Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Contents
Page
Complaints against Mr Norman Baker, Rt
Hon Malcolm Bruce, Mr Sadiq Khan and Ms Julie Kirkbride
The Complaint
1. In two other recent reports,[34]
I have considered complaints arising from the publication by Members
of Parliamentary newsletters or reports to their constituents
funded by Parliamentary allowances. In this report, I examine
four other complaints which also concern similar publications.
2. As with the earlier complaints, the precise circumstances
of each case are different but there are a number of common themes.
Two of the four complaints examined in this report, for example,
were prompted by the proximity of circulation of the newsletter
in question to the elections held in devolved administrations
and in local authorities in England in May 2007. By setting out
the circumstances of each complaint within this one report, I
hope to assist in giving both the Committee on Standards and Privileges
and other relevant committees of the House[35]
an opportunity to consider, in a coordinated way, the wider issues
raised.
The Complaints
(A) COMPLAINT AGAINST MS JULIE KIRKBRIDE
3. On 2 May 2007, Mr Craig Swainland, a constituent
of Ms Julie Kirkbride (the Member for Bromsgrove), e-mailed me
complaining about a "Spring Report" which Ms Kirkbride
had published in the form of a 4-page cover spread in the local
"Bromsgrove Advertiser". Mr Swainland confirmed
his complaint by letter on 9 June.[36]
Mr Swainland described Ms Kirkbride's report as "little
more than electioneering at the public expense". He pointed
out that the report had appeared in the middle of the local election
campaign, and continued:
"The photo spread advertising [Ms Kirkbride's]
work as a Conservative MP was coloured blue and looked like any
other piece of Conservative election literature. The local candidates
made much of their links with the town MP."
4. Mr Swainland concluded his letter:
"As you are aware the public funding of political
parties is extremely unpopular with the general public and most
people I have mentioned Ms Kirkbride's actions to have been shocked
that it is allowed to happen. To carry out such advertising, paid
for at taxpayers' expense, in the middle of a local election campaign
falls below the standard that I as a member of the public would
expect of my MP.
"Having contacted the Electoral Commission
they have suggested that I refer the matter to you."
5. After consideration, I dismissed this complaint
without further investigation, for the reasons set out in paragraphs
21-22 below.
(B) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR NORMAN BAKER
6. On 11 April 2007, Mr Tristan Donovan, a constituent
of Mr Norman Baker (the Member for Lewes) wrote to me expressing
concern about an eight-page newsletter entitled "Talk of
the South Downs" which Mr Baker had recently circulated to
his constituents.[37]
An imprint on the last page of the newsletter said that it had
been paid for by advertising revenue and by Mr Baker's Parliamentary
Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP).[38]
7. Mr Donovan said that he believed that an article
on page 7 of the newsletter breached the rule that the IEP cannot
be used to meet the cost of party political activities or campaigning.
The article in question was an "advertising feature"
which featured the work of Ms Sharon Bowles (a Liberal Democrat
Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and one of the 10 MEPs
representing the South East Region). The focus of the "advertising
feature" was Ms Bowles's support for a campaign launched
by Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat Leader, to persuade
supermarkets to reduce unnecessary use of packaging. At the foot
of the article was a note which read "This column is supported
by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe".
8. Mr Donovan said that he believed the article raised
two questions that should be investigated further:
a) Was it acceptable for the IEP to be used to
fund a publication that also carried party political material,
even as advertising?
b) Had the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe paid proportionally the same amount for the feature
as other advertisers in the publication? If not, this would suggest
that they had been subsidized from the IEP.
(C) COMPLAINT AGAINST RT HON MALCOLM BRUCE
9. On 28 April 2007, Ms Ethel Simpson, a constituent
of Mr Malcolm Bruce (the Member for Gordon), wrote drawing my
attention to the fact that Mr Bruce had issued his annual report
to his constituents, funded from the IEP, "smack in the
middle of the Scottish elections".[39]
Ms Simpson was concerned that the report featured the former local
Liberal Democrat Member of the Scottish Parliament, Ms Norah Radcliffe,
who was at that point seeking re-election to the Parliament, in
photographs on both the front and back pages of the report.[40]
Another photograph also included the Scottish Liberal Democrat
Leader, Mr Nicol Stephen.[41]
10. Ms Simpson argued:
"… this is blatant electioneering by
Malcolm Bruce using taxpayers money and is grossly unfair to all
the other candidates in this hotly-contested seat. He could have
issued his report at any time well before or after the election."
Ms Simpson suggested that all Members should be barred
from using their IEP to issue such leaflets at least six months
before a general election or during other elections.
11. Ms Simpson had corresponded previously with me
on a similar matter and I wrote to her on 1 May reminding her
that "there is nothing in the House's guidelines about
reports of this nature limiting or preventing their publication
during a local or Scottish Parliament election period".
As her letter of 28 April had not made the position clear in terms,
I also asked if she wished me to treat her letter as a formal
complaint. Ms Simpson replied on 5 May saying that she did wish
me to do this.[42]
(D) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR SADIQ KHAN
12. Mr D Newman, a constituent of Mr Sadiq Khan (the
Member for Tooting), wrote to me on 9 May to complain about a
newsletter Mr Khan had circulated to his constituents which had
been funded from Mr Khan's Parliamentary Communications Allowance
(CA).[43] Mr Newman said
that he was concerned about the newsletter on two counts:
a) The leaflet prominently displayed the Labour
Party's red rose logo on its front page.
b) A picture on the front page showed Mr Khan
standing beneath a sign saying that he was a 'Labour Member of
Parliament'.
Mr Newman thought that in both these respects the
newsletter promoted the political party to which Mr Khan belonged,
and was thus in breach of the rules relating to the CA.[44]
Relevant Provisions of the Code of Conduct and
Rules of the House
13. Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct for Members
provides that:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."[45]
14. One of the publications complaints about which
are considered in this report—that concerning Mr Bruce—was
funded from the IEP and the others—those concerning Mr Baker,
Mr Khan and Ms Kirkbride—from the new CA.[46]
It is therefore necessary to set out briefly the relevant rules
and guidance relating to each allowance. Whilst doing this, however,
it is important to recognise that the rules and guidance relating
to the new CA are a development of those governing the former
IEP, so that they are in many respects similar. Moreover, both
allowances are subject to the fundamental principle, set out in
the Green Book on Members' Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances
and Pensions, that any expenditure claimed from the allowances
must have been "wholly, exclusively and necessarily"
incurred for the purpose of performing a Member's Parliamentary
duties and that the allowances cannot be used for party political
or campaigning purposes.[47]
15. As regards the Incidental Expenses Provision
(IEP), paragraph 5.1.1 of the edition of the Green Book in force
when Mr Baker and Mr Bruce circulated their newsletters said of
this allowance:
"It cannot be used to meet … the costs
of party political activities or campaigning."
