

You will see that the material Councillor Hitchins has sent me in support of his complaint includes an exchange of e-mails between Stephen Rooney of the Commission's staff and a Councillor George Allan, in which some of the circumstances of the complaint are explained.[28]

I shall be grateful for the Commission's comments on the complaint. Does the Commission have a view on the appropriateness or otherwise of Ms Thornberry's alleged actions? Has the Commission been in touch with Ms Thornberry about them, and what was her response?

I should also be grateful if you will let me know how Councillor Catherine West, Leader of the (Opposition) Labour Group on Islington Council came to be associated with the exercise. Were councillors from other authorities involved with their local MPs? It seems likely that Councillor West's involvement has exacerbated local inter-party feeling on the issue.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you wish a word, please do not hesitate to give me a ring. Meanwhile you may find helpful the enclosed note, which sets out the procedure I follow in pursuing complaints against Members.[29]

21 March 2006

9. Response to the Commissioner from Ms Emily Thornberry, 23 March 2006

1. On 22 December 2005 Ms Harriet Harman, Minister of State at the DCA, circulated (to me among others) tables showing the number of electors in London boroughs and the percentage of electoral registration forms returned as at 1 December 2005. [30] The covering letter stated that the DCA together with other organisations including the Electoral Commission would be running a concerted registration drive in London in the New Year, and drew attention to the fact that London has the worst electoral registration rates in the country, and that overwhelmingly those who are not registered are young, from black or ethnic minority ("BME") backgrounds and living in rented accommodation.

2. The tables showed that the percentage of forms returned for the London Borough of Islington was only 67%. This was the lowest level for any London borough, the next lowest being Lambeth with 71%. (This excludes the City of London which had a response rate of 64%; the City of London is not technically a London borough[31] and is very atypical in that it has a tiny electorate compared to the other authorities and (as explained in footnote 2 to the Table) has many short term lets which are empty for much of the year, which explains the low proportion of forms returned. Neighbouring boroughs had markedly higher response rates than Islington, notably Haringey (96%) and Camden (84%).

3. On 19 January 2006 my office received an e-mail from the Electoral Commission "inviting me to attend a photo-opportunity to express her support for our public awareness campaign for the local elections in May and help to encourage her constituents to register to vote". It offered two dates on 13 and 16 February 2006 at Portcullis House.[32]

4. On 13 February 2006 I wrote to Mr Ian Bowden, the Electoral Services Manager for Islington, expressing my concern that only 67% of Islington's households had registered to vote.[33]As my letter shows, I said that I found the situation deeply troubling and asked among other things what was being done to ensure that the lower socio-economic groups, young people and ethnic minorities register.

5. Mr Bowden replied on 20 February 2006 and his letter was received in my office on 21 February. As can be seen, he started by saying that he shared my concerns that significant numbers of people in Islington did not respond to their registration drives; he also described the figures as "disappointing".

6. Meanwhile on 16 February I attended the photo-opportunity at Portcullis House which had been arranged by the Commission and was intended to help the Commission remind people to register to vote by 13 March for the local elections in May. Similar invitations had been given to all MPs where local elections are due to be held. On 14 February I suggested to Jeremy Corbyn MP (Islington North) that we do a photograph together as I thought it would make more impact than separate photos.[34] On 15 February I also suggested to Councillor Catherine West, the Leader of the Labour Group on Islington Council, that she might come along too; I knew that she was also concerned about the low response rate for Islington and had herself raised questions with Council officers on this.

7. On the morning of 16 February one of my staff confirmed a time of 12.50 pm that day for the photo-opportunity with the Electoral Commission. I turned up first and Councillor West joined me. While waiting for Jeremy Corbyn MP I explained to the Commission's staff that I had invited Councillor West to join us as Leader of the Labour Group as the appallingly low response rate for Islington was something which she had expressed concern about. I was of course conscious that the photo-call had been arranged by the Commission and not by me and if they had thought there was anything inappropriate in Councillor West attending and participating in the photo-call I have no doubt they would have said so, and I would of course have respected that. In the event they were quite happy to take a photograph of all 3 of us.

8. On 17 February 2006 Ms A at Fishburn Hedges (a communications consultancy) e-mailed me a copy "of your release and your photograph".[35]As the e-mail shows she indicated that it would be sent to the local media. The attached press release is that included at item 1 to Councillor Hitchins' letter and (unsurprisingly, since it did not emanate from me) does not contain any quote from me. It did contain a quote from Mr Peter Wardle, the Chief Executive of the Commission, reminding people in Islington to register by 13 March. The photograph attached shows myself, Jeremy Corbyn MP and Councillor West and as can be seen from the text of the press release the Commission themselves described the three of us as helping them launch their campaign.

