Select Committee on Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Report

 
 

 
3  Considering Complaints

Overview

3.1 As the table below shows, the number of specific letters of complaint against a named Member rose significantly in the year covered by this report. However, it is the practice of my office to record separately complaints received from different people against the same Member even when the complaints relate to the same set of circumstances. A large number of the complaints received in 2006-07 (50 in number) related to a series of complaints by two Members about the alleged misuse of Parliamentary dining facilities for the purpose of party political fundraising. So the substantial increase shown in the following table is to a large degree, although not wholly, a reflection of this unusual occurrence.

Complaints in 2006-07
 Apr-Jun

2006  

Jul-Sep

2006  

Oct-Dec

2006  

Jan-Mar

2007  

Total:

Apr 06-Mar 07  

Total:

Apr 05- Mar 06  

1. All Matters of Complaint received  50 40  66 58  214 133  
2. Specific complaints against a named Member  40 31  63 42  176 129  
3. Not proceeded with: reason (a) outside remit  34 23  13 17  87 105  
 (b) other 2  8  1 
4. Complaints proceeded with  8  48 19  81 23  
5. Complaints subject of preliminary inquiry then dismissed  5  1  11 15  
6. Complaints subject of further investigation  3  47 18  70 8  
7. Complaints dealt with by rectification procedure  2  6[12]  1[13]  10 0  
8. Complaints subject of a report to Committee on Standards and Privileges  1  39 12[14]  53 0  

3.2 The number of Members who were the subject of a complaint also rose, largely for the same reason, as indicated in the following table:

Members the Subject of Complaints in 2006-07
 Apr-Jun 2006  Jul-Sep

2006  

Oct-Dec

2006  

Jan- Mar

2007  

Total:

Apr 06-Mar 07  

Total:

Apr 05- Mar 06  

1. No. of Members the subject of a specific complaint  35 26  39 31  131 79  
2. No. of Members involved in complaints proceeded with  8  26 13  53 21  
3. No. of Members involved in complaints the subject of further investigation  3  25 12  42 8  
4. No. of above Members the subject of a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges  1  19[15]  27  0 

3.3 Examining in greater detail the table setting out the number of complaints in the past year, it can be seen that my office continued to receive a number of complaints of a general nature in addition to those which made a specific allegation against a named Member. These general complaints can cover matters as disparate as the system for Members' allowances or the actions of the Government. Where such complaints - whether general or more specific in character - clearly relate to the responsibilities of another public body or individual, I always try to point my correspondent towards a more appropriate recipient of their concern.

3.4 When the letter of complaint both names a Member and makes a specific allegation against them, I consider whether the complaint falls within the scope of the House's Code of Conduct. A number do not, usually because they concern the way in which a Member had handled a constituent's case. Other excluded categories of complaint which arise more commonly include:

The latter are a matter for consideration by the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet Secretary, in relation to the separate Ministerial Code of Conduct.

3.5 A small number of other cases (a total of 8 in 2006-07) do not proceed to investigation for other reasons. For instance, the complaint may not be supported by sufficient evidence, or it may plainly be based on a mistaken understanding of the facts. This latter reason applied in respect of 5 of the 6 cases shown in line 3(b) of the table for the last quarter of 2006-07.

3.6 When a complaint falls within the scope of the Code and is supported by sufficient evidence to suggest that a breach of the House's Rules may have been committed, I make inquiries of the Member concerned. Sometimes those inquiries produce evidence that no breach has occurred, the Member providing a satisfactory explanation of what has happened. Where, however, no satisfactory explanation is immediately forthcoming from the Member concerned, I make further inquiries. These may eventually also lead me to a conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of a breach of the Code. In any such case, I not only report this outcome (and my reasons for reaching it) informally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges but I give the complainant and the Member concerned a clear account of why I have reached the conclusion I have about the case. Where appropriate, I may also offer the Member advice as to how similar complaints in the future might be avoided.