Supplementary guidelines produced by the House's
Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) contained advice
to Members specifically about the use of the Parliamentary allowances
(principally the IEP) for funding publications.[48]
The guidelines included the following provisions which are particularly
relevant to the complaints against Mr Baker and Mr Bruce:
a) "The sole purpose of the editorial
elements of the publication must be to inform constituents about
your work as a Member and/or to provide information about how
to contact you" (paragraph 4).
b) "No party political or campaigning
material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in
whole or in part, from the allowances. Members wishing to produce
a joint publication with their local party, an MSP, MEP or AM
must ensure the entire content is free of such material. If
you wish to include material not allowed under these rules, you
must fund the whole cost of your publication from another source"
(paragraph 5).
c) "The following material is likely
to be allowable, subject to paragraph 11 below: …
- paid advertising by locally
based businesses, if the receipts are set against the cost of
the publication or reimbursed to the Incidental Expenses allowance"
(paragraph 10).
d) "You must not use IEP funded publications:
- to promote, criticise or
campaign for or against anyone seeking election
- for the purpose of advancing perspectives
or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of
any political party or organisation you support, or damaging the
interests of any other such party or organisation …"
(paragraph 11).
e) "Your publication must include a short
notice explaining that costs are to be met from the allowances,
and giving the source of any other funding" (paragraph
12).
16. In respect of publications funded from the IEP
as of those funded by the CA, Members were able, if they so wished,
to seek specific advice from the DFA on their conformity with
the guidance. Responsibility for ensuring conformity continued
to rest, however, with the individual Member concerned.
17. Extensive guidance on the Communications Allowance
(CA) was issued to Members at the time of its introduction earlier
this year.[49] The guidance
includes a new section of the "Green Book" relating
to the Allowance. Paragraph 6.1.1 says in relation to the scope
and purpose of the Allowance:
"The CA may only be used to help Members
inform their constituents about what they have been doing and
to consult them on issues of importance to them locally. It cannot
be used to meet personal costs or the costs of party political
activities or campaigning. The main areas of expenditure available
from the CA are outlined below. It is each Member's responsibility
to ensure that all expenditure funded by the CA is wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred on their Parliamentary duties."
Paragraph 6.2.1 on 'Principles and Propriety' says:
"You must avoid any arrangement which may
give rise to an accusation that you—or someone close to
you—is obtaining an element of profit from public funds;
or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political
organisation. The content of any communications paid from the
allowances must not seek to compare the Member's party favourably
with another, promote one party at the expense of another or seek
to undermine the reputation of political opponents."
18. The booklet of guidance issued to Members about
the allowance also includes advice on the rules to be followed
if a Member is using the CA to pay for producing a newsletter
or other publication. Relevant provisions of this include:
a) "No party political or campaigning
material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, wholly
or in part, from the allowance" (paragraph 7).
b) "You must not use the Communications
Allowance
- to fund publications that
promote, criticize or campaign for or against anyone seeking election.
- To advance perspectives or arguments with
the intention of promoting the interests of any person, political
party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of
any other such person, party or organisation" (paragraph
15).
c) "The use of party logos, whilst not
disallowed entirely, is restricted to proportionate and discreet
use; alternatively you may prefer to use the House emblem (the
Crowned Portcullis) as this reflects the Parliamentary nature
and purpose of the material being circulated" (paragraph
16).
d) "Photographs of Members wearing Party
rosettes can be acceptable, but again should be proportionate
and should not appear when the publication is to be circulated
close to or during an election period" (paragraph 17).
e) "The content of publications should
not seek, directly or indirectly, to compare a Member's party
favourably with another, promote one party at the expense of another
or seek to undermine the reputations of political opponents"
(paragraph 23).
19. It is important to note, given the context of
the present complaints, that neither the IEP nor the CA rules
and guidance prohibit the distribution of Parliamentary newsletters
during local or devolved administration election periods. Indeed
the wording of paragraph 17 of the CA guidance reproduced above,
whilst it discourages the appearance of party rosettes in such
publications during those periods, clearly implies that publication
during election periods is acceptable. It is also important to
note that, although not addressed in terms in the guidance, the
printing of such publications in party colours and the use of
such descriptions as "the Labour [or Conservative] Member
for …[name of constituency]" has for some time been
generally regarded by the House as acceptable practice.
My Inquiries
20. In accordance with usual practice, on receipt
of the complaints considered in this report, I invited each of
the Members concerned to let me have their response to the relevant
complaint.[50] I also
sought the advice of the DFA. In the paragraphs which follow,
I set out each Member's response to the complaint, along with
the views expressed by the Department.
(A) DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MS JULIE KIRKBRIDE
21. Having received and considered Mr Swainland's
letter of 9 June,[51]
I wrote to him on 13 June dismissing his complaint against Ms
Kirkbride.[52] I took
this decision on the basis that neither of the grounds of his
complaint—the timing of distribution of Ms Kirkbride's
"Spring Report" during the local election campaign or
the extensive use in it of Conservative Party colours—was
prohibited by the House's rules. Nor was there evidence that any
of the content of the Report breached the relevant guidelines.
22. When writing to Mr Swainland I noted, however,
that I had received other complaints suggesting that the possibility
of Members being prohibited from circulating such material in
the immediate run-up to local or devolved administration elections
should at least be considered. I proposed therefore to refer to
his complaint in that context (hence its inclusion in this report).
In an e-mail to me dated 22 November, Ms Kirkbride told me that
she had not in fact chosen the date of publication of her report
specifically. She had asked her local paper if they would arrange
to publish her newsletter in a wraparound format. They had agreed
in principle and slotted it into their production schedule on
a 'rough' timescale. It just so happened that the publication
date ended up being close to the local elections.