9. I asked one of my staff to add a quote from me and send the press release to the local press. This was done and the press release with a quote added from me was sent to the press on 20 February 2006.[36] The attached press release is that included at item 2 to Councillor Hitchins' letter. As can be seen, a quote has been added from me in these terms.

"Emily Thornberry, Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury, said "It's extremely worrying that only 67% have registered for Islington's May Council elections as voting is the only way to have your voice heard."

As can also be seen no other additions were made, and no alterations made to the Commission's text.

It can also be seen that the covering e-mail under which this was sent out says;

"Press release attached. Further quote may follow from Jeremy Corbyn MP".

I believe this makes it clear that any quote from Jeremy Corbyn MP would come from him (ie not via the Commission), and would tend to suggest that my quote had similarly come from me.

10. As I am sure you are aware MPs receive a large number of press releases from a variety of organisations. I regularly add quotes to such press releases and forward them to the local press. The purpose of doing this is not to "hi-jack" the press release for my own purposes but to try and add something in the hope that the story will be of more interest to the local newspapers. Local papers are naturally only interested in stories with a local angle, and it is my experience that they are more likely to be interested in a story if they can caption it "MP supports call for X" rather than just "ABC Society calls for X". What is more, I have found that the likelihood of a story being used is increased if I can add a quote which demonstrates why the point has a particular significance to the local community. This practice is therefore intended to be of assistance to whichever organisation has produced the press release in the first place; and indeed the very purpose of involving an MP is usually precisely because the organisation hopes that it will increase publicity for whatever cause they are promoting. I have never before had any difficulties with this and as I have said have assumed that this was what the originators of such press releases wanted me to do—ie lend my support by endorsing their message with helpful quotes highlighting the local significance.

11. In the case of the Electoral Commission, I assumed that they too had sought to enlist the help of MPs in order to help promote their campaign, and that this was why they had asked us for a photo-call and sent out the press release in the form in which they did. In adding a quote therefore I was in no way seeking to undermine what they were doing but to promote it. In the event to my disappointment neither of the local newspapers ran the story.

12. On 3 March Ms Angela Salt, the Director of Communication for the Commission, prompted no doubt by the e-mail from Councillor George Allan which is at item 3 to Councillor Hitchins' letter, wrote to me (following up on a telephone conversation I had had with Mr Stephen Rooney, Head of Communication, on 1 March) expressing her concern that the Commission's press release had been changed and re-issued without their permission.[37] I replied on 7 March 2006, explaining that I had not intended to drag the Commission into partisan political debate and had followed what I understood to be a regular practice, but that I had already changed procedures in my office to prevent any future complaints or misunderstandings.[38] I have not to date received any further reply from them.

13. Councillor Hitchins' complaint to you was made on 16 March 2006 and copied to the Prime Minister, and the Chief Whip. He also wrote to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Leader of the Labour Party. I assume you have a copy of this letter.[39]

14. On the same day (or possibly 17 March) the Liberal Democrats (Councillor George) issued a press release headed "Emily Thornberry MP "doctored" Electoral Commission News Release".[40] They of course did this before waiting to see what the response from your office might be (let alone what the outcome of your investigation might be)

Response to complaints

I will first answer here the particular matters raised in your letter:

"Whether you acknowledge amending the Electoral Commission press release as Councillor Hitchins alleges"

15. As appears above I did add a quote from myself to the Commission's press release. To this extent I acknowledge that the press release was amended. However I certainly do not accept the way in which this is characterised by Councillor Hitchins in his complaint as "coming close to forgery" or by the Liberal Democrats in their press release as my having "doctored" the news release or having "tampered with" other people's documents. This language suggests an intention to pass off my words as someone else's, alter what someone else has said, or give a false and misleading impression.

16. As is clear I did no such thing. I did not attribute what I said to the Commission - I made it perfectly clear it was a quote from me - and I do not believe that anyone reading the news release, let alone the newspapers to whom it was addressed, would have read this as anything other than what it was, namely a quote from me. I did not intend to suggest, nor do I think that it does suggest, that the Commission were agreeing with or adopting or endorsing my quote, and the covering e-mail (paragraph 10 above) in stating that a further quote might be added by Jeremy Corbyn tends to suggest the opposite. Nor did I alter the text as sent out by the Commission; what I did was to add to the text my own words, clearly identified as mine and not the Commission's.