Use of the Rectification Procedure

3.7 In some cases there has clearly been a breach of the Code but it is a relatively minor one and the Member concerned both acknowledges what has happened and apologises for it. The House has given me delegated authority to handle such cases without a formal report to the Committee, employing what is known as the 'rectification' procedure.[16] In 2006-07 I dealt with a total of 10 cases in this way. Eight of these cases involved minor misuse of House of Commons stationery or pre-paid envelopes and the Member concerned both apologised and repaid the cost of the stationery or postage involved. In the two other cases (one involving a former Member who had left the House at the 2005 General Election) which both involved failure to register an interest, I arranged for appropriate entries to be made in the Register of Members' Interests.

3.8 Unusually, I also considered 3 further complaints during the year which proved, upon examination, to be so minor in character that reporting formally on them to the Committee would have been wholly disproportionate. Accordingly I briefed the Committee on them informally and, with its support, gave suitable advice to the Member concerned for the future.

3.9 Four complaints, all received in the last quarter of 2006-07, were still under investigation when the year ended. The remaining 53 complaints received in the year (embracing a total of 27 Members) were the subject of formal reports to the Committee during 2006-07, as were complaints against 6 other Members all of which had still been the subject of inquiries at the end of the period covered by my previous report. I turn now to describe the nature of the ten reports I made to the Committee in the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.

Reports to the Committee in 2006-07

3.10 The first report concerned the failure of a Member to register a fund he had set up to assist him in pursuing a civil action. The Committee agreed with my conclusion that the fund itself should have been registered under Category 10 of the Register (the Miscellaneous Category), and individual donations to it which exceeded the threshold for registration under Category 5 (Gifts).[17] The Member subsequently made the relevant entries, which were recorded in the Register in the distinctive form also used for the rectification procedure.

3.11 The second case concerned a complaint about correspondence received by a member of the public concerning a conference to be held in the House by a commercial organisation. The conference was, in the event, cancelled. It was clear that the Member who had sponsored it did not have any financial interest in the company in question and had believed that he was acting in accordance with advice he had sought from the relevant Department of the House before proceeding with the event.

3.12 The Committee nonetheless shared my view that, had the conference proceeded, it would have represented an inappropriate use of House facilities, given its clear business focus.[18] The use of House stationery to send out invitations to the conference was also inappropriate. Recognising that the Member involved was newly elected and that he had acted promptly to cancel the conference (at some cost to the company concerned), the Committee did not feel it right to take the matter further. It nonetheless took the opportunity to remind Members that they must be scrupulous in observing the rules laid down to protect the name and the reputation of the House from commercial exploitation.

3.13 Two further reports concerned the use of House stationery, and in one instance, pre-paid envelopes, by a Member. In the first case, the Member, having received a copy of my memorandum to the Committee, decided to repay the cost of the headed paper and envelopes he had used to send out a circular communication to some of his constituents and instead charged the cost to his Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP), as he was entitled to do. This action obviated the need for the Committee to determine this aspect of the complaint against him. The Committee, however, agreed with me that the case provided pressing evidence of the need to revise and clarify the House's Stationery and Postage Rules, and offered to work with the House of Commons Commission and the Administration Committee to help develop "a single unified stationery and postage regime governed by one clear set of rules".[19]

3.14 There was a second aspect to the complaint in this case, which concerned the content of an annual report which the Member involved had circulated to his constituents and had funded from his IEP. Although I felt that in one respect this fell outside what was acceptable, the Committee took the view that it fell within the range of Members' current practice. The Committee nonetheless said that it would look further at the general matter of publications funded from the IEP. Its intention was in the event overtaken by the development of fresh rules relating to the new Communications Allowance, to which I have referred earlier in this report.[20]

3.15 In the second of the two stationery cases, the Member concerned had paid herself for the House stationery she had used, but had used it to write to a large number of her constituents, among other things urging the merits of a candidate of the same political party as herself who was standing in an impending local council by-election. The Committee agreed that this was a clear breach of the rules relating to the use of the House's Crowned Portcullis emblem.[21]