(B) RESPONSE BY MR NORMAN BAKER AND DFA COMMENTS
23. Following receipt of Mr Donovan's complaint,
I wrote to Mr Baker on 16 April.[53]
In my letter I asked about the number and manner of distribution
of his annual report; how precisely the publication had been funded
(including a breakdown of the contributions made by advertisers);
and whether Mr Baker had sought DFA advice on his newsletter.
24. Mr Baker replied on 2 May.[54]
He had printed 39,000 copies of his newsletter and distributed
most of them by Royal Mail. He had met the Royal Mail bill of
£1,658.95 out of his own pocket. The total cost of printing
the newsletter had been £2,115.00. Income from advertising
meant that the amount to be claimed from public funds was £985.00.
For her advertising feature, Ms Bowles had paid an amount similar
to the largest contribution by any other advertiser (£300).
25. Mr Baker said that, while in previous years he
had sought guidance from the DFA on matters to do with his annual
report, this year he had not. He added, "In retrospect,
that might have been helpful."
26. Regarding the advertising feature placed by Ms
Bowles, Mr Baker pointed out that it was simply one of a number
of advertisements, and that "the sole reason for their
inclusion … was to keep the costs to the public purse to
the lowest possible level". As the feature had clearly
been labelled as an advertisement, he assumed that there was no
concern about its editorial content. Had Ms Bowles's advertisement
not been included (and there was no advantage to him in including
advertising material), the complaint would not have emerged, but
the public purse would have been poorer.
27. Ms Bowles's advertising feature had been funded
from an allowance she received from the European Parliament which
according to Mr Baker was subject to similar restrictions to the
IEP. This required such advertisements to be accompanied by a
note indicating that they had been paid for by the Alliance of
Liberals and Democrats in Europe. Mr Baker concluded:
"In summary therefore, the piece in question
was a genuine advertisement, clearly marked as such, for which
an appropriate and standard rate was charged. Because it conforms
to a scheme run by the European Parliament for MEPs to use public
funds to publicise their work, a scheme which has similar standards
to that operated by the House of Commons, I did not regard the
piece or its contents as political. My only motivation in including
this advertisement, and indeed all the others, was to minimize
the cost to public funds."
28. On receipt of Mr Baker's response, I sought advice
from the DFA on the complaint. The Director of Operations replied
on 27 June. He confirmed that the Department had not seen the
newsletter prior to its publication and that, to date, Mr Baker
had not made any claim against his allowances for the cost of
producing it. He continued:
"This is a difficult and novel case and usefully
illustrates some of the unusual circumstances on which we are
asked to adjudicate. At issue here is the use of public money
provided by another democratic institution to pay for space in
a Parliamentary newsletter. On this last point I note that Mr
Baker says that Ms Bowles has complied with the European Parliament's
own rules."
29. The Director noted that the House's rules:
- "require all newsletter
contents to be free of any political or campaigning comments;
- allow for "paid advertising by
locally based businesses…"
[emphasis added];
- allow for cost sharing through joint publications
with other local elected politicians; and
- proscribe part-funding from the allowances
where political content is included."
Taken together, he suggested, the rules allowed Members
to include material from other politicians where this was paid
for by the third party but only if the additional material itself
avoided party politics and campaigning. He also suggested that
this was the case whether or not the material provided by the
third party was described as an advertisement or, as in the present
case, described as an 'advertising feature' but paid for from
public funds.
30. Against this background he and his senior staff,
who saw many such newsletters, had reviewed the content of the
advertisement paid for by Ms Bowles. Their considered view was
that the advertisement promoted the actions of the Liberal Democrat
Leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, in its reference to his campaign,
supported by Ms Bowles, against excessive packaging by supermarkets,
and in so doing breached the Department's guidance by "advancing
perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the
interests of any [person], political party or organization you
support" (see paragraphs 15 and 18 above). However the
Director declared himself satisfied that, on the basis of the
information Mr Baker had supplied, Ms Bowles had paid a fair rate
for her advertising feature and that it had involved no cross-subsidy
from Parliamentary funds.
31. The Director concluded:
"… had we seen the newsletter prior
to publication we would have informed Mr Baker that the advertisement
was not appropriate and should be removed or the text revised
so that it conformed to the House guidance on party political
or campaigning material. As you have intimated, the issues are
not straightforward and there is therefore a case for saying on
this occasion, should Mr Baker seek reimbursement of the costs,
that this should be made. However, you may conclude differently,
in which case I would accept your judgement."
(C) RESPONSE BY RT HON MALCOLM BRUCE AND DFA COMMENTS
32. I wrote to Mr Bruce on 9 May drawing his attention
to Ms Simpson's complaint, which focussed on the timing of issue
of his report and the inclusion in it of photographs of people
who were candidates in the election to the Scottish Parliament.[55]
I pointed out that there was nothing in the relevant rules or
guidelines preventing the publication of newsletters during an
election period, but that they did prohibit the inclusion of material
promoting anyone seeking election. I invited Mr Bruce's comments,
as well as requesting information about the manner and timing
of distribution of his report.
33. Mr Bruce replied on 22 May.[56]
He had originally arranged for the Royal Mail to distribute his
report in February. However, preparation of the report had taken
longer than expected and when it was near completion, the Royal
Mail had changed the proposed distribution dates to the period
21 March to 26 May. Had Mr Bruce not accepted these alternative
dates, distribution would have been postponed to July, which would
have made much of the material in the report out of date and meant
that the cost fell in a different financial year.
34. Mr Bruce had therefore decided that distribution
could not be delayed further. His "firm intention"
was for the distribution, which normally took place early in the
New Year, to be complete well before the election. In the event,
it had still to be completed when he wrote to me.
35. Regarding the content of the report, Mr Bruce
commented:
"… I was careful not to use it in a
party political way. There is no other mention of my party in
the report apart from the caption of the picture of Nicol Stephen.
The pictures of Nora Radcliffe were just representative of the
kind of work I do.
"I also mention Joan Ruddock by name and
refer to the Prime Minister and a defence minister but would hardly
regard this as promoting the Labour Party.