17. I of course now accept in the light of the subsequent correspondence with the Commission that it would have been preferable to have told them what I proposed to do and ask if they have any objection, and in the future I will follow this course. But as I have explained this is the first time I have come across a problem of this sort and I never intended to do anything other than support what the Commission was trying to do, or in the words of their original invitation "express [my] support for their public awareness campaign for the local elections in May and help to encourage [my] constituents to register to vote" (paragraph 3 above)

18. In the light of the way in which the Liberal Democrat Councillors have chosen to characterise what I did, you may find it of interest to see that in at least two examples local Liberal Democrat parties have amended the Electoral Commission press release by attributing quotes in fact made by Mr Wardle to local Liberal Democrat Councillors as if they were their own. In the case of Birmingham, the second paragraph of Mr Wardle's quote ("Politics affects every aspect of our lives") is attributed to Councillor X, in the case of Walsall, the same quote is attributed to Councillor Y.

"If you did so, why you did so"

19. As appears from the above I did so in order to lend my support to the Commission's campaign and in the hope that it might make the local papers to whom the release was addressed more likely to run the story.

20. I was very careful not to use language that could be regarded as anything other than politically neutral The issue of voter registration in Islington has indeed become a matter of acute party political controversy for reasons that I explain in more detail below; but the low level of registration in London is (or should be) a matter of deep concern to all those interested in the health of the democratic process. The very fact that the Electoral Commission launched this campaign with cross-party support shows that a desire to increase registration is not by itself a party political matter. I am very aware, as every MP is, of the difference between party political activities and matters undertaken as an elected representative acting on behalf of all constituents and I firmly believe that in this case I acted, and would be perceived to have acted, quite properly in the latter capacity.

21. I did not take the opportunity to criticise the Council, or suggest that it was not doing enough; I believe that what I said (that the low level of registration was worrying and that voting is the only way to have your voice heard) was entirely in line with the message that the Commission was seeking to promote, and the statements from Mr Wardle. You will recollect that the letter from Mr Bowden of 20 February 2006 (which of course I had not then seen) made a point of saying that he shared my concerns at the significant numbers of people in Islington not responding to registration drives and that the figures were "disappointing"; this forms an interesting contrast with Councillor Hitchins' glowing reference in the Liberal Democrats' press release to the "Lib Dem administration's excellent record on electoral registration in Islington."

"Whether you accept his charge that, in so doing, you were attempting 'to associate the Commission with a party political campaign being conducted by [you] and local Labour Party members on the record of the Islington Liberal Democrat administration on electoral matters.'"

22. No.

23. As I have already said, I was careful to use politically neutral language and not to use the opportunity to criticise the Liberal Democrat administration or make a party political point.

24. I do accept that the question of low voter registration in Islington has now become politically controversial, and one can sense that the Liberal Democrat administration is very sensitive on the issue, particularly since a Council meeting on 23 February 2006. I understand that at that meeting the Labour Group put down a motion calling for a specific canvass of BME groups to increase voter registration, and this was defeated by the majority Liberal Democrats. (This motion, but not what it was seeking or the fact that it was voted down by his administration, is referred to by Councillor Hitchins in his letter). As I said in my letter to Ms Salt, I am told that after voting against this motion, Councillor Terry Stacey (a Liberal Democrat councillor who is a member of the Executive and very close personally to Councillor Hitchins) shouted: "That's why we win elections".

25. In order to put this unfortunate remark in context, I should explain, in case you are not familiar with it, the local demographics in the borough. In common with other inner London boroughs the population consists of an affluent middle-class (usually owner-occupiers) and a much less affluent population resident on large public sector estates. This is true of both constituencies but the polarisation is particularly marked in Islington South and Finsbury, where extremes of wealth and deprivation are found, without much middle ground. I am sure it will not come as any surprise to you that ethnic minority groups and lower socio-economic groups tend to be concentrated on the estates; nor that the Liberal Democrats tend to draw more of their electoral support from the affluent middle classes, and Labour from the more deprived estates. The Liberal Democrats took control of the Council in 1999 and have made no secret of their desire to also win the parliamentary seat in Islington South from Labour; at the last (2005) parliamentary election they made it their No 1 target seat in London (as the popular sitting MP, Chris Smith, was retiring) and very nearly succeeded in taking it. I held the seat for Labour with a majority of just 484.

