Reports
to the Committee in 2007-08
3.12 During the year my predecessor and I submitted
to the Committee a total of eight memoranda relating to twenty
complaints about fourteen Members. Fifteen of these complaints
were received during the year and related to eleven named Members.
In addition, I submitted one memorandum which was an interim report
on my inquiry into three complaints about the same Member. And
my predecessor reported on two complaints, each about one Member,
which had arisen in previous years, one in 2003-04 and one in
2006-07.
3.13 At the end of the year I carried forward
into 2008-09 twenty-two complaints. These included two complaints
which underwent preliminary inquiry in 2007-08 and were dismissed
early in 2008-09, and three complaints about one Member, which
were the subject of an inquiry which was suspended. The great
majority of the complaints carried forward had been received in
the final quarter of 2007-08.
3.14 The first memorandum which my predecessor
produced during the year came soon after the Committee on Standards
and Privileges had considered the report of his inquiry into complaints
relating to the use by twenty-six Members of the House's dining
facilities for functions by organisations which raised funds for
their political party.[17]
The Commissioner and the Committee had advocated changes to the
regulations, which is a matter for the Administration Committee
to consider. The subsequent complaint arose out of a function
which took place after publication of the Committee's report
but before the Administration Committee had reached a view
on changes to the regulations. My predecessor recommended that
the complaint be upheld, but in the circumstances, and given the
intervention of the Easter Recess, he concluded that it would
not have been reasonable to have expected the Member to have taken
account of the Committee's report and to have cancelled the dinner.
He recommended that no further action was needed in relation to
this dinner. The Committee agreed, and returning to the issue
later in the light of this case, they recommended that the new
regulations should apply to all bookings made after 18 June 2007.[18]
3.15 My predecessor's next memorandum reported
the outcome of inquiries which had begun in 2003, following the
publication in the media of articles alleging that a Member had,
through an Appeal which he had launched, received money from
the former Iraqi regime, partly under the guise of the United
Nations Oil for Food programme.[19]
In April 2003 my predecessor had opened an inquiry which he then
suspended in the light of a libel action by the Member concerned.
It was not until February 2006 that the way became clear for this
inquiry to proceed to a conclusion.
3.16 This inquiry was one of the most complex
ever undertaken by the Commissioner. He concluded that the Member
concerned had:
- failed to register his interest in the Appeal,
and the individual donations it received above the registration
threshold;
- failed to declare his interest in the Appeal
on all occasions when he should have done so;
- used his parliamentary office and staff in support
of the Appeal to an excessive extent;
- breached the advocacy rule in the terms in which
it was in force at the time
and brought the House into disrepute. The Committee
upheld the Commissioner's conclusions. The House agreed that the
Member should be suspended for eighteen sitting days.
3.17 The third report concerned a complaint that
a Member had failed both to register in a timely fashion and to
declare certain interests as required by paragraph 16 of the Code
of Conduct.[20] My predecessor
found the first part of the complaint wrong on the facts, the
Member having registered one of these interests in 2001 and the
other in 2002, but recommended that the complaint should be upheld
in respect of the period from 2005 to 2007 when the Member had
omitted to re-register. My predecessor also recommended upholding
the complaint about declaration. The Committee agreed with the
Commissioner. The Member apologised to the Chairman of the Committee
and the Register was amended as it would have been under the rectification
procedure. The Committee noted that had the Member been willing
to apologise earlier, the Register could have been amended using
the rectification procedure without the need to bring the matter
to the Committee. This case illustrates the need for all Members
to take responsibility for declaring and registering interests.
3.18 The next three reports about complaints
against nine Members, all concerned the use of Members' allowances—principally
the Communications Allowance.[21]
This allowance was introduced in April 2007 to enable Members
to fund newsletters and other communications to constituents in
support of their parliamentary duties. All these complaints had
in common that they arose out of the publication of material during
the weeks preceding the elections to local authorities and to
the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in
May 2007. There is no rule preventing a Member from distributing
a newsletter or other publication in the run up to elections to
local authorities or to devolved bodies; but these complaints
demonstrate the need for particular care as regards the content
and distribution of such material if it is not to be regarded
as motivated by party political considerations. Together these
cases impressed on my predecessor the need for clearer guidance
on the use of the Communications Allowance, particularly in election
periods. He considered this further in his report on 'Publications
funded from the Communications Allowance', to which I shall
return later in this chapter.[22]
3.19 In the first of these reports my predecessor
considered complaints about newsletters and other material circulated
by two Members in neighbouring constituencies.[23]
In each case it was alleged that the purpose of this was to boost
the votes for a particular party in the May 2007 local elections.
In both cases my predecessor dismissed the part of the complaint
which related to the inclusion of photographs of individuals who
were standing as candidates, on the grounds that the inclusion
of such photographs, particularly where relevant to the text of
a publication, did not automatically amount to political campaigning.
In the case of the first Member, my predecessor concluded that
he should not have used parliamentary pre-paid envelopes in order
to send out his newsletter and he noted that the Member had omitted
to include in the newsletter an imprint saying that it had been
funded from parliamentary allowances. In relation to the second
Member (who was also the complainant in the first case) my predecessor
found that he had included a party political leaflet with the
Report as it was delivered, contrary to the regulations on the
Communications Allowance. My predecessor also took issue with
the use of a Party banner headline and other material in the newsletter.
3.20 The Committee upheld the Commissioner's
findings, and considered that no further action was needed. Both
Members had apologised, and the first Member concerned intended
to repay the cost of the envelopes. Both the Committee and the
Commissioner noted in this case the scope for damage both to the
credibility of the complaints process and to the standing of Members
and the House in general if
the complaints system is misused for pursuing what are in reality
political arguments.
3.21 In the second of these reports about Members'
publications my predecessor considered advertisements financed
from the Communications Allowance and placed by the three Members—all
of whom belonged to the same Party— in newspapers circulating
both within and outside their constituencies in the week preceding
the Election to the National Assembly for Wales.[24]
The essence of the complaints was that the Members had misused
the Communications Allowance by using it to fund publications
which were party political or campaigning in nature. Specifically,
it was alleged that all three Members had used a Party logo which
went beyond what was proportionate and discreet; that the content
of the advertisements included inappropriate reference to devolved
matters, and strayed across the boundary from the parliamentary
into the party political; that the appearance of the Members'
advertisements a week or so prior to the Assembly elections was
deliberately designed to influence the outcome of those elections,
and that the distribution of the newspapers containing the advertisements
went beyond what was strictly required to inform each Member's
constituents of what the Member had been doing on their behalf.
My predecessor recommended that these complaints, except those
relating to the Party logos, should be upheld. The Committee agreed
that taken overall these newsletters constituted party campaigning
activity, and therefore breached the rules for parliamentary funding.
It also upheld one complaint about the use of a Party logo. All
three Members were asked to repay the sums they had claimed from
their allowances.
3.22 This case also illustrates the complexities
which can result from the interface between my remit and that
of the Electoral Commission. As well as complaining to the Commissioner,
a number of Members complained to the Electoral Commission that
the advertisements in question constituted 'campaign expenditure'
as defined in section 72 of the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). A letter from a senior official
in the Commission was mistakenly reported in some sections of
the media as meaning that the party concerned must repay to the
House the costs of the advertisement. The Commissioner, in his
memorandum, noted the task of the Commission in adjudicating complaints
in relation to PPERA and added 'the fact that the Commission has
expressed [a] view… on the complaints made to it does not
determine the outcome of complaints made to me…'
3.23 The third of these Reports concerned publications
issued shortly before the May 2007 elections to local authorities
and to the Scottish Parliament.[25]
In one case my predecessor found that no rule had been breached
and dismissed the complaint. In the second case he found that
the inclusion in a Member's newsletter of an advertisement from
an MEP of the same party breached the guidelines on the inclusion
of party political material in publications funded from the allowances,
even though the payment from the MEP concerned was proportionate
to the cost of the publication. The third publication contained
three photographs featuring members of the same party who were
standing for election in May 2007. My predecessor took the view,
and the Committee agreed, that the inclusion of these particular
photographs, captioned as they were, in a publication distributed
at that time amounted to electioneering even though, as I have
previously noted, there is no prohibition on Members' distribution
of newsletters in the run-up to these elections. This Member was
asked to repay a proportion of the costs of this newsletter. The
main focus of the complaint about the fourth publication was that
the Party logo used was neither proportionate nor discreet. The
Committee agreed with the Commissioner's findings and recommended
that the Member should be asked to repay a proportion of the sums
which he had claimed from his allowance in respect of this publication.
3.24 In the light of these three reports covering
the newsletters and other material issued by nine Members, my
predecessor considered possible improvements to the regulations
governing the Communications Allowance. He drew together his advice
in a memorandum entitled 'Publications funded from the Communications
Allowance'.[26] His
intention was to provide a basis on which the Committee on Standards
and Privileges might consider recommending improvements to the
regime governing that allowance. He had in mind that the Members
Estimate Committee (MEC), which advises the House on these matters,
planned to review the regulations for this allowance a year or
so after their introduction; that is, in 2008.