"The captions were inserted at the last minute
and I did not have time to check them. However at the time the
photographs were taken Nora Radcliffe was the MSP but I would
have left the letters out. Nicol Stephen was Transport Minister
and Deputy First Minister at the time and that is how I would
have chosen to describe him."
36. Mr Bruce confirmed that up to 13,063 copies of
his report had been distributed in the Scottish Parliamentary
constituency of Gordon during the election period, and a further
11,708 either side of polling day in the Aberdeen North part of
his constituency. 7,618 copies had been distributed either before
or after the election period.
37. Mr Bruce concluded:
"I believe both in the content of the report
and its distribution I adhered to the guidelines and would refute
that this is party political or campaigning material or promoting
any candidate.
"However, given the House has now voted for
a communication allowance which will increase the amount of material
Members will send out in their constituencies I would appreciate
clear guidelines for the future—subject to the understanding
that MPs will inevitably present themselves in a positive light
in this kind of literature and therefore partisan opponents are
likely to take exception."
38. I subsequently sought advice from the DFA on
the complaint. The Director of Operations replied on 12 July.
He confirmed that Mr Bruce had used his IEP to meet the cost of
printing and distributing the report. Mr Bruce had not asked the
Department to review the content of his report before its publication.
39. The Director noted that the distribution of the
report during the election period did not breach any specific
rule of the House. He expressed concern, however, about the two
photographs which included the Liberal Democrat candidate for
MSP for Gordon (Ms Radcliffe) and the one which included the Liberal
Democrat leader in Scotland (Mr Stephen), commenting:
"My basic worry is that, whilst the subject
matter of the articles associated to the photographs is genuinely
local, for which it is reasonable for Mr Bruce to publicise his
own actions, the appearance of Mrs Radcliffe and Mr Stephen in
the photographs seems to have little or no bearing on these matters."
40. The Director noted that Members' newsletters
occasionally carried articles and photographs about local campaigns
in which they had been involved with local councillors or other
representatives. The photograph including Ms Radcliffe on page
1 of Mr Bruce's report was arguably an example of this, although
the article which accompanied the photograph did not refer to
any joint campaigning by Mr Bruce and Ms Radcliffe. The second
photograph, associated with the article "Fair deal for
farmers", was "less clear cut" in this
respect, and there was again no specific reference in the article
to any joint action taken by Mr Bruce and Ms Radcliffe. As to
the photograph of Mr Bruce with Mr Stephen, the Director considered
that it appeared superfluous to the article with which it was
connected.
41. The Director concluded:
"Mr Bruce says that he originally intended
to distribute his report in February 2007 but was delayed, initially
by administrative difficulties, followed by a further delay in
arranging the distribution via Royal Mail. Whether the distribution
had occurred in February or, as it did, in the period just before
the Scottish election, DFA would still have queried the inclusion
of the three photographs mentioned above. Our concern would have
been that the report gave the impression of promoting the Liberal
Democrat Party.
"I note that Mr Bruce states that the pictures
of him with Mrs Radcliffe were designed to be representative of
the work he undertakes. I assume he would say the same about the
photographs with Mr Stephen. He does not make any reference to
any specific joint campaigns. I am confident that had we been
asked to review the report we would have requested the removal
of the photographs. We would also have asked him to change some
of the language used in the article about post office closures,
which has a party political character to it, and possibly the
article concerning climate change."
(D) RESPONSE BY MR SADIQ KHAN AND DFA COMMENTS
42. I wrote to Mr Khan on 15 May drawing his attention
to Mr Newman's complaint, which centred on the prominent display
of the Labour Party logo in the front page heading of his newsletter
and the photograph (also on page 1) of Mr Khan standing beneath
a sign stating that he was the "Labour Member of Parliament
for Tooting". I also asked Mr Khan to explain the distribution
arrangements for his newsletter; whether he had consulted the
DFA about it; and the nature of the "Sadiq Khan Supporters
Network" and of the newsletter "Totally Tooting",
both referred to in the tick boxes in the tear-off slip at the
foot of the final page of his Parliamentary report.[57]
43. Mr Khan replied on 22 May.[58]
He told me that he had distributed 40,000 copies of his Parliamentary
report, funded from his CA, using the services of a local distribution
company. Prior to printing the report, his office had sent both
the Serjeant at Arms and the DFA the text of the report. The DFA
had queried 2 elements of the content of the report (neither of
which were the subject of Mr Newman's complaint) but had not felt
that either point warranted a change to the document or refusing
funding of the report.
44. As to the queries I had raised about the content
of the tear-off slip at the end of the report, Mr Khan said that
the "Sadiq Khan Supporters Network" was a group
of constituents "who volunteer to assist me with my Parliamentary,
as opposed to political, work". They particularly helped
distribute his regular newsletter "Totally Tooting".
This was a "non-political newsletter" that Mr
Khan sent out to update constituents on his Parliamentary and
constituency work. Mr Khan concluded:
"My office and I have always adhered to the
Parliamentary standards and rules, so I am confident that you
will decide not to uphold the complaint raised."
45. I invited the DFA's comments on Mr Newman's complaint
and Mr Khan's response. The Director of Operations wrote on 14
June. He did not think that either the logo or the sign in the
photograph which identified Mr Khan as the "Labour Member
of Parliament for Tooting" breached the Department's
guidelines on the use of the CA:
"The logo, of which there is only one, whilst
slightly large is in keeping with the size of the banner heading;
and the photograph is simply a picture of Mr Khan standing outside
his constituency office."
46. However, the Director continued:
"I am a little less comfortable with some
other aspects of this case, which highlight some interesting features
of the Communication Allowance rules and procedures. In his letter
of 22 May, Mr Khan implies that he sent a copy of the newsletter
to the Department and that this was approved by a member of my
staff. The facts are that whilst we received a copy of the newsletter,
Mr Khan's office did not allow time for comments to be received
and acted upon. This meant that when we offered comments on the
text (which we did speedily) the report had already been sent
to the printers and there was no opportunity for Mr Khan to make
the amendments suggested. I think the undue haste was regrettable.