26. Given that the advice from the DCA in Ms Harman's letter (paragraph 1 above) was that low voter registration is concentrated in the young, BME groups and those living in rented accommodation, you can appreciate that the low level of registration in Islington does indeed give rise to a question whether the ruling Liberal Democrat administration does not find itself with a conflict of interest between its duty to try and encourage registration and its purely party political advantage in not trying too hard among those groups which are least likely to be registered but most likely to vote for their opponents if registered (not only at the imminent Council elections but at the next parliamentary election). In these circumstances I see absolutely nothing inappropriate in either the Labour Councillors or myself raising the question of what more could and should be done to increase voter registration; and the fact that the Liberal Democrats voted against the motion for a targeted canvass of BME groups and Councillor Stacey's reported remarks have done nothing to dispel the suspicion that the administration does indeed find itself with a conflict of interest that it does not find easy to resolve.

27. It would be quite wrong therefore for me to pretend that I have not at all times been conscious of the wider political ramifications of the issue of low voter registration in Islington, and I do not seek to do so.

28. But the fact remains that in adding a quote to the press release I was not trying to enlist the support of the Electoral Commission to make a party political point, I was not trying to associate the Commission with any party political campaign, and I do not believe that anyone reading the press release would have so interpreted it. I have already explained what I was trying to do, which is to respond to the request from the Commission to help express my support for their campaign and encourage my constituents to register to vote.

"Whether you accept his criticism that you have deliberately muddled the response rate with the registration rate in your comment"

29. No.

30. What I said was that 67% "have registered". I do not believe this was untrue - it was certainly not intended to be untrue or deliberately muddling or misleading.

31. The message that the Electoral Commission was concerned to promote was that one had to return a form to register. As I understand it, it is in fact a statutory duty under the relevant regulations for a householder to return the form each year and thereby register to vote. What the letter from the DCA showed was that only 67% of Islington residents had done so. I do not believe this is any different from stating that only 67% had registered to vote.

32. What Councillor Hitchins is talking about is something different, namely the proportion of potential electors who are currently on the register. As I understand what he says, a person who was already on the register in 2005 can be left on the register for 2006 despite not having returned the form in 2005 as long as he had not failed to register in 2004 as well. This appears to be right and if this has been done then he is no doubt right to say that these people are registered today. But it is not correct - or is at least highly misleading without further explanation - to say that these people are people who have registered when they have failed to do so. It is more accurate to say that the registration officer has allowed them to remain on the register to make up numbers despite their having failed to comply with their statutory duty to register.

33. So I do not believe that what I said was incorrect; only 67% of Islington residents have returned their forms and have thereby registered; and the fact that some of them who have not done so are permitted nevertheless to remain on the register does not make this untrue.

34. But I do not want you to think that this rests merely on a semantic point; the plain fact is that I had no intention to mislead, nor any motive for doing so. If I had realised what was going to be said by Councillor Hitchins I could easily have changed the wording to "67% have returned their forms" or the like which would have conveyed exactly the same message which I was trying to give and could not possibly be suggested to be untrue.

35. I add two points on what Councillor Hitchins says in his letter. First he says that the distinction between the response rate and the registration rate "has been repeatedly explained to Ms Thornberry and . . . Cllr West but they have continued to misrepresent these figures." This is incorrect. The only such explanation given to myself that I am aware of was in Mr Bowden's letter of 20 February 2006, which I had not received at the time of adding my quote to the press release (paragraph 5 above). In addition Councillor West had on 25 January 2006 forwarded to me an e-mail which she had received from [an official] at the Council.[41] (I did not receive this directly from the Council). I saw this at the time but I did not read it as meaning that it was untrue to say that 67% had registered - indeed what it refers to is the numbers who 'are on the register', which for the reasons I have explained above is an important difference. You may care to note that in an earlier e-mail of 16 January which is attached, she herself had referred to "an effort to bring registration levels up to about 75% by March" which shows that one of the officers concerned found this an entirely natural way to refer to the levels of those who had responded. (You may also notice incidentally that she says in her e-mail of 25 January that it "seems likely that many of the non-responders come from tower blocks on the estates" which is independent support for the points I have made above).

36. Second, Councillor Hitchins also refers to an estimate that 90% of residents are registered. I do not know on what basis this estimate was made, but it strikes me as optimistic. If only 67% have returned the forms, that means 33% have not, and to assume that of these over 2/3 (23% out of 33%) had registered last year seems at first blush unlikely, especially given the well- known mobility of population in inner urban areas. I do not know the true position but I doubt that the Council has an accurate idea either.