3.16 The fifth of the ten reports made to the Committee in 2006-07 concerned a complaint that a Member had, without permission, altered an electronic copy of an Electoral Commission news release by inserting a quotation from herself before forwarding it to the news media in a form which suggested that it remained an official Commission release. The Committee agreed with my finding that although the Member's actions had not breached the Code - as there was no intention on her part to deceive or manipulate the public, nor had that been the effect of her actions - they had been unwise and unfortunate.[22]

3.17 This case is of particular interest because it was only the second one in which the Committee had had to consider the application of the 'disrepute' provision in paragraph 15 of the Code. I took the opportunity to suggest a number of tests to apply in deciding whether this provision had been breached.[23]

3.18 The sixth report I made to the Committee in the year under review concerned the alleged failure of a Government Minister to register hospitality and gifts he had received in the course of a visit abroad. My jurisdiction lay in relation to the Minister's obligations as a Member under the Code and Rules of the House, not to his obligations under the Ministerial Code, although it was also relevant that paragraph 5.28 of the then Ministerial Code provided:

"In the event of a Minister accepting hospitality on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action, it should be declared in the Register of Members' or Peers' Interests."

3.19 In the event, the Minister decided, following advice from the Secretary to the Cabinet, to register his stay in the Register of Members' Interests. I found that he was right to have done so. There was no need for him to register the gifts he had received because they had been retained by his Department. The Committee agreed with my analysis.[24] It commended to Ministers the guidance I had offered in my memorandum to the Committee on the considerations relevant to any decision facing them as to whether to record in the Register hospitality they had received. The Committee also noted the difficulty caused by the absence of arrangements for independent investigation of alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code. It concluded:

"We recommend that the Prime Minister considers introducing an independent element into the investigation of complaints of breaches of the Ministerial Code."[25]

3.20 A further complaint required me to apply the tests I had set out in an earlier case relating to the 'disrepute' provision in paragraph 15 of the Code (see paragraph 3.17 above). A local government official complained that a Member had used foul and abusive language in a telephone conversation with him and had subsequently attempted to intimidate the official into not pursing a complaint against the Member. Whilst I did not, on balance, find the latter allegation proven, I did uphold the former as a breach of paragraph 15. The Committee agreed and required the Member concerned to apologise to the official unconditionally and without further delay.[26] This the Member did.

3.21 In the last of the series of reports it published before the 2006 summer recess, the Committee considered a memorandum from me on a complaint alleging that a Member had improperly used House stationery and pre-paid envelopes to consult local residents on a proposed controlled parking scheme, and in doing so had improperly sought to boost the prospects of candidates of his own party in imminent local elections in the neighbourhood.[27] The Committee agreed that whilst it had been proper for the Member to canvass local opinion on the parking scheme, the terms of his letter had been inappropriate. It therefore ordered the Member to repay the cost of the stationery and pre-paid envelopes he had used.

3.22 The last two of the ten reports published in the year under review both involved the alleged use of House facilities for party fundraising. In the first, it was an advertised benefit of membership of a particular club (whose clear purpose was to raise money for a political party) that its members would have the opportunity to meet the Member concerned over lunch in his office at the House. The Committee found that the Member had been ill-advised to link directly the issues of access to his office and party fundraising.[28] In view of the Member's speedy and full apology and his undertaking that there would be no repetition, it concluded that further action was unnecessary.

3.23 The final report was among the most extensive of those I have produced, in that it involved complaints by two Members that events of varying types held by a total of 25 Members in the private dining rooms of the House constituted their use for the purposes of fundraising for a political party and thus breached the House's Banqueting Regulations. Having examined the individual circumstances of each of the cases, I did not, on the facts, uphold the complaints against 14 of the Members involved. In the remaining 11 cases, I found that there was a case to answer but recommended that, since the practice revealed was widespread and of long standing and the complaints exposed widely differing interpretations of the Regulations among Members, it would be unwise and unjust to find the Members concerned in breach of the Code. Nonetheless I suggested that some aspects of the practices revealed were undesirable and that clearer guidance to Members was needed which would avoid any possibility in future of the House's dining facilities being used for party fundraising purposes. I also offered guidance to help Members avoid any suggestion that visits to the House were being used for a similar purpose.

3.24 The Committee agreed both that it would not be right in the circumstances to single out any individual Members concerned for action by the House and that practice in respect of use of the House's dining facilities by organisations raising funds for political parties was in need of reform.[29] Rather than issuing new guidance, it preferred to proceed by way of an amendment of the Regulations to make clear that the use of the facilities for both direct and indirect fundraising was prohibited, and it so recommended to the Administration Committee and Mr Speaker. This recommendation is currently under consideration. In the meantime the approach taken by the Committee sets the framework for consideration of any future complaints relating to these matters, and my office has advised Members accordingly.

3.25 The investigation and consideration of these complaints proved particularly complex, not only because of the number of Members involved and the differing circumstances of each case but because the complaints were not all submitted at once but over an extended period. The two complainants themselves noted the 'generic' nature of their complaint and suggested that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should consider how such generic complaints were best raised and dealt with in the future.[30]

Trends over the last five years

3.26 The table below reproduces the annual analysis of complaints against Members for each of the five years 2002-03 to 2006-07.

Complaints in 2002-07
 April 02-March 03  April 03-March 04 April 04-March 05  April 05-March 06 April 06-March 07  
1. All Matters of Complaint received  67 152  137 133  214 
2. Specific complaints against a named Member  52 96  118 129  176 
3. Not proceeded with: reason (a) outside remit  20 76  67 105  87 
(b) other   9  8  
4. Complaints proceeded with  24 14  42 23  81 
5. Complaints subject of preliminary inquiry then dismissed  10 6  15 15  11 
6. Complaints subject of further investigation  11 7  27 8  70 
7. Complaints dealt with by rectification procedure  1  0  10 
8. Complaints subject of a report to Committee on Standards and Privileges  10 6  21 0  53 

3.27 Prior to my appointment comprehensive statistics were not collected on a routine basis, although a special exercise was conducted early in 2002 in response to a request made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life during its review of standards of conduct in the House of Commons.[31] As the special exercise was conducted retrospectively, and the basis on which information had been kept by the office during the preceding period had changed over time, the figures given to the Committee are not comparable with those available from 2002 when systematic collection began, and so they are not reproduced here.

3.28 The relatively short time frame of the five years 2002-2007 and the relatively small number of complaints received by my office make it difficult to draw any conclusions about trends in complaints over the last five years. Indeed the only conclusion to be drawn may be that no clear trend is discernible. The initial jump in the total number of complaints received from 67 in 2002-03 to 152 may reflect better record keeping and improved accessibility for complainants to information about the House and the Commissioner; the increase in the last year to 214 is substantially, though not entirely, explained by the 50 complaints about alleged misuse of Parliamentary dining facilities to which I have already referred in paragraph 3.1 above. When the 50 are removed, the total for 2006-07 comes down to 164, much more nearly in line with that for previous years.

3.29 Reflecting this, one observation I do feel able to make is how easily the figures can be affected either by a particular event or by external circumstances. The experience of the last year illustrates the former; the experience of the 2001 and 2005 general elections illustrates the latter. The special exercise conducted for the Committee on Standards in Public Life indicated that the overall number of complaints increased substantially in the run-up to the 2001 election, from 18 in the last quarter of 2000 to 70 in the first and 33 in the second quarters of 2001. In 2005, however, the figures were 48 in the last quarter of 2005, and 57 and 21 in the first and second quarters of 2005 respectively. It may be that there was more of a focus on 'sleaze' in the run-up to the 2001 than to the 2005 election, and that this explains the different pattern. What it does seem possible to say is that the 2005 figures do not give weight to the argument that there is an automatic tendency for complaints to rise markedly as a general election approaches and the party political tempo increases.