"In many respects Mr Khan's newsletter is
a quite good example of the regular report to constituents that
the Communications Allowance is there to fund. That said, my staff
had asked for minor changes to the Graveney Ward article (page
2) and sections of the 'Looking forward to the future' section
(page 3). On the former we were concerned by the references relating
to local 'Labour' Councillors and on the latter to the references
to the Government's 'commitment' and 'priorities'. Both are, arguably,
small examples of this newsletter promoting a political party
or its policies.
"Despite the newsletter having some text
that was perhaps outside the rules of the Communications Allowance,
my staff took the view that the two instances in themselves were
not sufficiently significant to refuse payment for the printing
and distribution of the newsletter. We have had other examples
of 'borderline' decisions where we have on occasions given the
benefit of the doubt to the Member.
"We also requested clarification on the nature
of the 'Supporters Network' and the regular newsletter mentioned
on page 4 and received confirmation that the 'Supporters Network'
and the regular newsletters were of a non-political nature. It
is not entirely without precedent for Members to seek help from
constituents with minor tasks such as delivering leaflets.
"At the time my staff agreed that payment
for the publication could be made from Mr Khan's Parliamentary
allowances, notwithstanding the concerns expressed. However, they
also said that in future advice should be sought in good time
to allow for a proper review to be undertaken and that if any
complaint was received we would have to report that the newsletter
in question had not been seen in advance of the publication. We
would be unlikely to give the benefit of the doubt on a second
occasion."
Further Comments by the Members Concerned
47. Having decided, in the light of the material
and views presented to me and the wider issues they raised, that
I should report formally to the Committee on the cases in question,
I wrote to Mr Baker, Mr Bruce and Mr Khan enclosing a draft of
the factual sections of this report and inviting their comments,
in particular on the views expressed by the DFA on the complaints.
In the following paragraphs, I summarise the response of each
Member.
(A) MR NORMAN BAKER
48. Mr Baker spoke to me briefly by phone and subsequently
confirmed his response in a letter of 4 September.[59]
After noting that the Department accepted that the fee paid by
Ms Bowles for her advertisement had been proportionate, Mr Baker
took issue with the Department's view that the advertisement had
contained unacceptable material of a party political nature. He
argued that:
i) The piece had been clearly marked as an advertising
feature, which "should have signalled to the reader that
it was not part of editorial content relating to the MP".
ii) The advertisement "had been approved
as qualifying for public funds" under EU rules. In their
terms, it was not regarded as political.
iii) Nor was it political in the eyes of Mr Baker.
Ms Bowles had simply been seeking to report back to her constituents
on the work she had been doing. None of the content of the advertisement
had sought to denigrate political opponents. The Department's
criticism of the advertisement appeared to rest solely on the
inclusion in it of a reference to Sir Menzies Campbell. This was,
in Mr Baker's view, "much less political than the use
of pictures showing candidates wearing rosettes, the use of party
logos, and the colour-coding of leaflets in party colours, all
of which are allowed (and none of which featured in my leaflet)".
iv) There was, in Mr Baker's view, no question
of public funds having been used to assist party political activities
or campaigning. Indeed the inclusion of Ms Bowles's advertising
feature had actually served to reduce the overall claim
Mr Baker had had to make on his Parliamentary allowances. The
extensive use of advertisements made by Mr Baker in his newsletter
had meant that, whereas he could have charged the whole cost of
£4,157.95 to his IEP, he proposed to claim only £985.
49. Mr Baker concluded by noting that he had not
yet claimed even that sum pending resolution of Mr Donovan's complaint,
and that if he were in fact not to make a claim at all, the complaint
would fall. He continued:
"I think it is useful, however, for this
issue to be raised, for the definition of 'party political campaigning'
to be further considered, and in particular for the relationship
between the approved scheme of the Westminster and European parliaments
to be considered.
"Lastly, in general terms, I must say I think
it would be unhelpful to the House generally if a Member were
to be criticized for successfully reducing the call upon public
funds."
50. Since Mr Baker had strongly disputed the view
taken by the DFA of the complaint, I gave the Director of Operations
the opportunity to offer any further comment he wished. The Director
replied on 19 September:
"I do not believe that there is much I can
add to my earlier letter to you of 27 June. The House requires
that a Member's newsletter paid in full or in part from public
funds should be entirely free from any political or campaigning
comments. I believe that the IEP rules prior to April 2007 were
clear in this respect and that the new rules for the Communications
Allowance are clearer still.
"Furthermore, the interpretation I have given
about the political nature of a small part of Mr Baker's newsletter
is one that the Department is required by the House to make in
determining whether costs should be reimbursed, whereas the House
itself has determined, for example, that the use of party logos
can be acceptable within certain parameters. Assessing which of
the two is 'less political' as Mr Baker invites you to do was
not a relevant consideration for DFA, even if it were possible
to make such an assessment.
"As I said in my earlier letter, this is
not an easy case. If you determine that there has been a breach
of the rules, it is a relatively minor one. And it is complicated
by the fact that the cost of the offending advert is, apparently,
a legitimate expense which can be met from funds provided to elected
Members of another democratic institution with, we are told, similar
rules about political neutrality.
"Whilst Mr Baker has reduced the call on
UK Parliament funds, the 'good' that this approach brings has
to be set against the reputational consequences of Members' Parliamentary
material straying into clear party political territory. The House's
rules are based on the undesirability of the latter, and do not
contemplate a compromise of this principle for the sake of a modest
saving to the public purse."
51. In view of Mr Baker's statement that Ms Bowles's
advertisement "had been approved as qualifying for public
funds under the scheme operated under the auspices of the European
Union" and that "EU rules do not regard the disputed
advertisement as political", the Registrar of Members'
Interests made some inquiries on my behalf of officials of the
European Parliament. The officials confirmed that the rules of
the Parliament—within which party groupings such as the
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe are required to
manage the funds allocated to them for information and related
purposes—prohibit expenditure of EU funds on activities
of an "electoral nature".[60]
Although unable to give a formal ruling in the absence of a formal
request, officials indicated informally that they did not think
Ms Bowles's advertisements would breach the EU rules.