"How Councillor West came to be associated with you and Jeremy Corbyn MP in the Electoral Commission exercise"

37. I have explained this above. I suggested to her that she come along. The position was explained to the Commission and they had no objection; they used her in their photograph and referred to her in their press release.

38. It never occurred to me to make a similar suggestion to Councillor Hitchins or any of the majority Liberal Democrat group on the Council. I assumed that the Council was in any event working with the Electoral Commission, and would be doing its own publicity.

39. In any event I do not have the sort of relationship with Councillor Hitchins when I could drop him a line and make such a suggestion. Nor quite frankly would I wish to have my photograph taken with him, or be publicly associated with him. As you may have gathered from the tone in which he has chosen to couch his complaint, the relationship between the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties in Islington is not a warm one. He is very bitter that I won the general election and, as the only Labour elected representative at council or parliamentary level in my constituency, he sees me as the opposition; he would no doubt prefer to run the Council without opposition.

40. You have referred in your letter to Paragraph 15 of the Code. I regard it as an immense privilege to serve as an MP and I take my responsibilities very seriously. I have never consciously done or would do anything to undermine the integrity of Parliament and I certainly did not intend to bring, nor do I believe that I have brought, the House of Commons or its Members into disrepute.

41. Paradoxically it is the actions of the Liberal Democrats in bringing this complaint and then seeking to publicise it in lurid terms which are likely to do more to lower the reputation of Members - or at any rate me - in the eyes of the public than anything I have done; this is of course precisely what their intention is. I am sure you will not be misled into thinking that their real concern is for the integrity of Parliament or the standing of the Electoral Commission - it is of course a desire to make political capital out of attacking me.

42. Although you do not specifically refer to them, I should also answer briefly the other allegations of breaches of the Code made by Councillor Hitchins and his specific complaints:

Paragraph 5

I do not believe I have come anywhere near breaking any law and to describe adding a quote in my own name as "close to forgery" is manifestly unsustainable.

Paragraph 9

I do not believe there was any conflict of interest between my personal interest and the public interest. It is in the public interest to increase voter registration. Councillor Hitchins suggests it is also in my political interests. As appears above, I do not disagree, but he comes close to suggesting that it is in the political interests of the Liberal Democrats not to increase voter registration. I certainly did not intend to undermine the standing of the Commission, but to support it in its campaign.

Paragraph 15

I have already dealt with this above.

Allegation of dishonesty

I do not believe what I said was untrue and it was certainly not dishonest.

24 March 2006

10. Letter to Ms Emily Thornberry from the Electoral Commission, 3 March 2006

Further to your telephone conversation with my colleague Stephen Rooney, Head of Communication, on 1 March 2006, I am writing to express my concern that an Electoral Commission press release copied to your office was changed and re-issued without our permission.

Following our photocall for MPs to support our campaign encouraging voter registration, which you attended, we issued press releases to the local press in your constituency as arranged The release was copied by email to your office We were subsequently forwarded a version of our release, on Electoral Commission letterhead, which included a quote from you stating that "It is extremely worrying that only 67% have registered for Islington's May council elections as voting is the only way to have your voice heard".

We are aware that the issue of voter registration in Islington is the subject of local political debate at the moment, and would not have agreed to this quote having been included in a release from the Commission The quote is also inaccurate as it refers to the percentage of registration forms returned, not the percentage of people registered.

It is not acceptable that an Electoral Commission press release was changed without our permission. I would be grateful if you could explain why our release was amended and to whom the amended version was sent.

3 March 2006

11. Letter to the Electoral Commission from Ms Emily Thornberry, 7 March 2006

Thank you for your letter dated 3rd March 2006.

It was not my intention to drag the Electoral Commission into partisan political debate but to make the press release as interesting to my local press as possible. My quote was not party political in nature and the aim was simply to encourage registration and raise awareness of the issue. The press release was sent to the Islington Gazette, Islington Tribune and placed on my website.

My main concern is the appalling level of voter registration in Islington—especially when compared to other inner London boroughs. The last DCA figures that allow comparison show that only 67% registered this year in Islington compared to 96% in Haringey and 84% in Camden.

You are right that the issue is a matter of local political debate in Islington, especially given the comments of Councillor Terry Stacey last week (Thursday 23rd February), who after voting against a motion for a targeted canvass of BME groups to increase voter registration shouted "That's why we win elections!"

MPs regularly receive press releases from organisations to alter and forward to local press as they see fit. This system has never posed a problem in the past. However, I have now changed the procedures in my office to prevent any future complaints or misunderstandings.