3.25 My predecessor considered it important to
preserve as clear a boundary as possible between parliamentary
communication on the one hand and communication of a party political
or campaigning nature on the others. He made a number of detailed
recommendations, informed by his experience of the complaints
received, for the improvement of the existing guidance. These
recommendations covered the content of such publications, particularly
the inclusion of photographs and statistics; the use of party
'branding'; the arrangements for the distribution of such material,
and the timing of this distribution in relation to elections other
than General Elections. He also drew attention to the fact that
material funded by the allowances which does not comply with the
rules of the House may be regarded as constituting 'campaign expenditure'
under section 72 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000, and therefore subject to the requirements of Part V
of the Act, and to the value of Members seeking advice on their
publications in a timely way.
3.26 My predecessor's final report before his
departure at the end of December 2007 concerned a complaint,
informed by a Press article, about a Member's employment of his
son when the son was an undergraduate at a university outside
London.[27] The implication
was that the salary paid was at a level above what might have
been justified by the son's experience and by the hours he was
able to devote to the job. My predecessor's investigation was
hampered by the Member's failure to keep proper records, for which
the Member subsequently apologised. My predecessor nevertheless
concluded that it was unlikely, on the balance of probabilities,
that the work done by the employee in question was so extensive,
or his availability in term-time was such, as to enable him consistently
to meet the hours required in his employment contract and that
the employee was paid substantially more than an appropriate rate
for the job he was employed to perform, having regard to his experience,
qualifications and level of responsibility. He also concluded
that the Member had on occasions authorised bonus payments which
exceeded the limit set by the House.
3.27 The Committee on Standards and Privileges
supported my predecessor's findings. The Committee recommended,
and the House subsequently agreed, that the Member should repay
just under £4000, corresponding to the cost of the bonuses
which were awarded in excess of the House guidance, as well as
some £6000 in respect of the excess salary; and that the
Member be suspended from the service of the House for 10 sitting
days and apologise to the House in a personal statement.
3.28 The last memorandum submitted to the Committee
during the period, which was also my own first report as Commissioner,
was an interim report.[28]
It concerned complaints that a Member had failed to record in
the Register of Members' Interests within the required time limit
all the donations he received in respect of his campaign for election
to party office. Members are required to register such donations
not only with the House authorities but also with the Electoral
Commission. Failure to do so can amount to an offence under paragraph
12 of Schedule 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums
Act 2000. Accordingly when the Electoral Commission informed me
that they had decided to refer to the Metropolitan Police the
failure to report donations in this case, and the Metropolitan
Police told me that they would begin an investigation, I informed
the Committee on Standards and Privileges that I was suspending
my own inquiry into these complaints. The Committee agreed with
this course of action.
3.29 It is important that the Commissioner and
the police service enjoy a shared understanding of the processes
to be followed if it seems that a Member, as well as breaching
the Code of Conduct and the associated Rules, may have committed
a criminal offence. The Committee on Standards and Privileges
firmly believes that criminal proceedings against Members, where
these are considered appropriate, should take precedence over
the House's own disciplinary proceedings.
Trends
2002-2008
3.30 Since my predecessor began to keep these
statistics, the number of complaints which the Commissioner receives
each year has increased considerably. In 2007-08, as Table 3 below
shows, the Commissioner received more specific complaints against
a named Member (and more complaints in total) than in the previous
year—and indeed more than in any previous year. The number
of Members who are the subject of a complaint has also increased.
3.31 The reasons for the growth in numbers of
complaints are complex. The initial increase in numbers, between
2002-3 and 2003-04, may reflect better record keeping and the
increased accessibility of information about the complaints process.
Subsequent increases may have been affected by changes to the
Commissioner's remit. For example, this was extended in 2005-06,
to enable the Commissioner to inquire into possible misuse of
the facilities of the House; and in 2007-08 the new Communications
Allowance was introduced. Both of these developments might be
expected to increase the number of complaints submitted. There
is evidence that events on the wider stage may also influence
the number of complaints received. For example, both local and
general elections can give rise to complaints, sometimes from
political opponents of the Member concerned. Media coverage of
high profile cases, which has the effect of increasing public
awareness of the issues, may also be important, and it is possible
that this played a part in 2007-08.
Table 3: Complaints in 2002-08