(B) RT HON MALCOLM BRUCE
52. Mr Bruce wrote to me on 24 July[61]
and subsequently came to see me about his response to Ms Simpson's
complaint and the views expressed by the DFA's Director of Operations
(see paragraphs 39-41 above). He expressed himself "very
disappointed" in the Director's comments. He had produced
annual reports for a number of years and did not believe there
was anything significantly different in this one from those he
had produced previously. He had thought "it was perfectly
reasonable to incorporate photographs of Nora Radcliffe [the former
MSP] to demonstrate that we worked together on issues in which
the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments both have an interest".
He had not elaborated on the work he had done with Ms Radcliffe
as, in his view, that would have involved straying into campaigning
on her behalf.
53. The photograph of Mr Bruce with Nicol Stephen
was not superfluous, in Mr Bruce's opinion. The article to which
the photograph related had been about improved transport links
and Mr Stephen had at the time been Transport Minister in the
Scottish Executive. As to the Director's (unspecified) reservations
about some of the language used in the articles on post office
closures and on climate change, Mr Bruce contended that in so
far as these were critical of the Government, they were no more
than statements of fact.
54. Mr Bruce pointed out that he had not used a party
logo or other party identifying features in his newsletter. He
had not submitted the final proof of the newsletter to the DFA
partly because he did not need to and understood that the Department
did not wish to see advance proofs, and partly because of pressure
of deadlines. Although he did not want distribution of his report
to overlap the election period, there was no bar to this and he
had had no option but to proceed if the costs were to be borne
on his 2006-07 allowances. Approximately 40% of his constituents
lived outside the Holyrood constituency of Gordon and distribution
had not been completed until after the election. This should be
measured against Ms Simpson's claim that what had happened was
"blatant electioneering".
55. Mr Bruce concluded his letter by saying:
"This report was produced with full consideration
of the rules of the House and in the belief that it complied.
I do not accept that the photographs in question amount to promotion
of the Liberal Democrats. I have also stated that I do not believe
the text contravenes the guidelines.
"I am extremely concerned that a report that
was produced in good faith and in accordance with the rules could
become the subject of a published criticism of my actions.
"If there is any future guidance or clarification
arising out of this I would have thought informal briefing to
the Member or Members would be all that is required or justified.
"Of course, I will in future be happy to
accept clear guidance and submit proofs to the DFA. I would stress
that guidance is open to interpretation and I am sure I and other
Members would appreciate further clarification."
56. In view of his disappointment with the DFA's
observations, I shared Mr Bruce's comments with the Director of
Operations, who replied on 13 August elaborating on the reasons
why he had expressed concern about three of the photographs and
associated captions in Mr Bruce's newsletter and about the wording
of the article on post office closures. The text of the Director's
letter is at WE 19. He noted that his concern was that the photographs
of Ms Radcliffe and Mr Stephen created an impression of
promoting the Liberal Democrat Party. Whilst he had not appreciated
Mr Stephen's role as Transport Minister, which explained the inclusion
of the photograph of him, the caption to the photograph did not
refer to this role but to his role as the Scottish Liberal Democrat
leader, arguably reinforcing the overall party political impression
one could gain from the report. As regards the article on post
office closures, this arguably focussed too much on attacking
the Government, and not enough on the plans of the Royal Mail
or Mr Bruce's own constituency campaign. In conclusion, the Director
acknowledged that his assessment of the report involved making
a fine judgement. He too would welcome any clarification of where
the line in relation to party political content should be drawn
and which consideration of the complaint against Mr Bruce might
bring.
57. I informed Mr Bruce of the Director's comments
when I met him on the following day. Mr Bruce said that when,
in the past, his office had checked with the DFA whether they
wished to see his planned publications, his staff had been told
this was not necessary. The Department had confirmed there was
no bar on Members circulating newsletters during a Scottish election
period: he could not help but feel that, with the benefit of hindsight,
the Department was now judging his 2007 newsletter as if additional
restrictions did apply in such periods. For several years when
the boundaries of his Westminster and the Holyrood constituency
had been contiguous, he had issued a joint report with the MSP,
about which there had been no complaint. He could not therefore
see that including in his recent newsletter photographs illustrating
the fact that he worked with the local MSP was at all controversial.
He could not accept that the DFA's strictures were justified.
While he was ready to accept advice that, maybe, certain aspects
of his newsletter could have been done better, he could not see
any justification for Ms Simpson's complaint about it being upheld.
(C) MR SADIQ KHAN
58. I sent Mr Khan an initial draft of the factual
sections of this report, incorporating the DFA's comments on Mr
Newman's complaint against him, on 18 July. Mr Khan subsequently
came to see me and wrote to me conveying his response to the Department's
comments. The text of Mr Khan's letter of 25 July is at WE 20.
59. Mr Khan said that he was disappointed that I
judged that I should report formally to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges about Mr Newman's complaint, especially as the
DFA had said that it did not think either of the grounds of the
complaint—relating to the use of the Labour Party logo or
to the photograph of Mr Khan outside his office on page 1—was
justified. He also expressed disappointment that in commenting
to me on the complaint, the Director of Operations had gone into
other matters which did not form part of Mr Newman's complaint.
It seemed to him that he was in danger of being penalized, for
reasons other than the complaint, simply because he had taken
the trouble to seek the Department's advice, which, under the
rules of the House, he was not obliged to do.
60. Mr Khan explained the nature and timing of the
dealings his staff had had with Departments of the House about
his newsletters. These are set out in full in his letter at WE
20 and it is not necessary for me to repeat them here. It emerged
from his account that Mr Khan's staff had initially approached
the Department of the Serjeant at Arms (SAA), not the DFA, for
clearance of the text. By the time the DFA had seen the text of
the proposed newsletter on 18 April, the deadline set by Mr Khan's
printers had passed and the copy could not be amended. Mr Khan's
staff had also thought they were able to proceed because, when
passing the text to the DFA, the SAA's Department had said that
it did not see any problems with the publication.
61. Mr Khan pointed out that there were no local
elections in London in 2007, so there was no apparent or real
electoral advantage in him getting out his newsletter when he
did. Timing had entirely been dictated by practical considerations,
including printing and distribution opportunities. He would not
have submitted the invoices for his newsletter to be paid out
of his Parliamentary allowances had the DFA not indicated that
they would be paid—which he understood to mean that the
newsletter must have complied with the rules of the House. Mr
Khan concluded:
"I believe that my office and I have always
adhered to Parliamentary standards and rules with regards to the
publication and distribution of literature. However without prejudice
to this, and following this incident, I will ensure that all future
submissions to the Serjeant-at-Arms and Department of Finance
and Administration are sent off with additional good time".