7 March 2006

12. Letter to the Commissioner from the Electoral Commission, 18 April 2006

Thank you for your letters of 21 and 27 March 2006

The Electoral Commission organised a photocall for MPs to express their support for our campaign to encourage voter registration ahead of the local elections in May. The photocall took place over two days (13 and 16 February 2006). The event was attended by MPs of all parties, and subsequently the Commission issued press releases to the local media in their constituencies.

We emailed electronic copies of this release to the MPs who attended as a courtesy. The release was sent to Emily Thornberry on 20 February 2006 and we later discovered, following a complaint from Cllr George Allan, that it had been subsequently amended and re-issued to the media without our permission.

Stephen Rooney, our Head of Communication, telephoned Ms Thornberry on 1 March to express our concern that this had happened. Following this telephone conversation, Angela Salt, our Director of Communication, wrote to Ms Thornberry on 3 March in similar terms. I attach a copy of this letter and Ms Thornberry's 7 March reply.[42]

We do not consider that it was acceptable for Ms Thornberry to have changed an Electoral Commission press release without our permission and were surprised that this happened. We made our view clear to her but it was not our intention to pursue this matter any further.

It is sometimes the case that MPs provide quotes for inclusion in press releases, but with the knowledge and permission of the organisation concerned. Given the particular role of the Electoral Commission as an independent body, we would expect MPs to be conscious of the need to clear with us any quote that they wished to be included in our release. There is, of course, nothing to prevent an MP sending a quote to the media under separate cover, which would, in our view, have been a better course of action for Ms Thornberry to have taken.

We are also concerned that, in addition to being politically contentious, the quote was misleading. It states that "only 67% have registered for Islington's May council elections". The 67% figure in fact refers to the percentage of household canvass forms returned in Islington during the autumn 2005 canvass. This is not the same as the percentage of people registered, not least because there are different numbers of potential electors in different households. Furthermore, and to clarify the point about carry-forward of names on the electoral register (page 7, paragraph 4 in Ms Thornberry's "response to complaints" in her letter to you of 24 March 2006) Electoral Registration Officers do not have discretion to remove names from the register after the first occasion on which a canvass form is not returned. For example, someone who returned a form in November 2004 and failed to do so in 2005 could not legally be removed from the register for reason of non-return until November 2006.

Councillors were not invited to the photocall by the Commission. Only MPs were invited to the event. Cllr West was asked to join by Ms Thornberry, as she explains in her letter to you. However, Commission representatives in attendance at the photocall did not object to Cllr West's attendance at the time and the photograph - of Jeremy Corbyn MP, Emily Thornberry MP and Cllr West - was issued to the media, although to our knowledge it was not printed in any local newspapers. With hindsight, given the sensitivity of registration issues in Islington that have since been brought to our attention, it would have been better had our staff asked that Cllr West was not included in the photograph, or that the photograph including her had not been sent to the media. However, in our view there is nothing wrong, in principle, with councillors lending support in general terms to the registration campaign.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help

13. Letter to Ms Emily Thornberry from the Commissioner, 18 April 2006

COMPLAINT BY COUNCILLOR STEVE HITCHINS

Further to my e-mail of 11 April, I received this morning the comments of the Electoral Commission in relation to this complaint. I enclose a copy of the letter from the Chief Executive of the Commission in which these comments are contained.

Having reflected on the complaint, your response and the views of the Commission, I believe that this is a matter on which I should report formally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In brief, I do not accept Councillor Hitchins' complaint in relation to paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Code. However, whatever your motives, I do think you erred in amending the Commission's press release without the Commission's permission and that this gives grounds for thinking that you may have breached your obligations under paragraph 15 of the Code.

I shall be glad to receive any further observations you may wish to make in the light of the Electoral Commission's comments. Subject to them, I will now draft a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the draft of the factual sections of which I will let you see before finalising the report for submission to the Committee.

18 April 2006

14. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Emily Thornberry, 28 April 2006

Thank you for your letter of 18 April 2006 and its enclosures, and I am pleased that you do not accept the complaints in relation to paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Code.

I note what you say about paragraph 15 of the Code. Can I ask you to reconsider this?

It is clear from paragraphs 5 and 6 of their letter that the Electoral Commission regard it as inappropriate for me to have added my quote to their press release without clearing this with them first, and that it would have been better for me to send a quote to the media under separate cover. I have already accepted the legitimacy of this criticism and, as I have told both them and you, I have changed my procedures to prevent this happening again.

But: