Complaint
against Mr Sadiq Khan
27. As the Commissioner points out,[27]
Mr Newman's complaint against Mr Khan's newsletter focuses on
two main issues:
- the inclusion on its front
page of the Labour Party's rose logo in red, a colour also widely
associated with the party; and
- the inclusion of a picture of Mr Khan standing
beside a sign describing him as the "Labour Member of Parliament
for Tooting."
28. Mr Khan has submitted[28]
a detailed critique of the Commissioner's conclusions in which
he seeks to rebut the Commissioner's view that the logo was "not
proportionate and discreet". He also argues that he has not
breached the rules regarding aspects of the contents of his newsletter
which were commented on in this context by the Department of Finance
and Administration and the Commissioner.
29. It is common ground between Mr Khan and the Commissioner
that the element of Mr Newman's complaint concerning the photograph
of him outside his constituency office should be dismissed. We
agree.
30. The exchanges about the logo reveal some of the
practical difficulties in applying the "proportionate and
discreet" test. Mr Khan in effect argues for a quantitative
and precedent-based approach, and concludes that the logo was
acceptable on the basis of another recent decision of ours. The
DFA's Director of Operations describes the single logo as "slightly
large" but "in keeping with the size of the banner heading"
and, by implication, acceptable.[29]
The Commissioner comes to his conclusion on the grounds of the
size of the logo in the context of the page as a whole, its bold
appearance and its prominence that it is not "proportionate
and discreet".[30]
31. In our view, the question of whether a logo is
"proportionate and discreet" should be judged on the
impression it may be expected to make on those who read the publication
concerned. This is in effect the test we applied in different
circumstances in the previous case referred to by Mr Khan.[31]
In our opinion, the size, prominence and colour of the Labour
Party logo on the front page of this publication is such as to
give the impression to Mr Khan's constituents that the publication
has been distributed on behalf of his party. We therefore agree
with the Commissioner that the logo is not, in context, "proportionate
and discreet", as the rules require. We therefore uphold
this element of the complaint against Mr Khan.
32. The comments made by the DFA's Director of Operations
about some of the contents of Mr Khan's newsletter did not form
part of the original complaint. However, we agree with the Commissioner
and the Director that the terms of these references (particularly
the references to the Government) are "small examples of
this newsletter promoting a political party or its policies".[32]
33. As with the other two cases in this report, this
case raises difficult issues. Mr Khan had sought advice on the
content of his newsletter, although it would appear at a later
stage than was ideal. The extent to which he could have acted
on the DFA advice, even if he had received it in a timely manner,
must be open to question. The immediate political advantage his
party might have obtained from the newsletter overall, and the
prominent use of the logo in particular, was, however, limited,
because there were no elections in London in 2007. Notwithstanding
that, the use of such a prominent logo was a clear breach of the
rules, and Mr Khan should therefore repay £500 of the sum
he has claimed from the Communications Allowance in respect of
this publication.
General
conclusions
34. All three cases have demonstrated difficulties
for the Members concerned in complying with the rules relating
to the use of parliamentary allowances for publication of newsletters,
and for us in interpreting and enforcing them. We therefore
welcome the intention of the Commissioner to submit a further
memorandum to us on some of the general issues raised by these
and other recent cases.
35. Members are recommended to ensure that proposed
publications are fully in compliance with the requirements of
the rules before they commit themselves to the relevant expenditure.
In this context, we remind Members that advice on the content
of their publications is available from specialist staff in the
Department of Finance and Administration, as set out in the rules
and guidance on producing newsletters and other publications from
the Communications Allowance.[33]
1 The Commissioner also included in this memorandum
a summary of the reasons why he dismissed without detailed investigation
a complaint against Ms Julie Kirkbride, Member for Bromsgrove.
This also arose from the publication by her of a report to constituents. Back
2
The imprint on the newsletter stated that it had been part-funded
from the IEP. However, because of delays in settling the account,
it has in fact been paid for out of Mr Baker's Communication Allowance
for the current financial year. Back
3
Appendix 1, para. 7. Back
4
Appendix 1, para. 25. Back
5
Appendix 1, para. 79. Back
6
Appendix 1, para. 81. Back
7
Appendix 1, para. 86. Back
8
Appendix 1, para. 90. Back
9
Appendix 2, para. 5, p. 68. Back
10
Ibid, paras. 6-9, p. 68-69. Back
11
Ibid, paras. 11-13, p. 69. Back
12
WE 17, p. 61 and Appendix 2, para. 8, p. 69. Back
13
Appendix 1, para. 50 Back
14
A similar situation could in principle exist in the case of a
joint publication with a regional list member of the Scottish
Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. Back
15
Appendix 1, paras. 9-10. Back
16
Appendix 1, para. 93. Back
17
First Report, Session 2007-08, para 25. Back
18
The guidance on use of the Communications Allowance, which develops
IEP practice, makes clear that the imminence of an election does
have some implications for permissible content. Back
19
With effect from the May 2007 Scottish Parliament elections,
Mr Bruce's Westminster constituency of Gordon covered the Scottish
Parliament constituency of the same name and part of the Aberdeen
North constituency. Back
20
Appendix 3, p. 71. Back
21
Appendix 3, p. 71. Back
22
Appendix 1, para. 97. Back
23
WE 14, p. 59. Back
24
Appendix 1, para. 98. Back
25
In Gordon, Mrs Radcliffe came second, losing to the SNP candidate
by 2062 votes. In Aberdeen North, the Scottish Liberal Democrat
candidate came third, with 3836 votes. Back
26
This includes printing costs of £1627 and distribution costs
of £1314.16. Back
27
Appendix 1, para. 99. Back
28
Appendix 4, p. 74. Back
29
Appendix 1, para. 106. Back
30
Appendix 1, para. 107. Back
31
First Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges,
Session 2007-08, HC 94, para 14. Back
32
Appendix 1, para. 108. Back
33
"The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery",
Appendix Two, paras. 19 and 20. Back