Appendix 4: Paper by the Committee on
Standards and Privileges
Note for the Members' Estimate Committee on the
former Commissioner's proposals on Publications funded from the
Communications Allowance
Introduction
1. In its Third Report of the current Session
(HC 232), published in January 2008, the Committee published a
memorandum from the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
summarising some of the issues that had arisen to date in relation
to complaints relating to publications funded from the Communications
Allowance (CA) (or in previous financial years, the Incidental
Expenses Provision (IEP)). The then Commissioner did so because
the MEC had said ahead of the introduction of the CA on April
1 2007 that it planned to review the rules relating to the
Allowance a year or so after its introduction.
2. The Committee published the Commissioner's
proposals without comment on their substance, as a contribution
to the wider debate on the CA. This paper sets out, for the benefit
of the MEC in the context of the current allowances review, the
Committee's own views on those proposals, and should be read in
conjunction with the Commissioner's memorandum.
3. The former Commissioner's recommendations
can be grouped under four broad headings: timing of publication;
content of publications; scope of distribution; and the availability
of guidance and advice.
Timing of publication
4. The Commissioner made four specific recommendations
on the timing of publication:
(a) A closed period should be introduced in
respect to a European Parliament, devolved legislature or local
government (excluding community and parish council) election during
which Members would be prohibited from proactive written communication
with constituents funded from the CA (paragraph 18);
(b) The closed period should apply also in
the case of by-elections to the afore-mentioned bodies (paragraph
18);
(c) The closed period should be defined by
reference to the relevant regulatory period for candidates' election
expenses;
(d) The closed or prohibited period should
cover all forms of Communications Allowance funded written material,
not just newsletters, except for material of a purely factual
nature (paragraph 18).
5. The Committee supports the principle of a
closed period ahead of periodic elections to the European Parliament
and devolved legislatures, and local authorities other than community
and parish councils, which affect the constituency concerned.
Although CA-funded material is not supposed to include overt party
political matter, the Committee considers that its mere circulation
is likely to enhance the public profile of the party of the Member
concerned, and that this justifies restrictions on its circulation
at these times.
6. As to the duration of any such closed period,
the Committee agrees with the Commissioner that this should be
both easily understood, and no longer than strictly necessary.
The Committee takes the view that the simplest answer would be
to settle on a common fixed period for all elections, and recommends
28 calendar days.
7. However, before deciding to recommend a closed
period, the MEC will want to consider some of the practical implications.
Although the dates of periodic elections are for the most part
known well in advance, publications such as annual reports typically
have quite long lead times, and commercial distributors on occasion
change previously agreed distribution dates for operational reasons.
Members must also ensure that volunteers respect any closed period.
8. The Committee has considered carefully whether
there should be a similar closed period for by elections affecting
a Member's constituency. It has concluded that this would be unnecessarily
restrictive.
9. As to the range of material to which any closed
period should apply, the Committee agrees with the Commissioner
that this should include all material that is other than purely
factual, including newsletters, leaflets and surveys.
Content of publications
10. The Commissioner made five specific recommendations
on the content of publications:
(e) The use of party logos and party campaigning
strap-lines should not be permitted in House-funded publications
(paragraphs 28 and 30);
(f) If the House wishes to continue to allow
party logos, the circumstances in which they are to be permitted
should be much more precisely defined (paragraphs 29 and 30);
(g) Whether or not party logos continue to
be permitted, publications funded from the CA should prominently
carry the crowned portcullis emblem (paragraph 30);
(i) In the longer term once the House's rules
have been revised the Committee may wish to consider ways of ensuring
that material compliant with those rules is not regarded as falling
within the scope of section 72 of PPERA and thus constituting
"campaign expenditure" (paragraphs 38-39);
(j) (ii) The need to exercise care in relation
to the inclusion of photographs of other elected representatives
and generalised statements or selective use of statistics promoting
a particular political party (paragraph 32).
11. The Committee considers that CA-funded material
should as a matter of principle be readily distinguishable in
its appearance and content from material produced by and on behalf
of political parties and their members.
12. The Committee recognises that Members' political
affiliations are a matter of public record, and have an important
place in both the political structure of the House, and the wider
democratic process. Nonetheless, a member serves in the House
as a representative of all his or her constituents, not just those
who voted for them, and CA-funded material should reflect this.