3.30 The apparent element of correlation of the figures for the total number of complaints to the impact of particular external events leads me to suggest that the number of complaints received (and therefore of cases reported on by the Committee on Standards and Privileges) is influenced only to a limited extent by the actions of the Commissioner and the Committee. The general nature and tone of contemporary party political debate and the tone of media reporting of political events may also have an important effect on the total.

3.31 One other reflection I offer, purely impressionistically, is on the subject matter of complaints. In my first annual report, I noted that in the initial days of the present standards arrangements, the focus had been on allegations that Members had abused their office by, for example, tabling questions in return for reward.[32] Attention then shifted to complaints that Members had failed to register or declare a relevant interest. In recent times there had perhaps been more of a focus on complaints alleging the improper use of Parliamentary allowances.

3.32 As the account of recent cases I have given in paragraphs 3.10-3.25 above indicates, that trend has, if anything, been confirmed by recent experience. To complaints about alleged misuse of allowances have been added those concerning alleged misuse of other resources or facilities provided by the House. 6 of the 10 reported cases in the last year fell into this category, as did a number of those handled under the rectification procedure. Time will tell whether this focus continues or the spotlight shifts to a new area.

3.33 I make one other point, which is both obvious and fundamental. Whether a complaint which falls within my remit proceeds to investigation and report is determined by the weight and quality of the evidence. It is this which drives the number of cases which feature in the later stages of the above table.

3.34 Finally, reflecting on the lessons to be drawn from the complaints I have considered over the years, two stand out. The first concerns the importance of achieving as much clarity as possible in the rules which regulate the use of allowances and other resources or facilities provided by the House. This is a constant challenge (not unique to the House), which perhaps reflects the difficulty of striking the right balance between clarity and over-prescription whilst securing agreement on how to move forward. My belief is that the best approach can be summed up as "keep it as simple as you can, and be as clear as you can about what the relevant rules aim to achieve and about the boundary between what is and what is not acceptable behaviour".

 

3.35 The other lesson is the importance of Members thinking ahead and seeking advice whenever a novel standards-related issue faces them. The Registrar of Members' Interests is a better source of advice on such matters than the Members' tea-room. Seeking timely advice from her can avoid a whole lot of future difficulty and the simple fact that a Member has sought advice stands them in good stead if, in spite of the advice having been followed, a complaint still arises.



12   In addition 2 complaints were upheld but were so minor in character that I dealt with them by giving suitable advice to the Member concerned Back

13   In addition I dealt with one case of a very minor character by giving suitable advice to the Member concerned Back

14   4 complaints were still the subject of inquiries at the end of the year Back

15   One of these Members was the subject of complaints covered in two separate reports to the Committee (subsequently published appended to the Committee's Second and Third Reports of Session 2006-07, HC 429 and 431) Back

16   The rectification procedure is set out in Standing Order No. 150(3). Back

17   Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1067 Back

18   Eighth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1144 Back

19   Tenth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1223 Back

20   Paragraphs 1.16-1.17 above Back

21   Twelfth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1368 Back

22   Eleventh Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1367 Back

23   Ibid, Appendix, paragraphs 46-47 Back

24   Thirteenth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1553 Back

25   Ibid, paragraph 17 Back

26   Fourteenth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1578 Back

27   Fifteenth Report of Session 2005-06, HC 1579 Back

28   Second Report of Session 2006-07, HC 429 Back

29   Third Report of Session 2006-07, HC 431 Back

30   Ibid, Appendix 4, page 143 Back

31   This review culminated in the Committee's Eight Report, Cm 5663 Back

32   See Annual Report 2002-03, HC 905 (Session 2002-03), paragraph 4.12 Back


 

 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index  

 
© Parliamentary copyright 2007 
Prepared 25 October 2007