62. I subsequently checked with the Departments concerned
Mr Khan's account of his staff's dealings with the DFA and the
Department of the SAA. The latter pointed out that Mr Khan's staff
could not have contacted them initially on 9 April as this was,
in fact, Easter Monday. They were surprised that Mr Khan's staff
had gained the impression that they could have commented on the
proposed copy for the newsletter within one hour as they could
never turn around such requests in that period, and the responsible
officer was in any case on leave at the time. That officer had
processed the matter quickly on her return. In saying that she
could not see any problems with what was proposed, she had been
speaking only of her own area of responsibility, as was implied
by the fact that she had forwarded the material to the DFA for
it to consider in the light of its different remit.
63. The DFA's Director of Operations commented that
Mr Khan was entirely correct to say that Members are under no
obligation to seek prior approval for newsletters from his Department.
However, doing so provided some comfort in the event of a complaint
and ensured that reimbursement from the relevant allowance would
be agreed by the Department. His staff had not been aware of the
initial view expressed by the Department of the SAA and he could
understand "Mr Sadiq's distress that apparently contradictory
advice came from different departments of the House".
In general House staff wished to be as helpful to Members as possible,
as his staff had been in agreeing to reimburse Mr Khan's expenditure
despite their earlier advice that his newsletter did not meet
the House's rules. Arguably this had been something of a pragmatic
response to the fact that the newsletter had already been printed
and costs incurred. The Director concluded:
"I remain of the view that strictly speaking
Mr Khan's newsletter was outside the rules in a number of respects.
This is also clear from my officer's initial advice to Mr Khan's
office. The contraventions are not dissimilar from other cases
you are considering and it is this Department's job to be as consistent
as possible in its interpretation of the House's rules. But I
can also see that some extenuating circumstances arise in this
case."
64. I informed Mr Khan of the comments of the Director
of Operations and the Assistant Serjeant at Arms (set out in the
two immediately preceding paragraphs) when sending him a revised
draft of the factual sections of this report. Mr Khan replied
on 18 November.[62]
He acknowledged that his Parliamentary staff would not have contacted
the Serjeant's Department on Easter Monday (this was a simple
error of recollection by the relevant member of his staff) but
he had been assured that the contact had been made at the very
beginning of the working week. His staff were clear as to the
nature of the response they had received from the Serjeant's Department:
"Were my office informed that it took longer
than one hour to review the soft-copy then this would have been
accounted for in the production schedule— and I do not believe
that insinuation that they arbitrarily chose to allow the Serjeant-at-Arms
only one hour to complete a review is warranted in the draft report."
65. Mr Khan commented that he thought it reasonable
to assume that his staff had been misinformed by a member of the
Serjeant's Department both as to the time required to clear the
draft of his report and the person to whom it should be sent for
clearance. In his view, the issues raised by the two Departments'
responses to my inquiry had "strayed considerably" from
the initial complaint and "should be attributed to a communications
failure made by extremely busy individuals working with good intent."
His office had made efforts to avoid such incidents happening
again and had liaised successfully with the DFA about further
publications issued by Mr Khan in September 2007.
66. Mr Khan said that he was puzzled how, when the
Director of Operations accepted that his staff had been given
apparently contradictory advice by the two departments of the
House involved, the Director could still maintain that, strictly
speaking, Mr Khan's newsletter had been outside the rules. He
summed up his view of the matter as follows:
"As the original complaint has not been upheld
[by the Director], and there have been no further complaints from
any constituent about any part of my newsletter, and seeing as
the DFA did agree that the only points of correction were not
'significant enough to withhold payment' … I would hope that
this matter can now be concluded."[63]
67. Finally, Mr Khan commented that if Members were
to be encouraged to seek prior approval for their publications,
as he had done, it was important that there was better communication
between the DFA and the Serjeant's Department, and better guidance
to Members about exactly who to contact and how much time to allow
for gaining their approval.[64]
Findings of Fact
(A) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR NORMAN BAKER
68. Mr Baker circulated some 39,000 copies of an
eight-page newsletter to his constituents in the early part of
this year. He paid for the distribution of the newsletter himself:
the cost of printing was covered partly from advertising revenue,
leaving a residue of £985 to be funded from his Parliamentary
allowances.
69. The newsletter included an "advertising
feature", paid for by Ms Sharon Bowles, a Liberal Democrat
MEP and one of the 10 MEPs representing the South East Region,
out of money made available to her by the European Parliament.
The article included reference to Ms Bowles's support for Sir
Menzies Campbell's campaign to persuade supermarkets to remove
unnecessary packaging. The amount paid by Ms Bowles for the feature
was not significantly out of line with the amount paid by others
who advertised in the newsletter.
70. Mr Baker did not seek DFA advice on his newsletter.
He says that he did not regard the piece—which was clearly
marked as an advertisement—or its contents as political.
His sole motive in including the feature was to minimize the cost
to public funds of producing and distributing the newsletter.
71. Whilst acknowledging that it is not an easy case,
and that Mr Baker's actions reduced the call on UK Parliamentary
funds, the DFA takes the view that the content of the article
promotes the actions of Sir Menzies Campbell and so breaches the
ban on party political content embodied in relevant rules of the
House and guidance about newsletters issued by the Department.
Mr Baker responds that the context of the piece was not part of
editorial matter relating to him but was clearly marked as an
advertising feature. It had been approved as qualifying for funding
under the rules of the EU Parliament and was not party political
in nature. He rejects the Department's view of the newsletter,
although he says that he will welcome further elucidation of what
constitutes party political or campaigning material. Officials
of the EU Parliament have confirmed informally that they would
not regard Ms Bowles's advertisement as contravening EU rules,
which include a prohibition on funding activities of an electoral
nature.