The majority view on the Committee is that it is legitimate in
CA-funded material to refer to a Member's political affiliation
in a discreet and proportionate way.
13. A majority of the Committee supports the
prominent use of the traditional green crowned Portcullis, particularly
in the heading of CA-funded newsletters and reports, as a clear
and unambiguous demonstration of the Parliamentary nature of the
publication. A majority also supports the prohibition in CA-funded
publications of the use of both party symbols and party straplines
(statements and slogans likely to be identified by the readers
as clearly associated with a specific political party).
14. The Committee does not regard it as practicable
to prohibit the use of colours associated with particular parties.
However, reflecting the over-riding principle set out at paragraph
11, their use should be both proportionate and discreet and the
document overall should be clearly distinguishable by its appearance
from party material.
15. The Committee recognises that there are fine
judgements to be made at the margin on the content of CA-funded
publications if they are to avoid allegations of political content.
It agrees with the Commissioner over the need to exercise care
in relation to the inclusion of photographs of other elected representatives
in circumstances where the purpose might be felt to benefit their
political profile rather than to demonstrate aspects of the Member's
parliamentary work, and over generalised statements, or selective
use of statistics, promoting a particularly party, which do not
primarily illustrate or relate to the work of the Member. On the
other hand, a vital function of Members is to promote their constituents'
interests and to hold the Government to account, and Members must
be able to include in newsletters and reports material, such as
relevant quotations from Hansard, which demonstrates how they
have personally carried out these functions.
16. The Committee supports the Commissioner's
proposal for ensuring that CA-funded material fully compliant
with the House's rules falls outside the scope of section 72 of
PPERA, and does not fall to be treated as "campaign expenditure".
The purpose of such material is restricted to the promotion of
purely parliamentary activity, and this purpose will be obscured
if there is any question of material fully compliant with the
rules of the House being seen as having a party dimension.
Scope of distribution
17. The Commissioner made one specific recommendation:
(i) the need to ensure that distribution arrangements
for newsletters are focused so far as possible on a Member's own
constituents and do not stray unreasonably beyond the boundaries
of the Member's constituency (paragraph 20);
18. The Committee agrees with the Commissioner
that distribution arrangements for newsletters and other publications
should be focussed as far as possible on a Member's own constituents
and should not stray unreasonably beyond the boundaries of a Member's
own constituency.
Advice and guidelines
19. The Commissioner made four specific recommendations:
(j) When the guidance on the CA is next revised,
attention should be drawn to:
(i) the need to ensure that distribution arrangements
for newsletters are focused so far as possible on a Member's own
constituents and do not stray unreasonably beyond the boundaries
of the Member's constituency (paragraph 20);
(ii) the need to exercise care in relation
to the inclusion of photographs of other elected representatives
and generalised statements or selective use of statistics promoting
a particular political party (paragraph 32);
(iii) the fact that CA-funded material which
does not comply with the rules of the House may be regarded as
constituency "campaign expenditure" under section 72
of PPERA, and therefore as being subject to the requirements of
Part V of the Act (paragraph 37);
(iv) the potential value of Members seeking
advice on a proposed publication in a timely manner (paragraph
41).
20. The substance of the first three points has
been covered elsewhere in this paper, and the Committee endorses
the Commissioner's view that any revised guidance on the CA should
reflect these points.
21. The Committee also endorses the Commissioner's
conclusion on the potential value of Members seeking advice on
a proposed publication in a timely manner. Arrangements to provide
authoritative advice already exist, and Members are well advised
to seek such advice, in good time, on the finalised version, as
points such as layout, headlines, captions on illustrations, and
links between text and any illustrations can have a significant
effect on overall perception of a publication. Partial clearance,
for instance of a Word file of body text, is inevitably of lesser
value.
22. It is important in this context that the
reviewing staff are of sufficient experience and seniority to
take the very fine judgements that are called for on the margins;
it is not satisfactory for advice simply to be predicated on a
risk-averse approach. It must also remain the case that the Member
has ultimate responsibility for the content of the publication.
23. The basis and extent of advice taken may
well be a relevant consideration for both the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards and the Committee if a complaint is received that
a publication breaches the CA rules.
Committee on Standards and Privileges
29 April 2008
| 