(B) COMPLAINT AGAINST RT HON MALCOLM BRUCE
72. Mr Bruce distributed a total of 35,092 copies
of his annual Parliamentary report, funded from the IEP, to his
constituents during the period 21 March-26 May 2007. As a result
of delay in the expected completion of the newsletter, and a further
delay in arranging its distribution by the Royal Mail, a significant
number of these reports were distributed during the Scottish Parliament
election period. This had not been Mr Bruce's intention, nor did
the timing of distribution breach any rule of the House.
73. The text of the report—which had not been
reviewed in advance by the DFA—included two photographs
and accompanying captions referring to the local Liberal Democrat
MSP (and candidate for re-election) and one referring to the Leader
of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland (also a candidate in the
Scottish Parliament elections). There was no reference to them
in the article accompanying each of these photographs. Mr Bruce
says that he did not have time to check the captions which accompanied
the photographs and would have amended them had he done so. Nevertheless
he believes that his newsletter complies with the relevant rules
and guidelines of the House.
74. The DFA's Director of Operations takes the view,
on balance, however, that the photographs created the impression
of promoting the Liberal Democrat Party. He also has reservations
about some of the language used in the leading article in the
newsletter about post office closures, which in his view focuses
too much on attacking the Government and not enough on Royal Mail's
plans and Mr Bruce's own constituency campaign against the closures.
Mr Bruce, on the other hand believes that it was perfectly reasonable
to include photographs which demonstrated that he worked together
with the local MSP. The Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats,
who featured in a photograph illustrating transport matters, had
at the time been Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive.
As to the language used in the article to which the Director takes
exception, Mr Bruce contends that the statements concerned are
purely factual.
(C) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR SADIQ KHAN
75. In May 2007, Mr Khan distributed 40,000 copies
of his Parliamentary newsletter, funded from the CA, to households
in his constituency. He submitted the text of the newsletter in
advance to the Serjeant at Arms and to the DFA . His staff received
what they believed to be an all-clear from the Serjeant's Department.
However, as they were under pressure of printing and distribution
deadlines, they did not await the DFA's advice before proceeding
to print Mr Khan's newsletter. Mr Khan attributes what happened
to his staff having been misinformed by the Serjeant's Department
as to the person from whom they needed to gain advice and how
long it would take to get it. The staff concerned see this as
a misunderstanding of what happened.
76. The front page of the newsletter included a prominent
Labour Party logo in the heading and a photograph of Mr Khan standing
outside his office beneath a sign describing him as the "Labour
Member of Parliament for Tooting". Neither Mr Khan nor the
DFA consider that these breached the relevant guidelines of the
House. However, the DFA's Director of Operations has expressed
concern that, having sought DFA advice, Mr Khan did not allow
time to receive and act upon it. He also has concerns about some
other aspects of the content of the newsletter Although these
were not sufficiently serious in his staff's view to justify withholding
payment for the newsletter on this occasion, the Director remains
of the view that, strictly speaking, Mr Khan's newsletter was
outside the rules in a number of respects. Mr Khan , however,
argues that it is inappropriate for the Director to express reservations
on matters not mentioned in the original complaint. He notes that
the DFA has no reservations in respect of the two matters mentioned
in the complaint and expresses concern that he is in danger of
being penalized for reasons other than the complaint, simply because
he had taken the trouble to consult the DFA, which the rules did
not require him to do. The timing of publication of his newsletter
had been dictated entirely by practical factors, rather than any
consideration of electoral advantage, and he and his office had
acted in good faith throughout.
Conclusions
77. Having set out the complaints against Mr Baker,
Mr Bruce and Mr Khan, the views of the DFA (and, in Mr Khan's
case, the comments of the Serjeant's Department) and the response
of each of the Members, I consider in turn the issues raised by
each complaint and whether or not each Member's newsletter breached
the relevant rules of the House.
(A) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR NORMAN BAKER
78. Mr Donovan's complaint against Mr Baker falls
into two parts:
a) whether it is acceptable for the IEP to be
used to fund a publication that also carried party political material,
which Mr Donovan contends Mr Baker's advertising feature is, even
if that material is in the form of advertising;
b) whether Ms Bowles and the Alliance of Liberals
and Democrats for Europe paid proportionally the same as other
advertisers in Mr Baker's newsletter or were subsidized in some
way by the IEP.[65]
79. Taking first the second ground of complaint,
it is clear to me that, were there to have been any element of
subsidy, this would have been improper. However, the evidence
supplied by Mr Baker indicates that Ms Bowles paid a proportionate
amount in relation to other advertisers for her advertising feature.
This is accepted by the DFA. I therefore dismiss this aspect
of Mr Donovan's complaint.
80. The first ground of the complaint is, however,
not so easily disposed of. It involves making a judgement about
whether or not the inclusion of Ms Bowles's advertising feature
broke the prohibition imposed by the rules of the House on the
inclusion of party political or campaigning material in a newsletter
funded from the IEP.[66]
81. In addressing that point the first issue to consider
is whether Ms Bowles's advertising feature falls within the scope
of the House's rules. Paragraph 5 of the DFA's supplementary guidelines
on the use of Parliamentary allowances for funding publications
(quoted at paragraph 15 (b) above and reproduced at WE 9) is clear
on the point:
"No party political or campaigning material
is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or
in part, from the allowances." (emphasis
added).
I am sure, therefore, that both Mr Donovan and the
DFA's Director of Operations are right to argue that the mere
fact that an item in a Parliamentary newsletter is labelled an
'advertising feature' does not take it outside the scope of the
rules. In other words, Members are allowed to include in their
newsletters material from third parties—whether in the form
of advertisements or advertising features—only so long as
the content conforms to the rules of the House, including the
ban on party political or campaigning activity. So I do not think
Mr Baker is relieved of editorial responsibility for the content
of Ms Bowles's insert simply because it was described as an advertising
feature and paid for from EU Parliament (ie. public) funds. His
argument that the fact that the insert was clearly labelled an
advertising feature "should have signalled to the reader
that it was not part of editorial content relating to the MP"[67]
does not get him off the hook.
82. Did Ms Bowles's advertising feature breach the
ban on party political or campaigning activity? Mr Baker argues
in effect that since the feature met the EU Parliament's rules,
(a judgement which EU officials have indicated informally they
share), it must be presumed also to meet the rules of the House.
83. I note, however, that the EU rules and accompanying
guidelines prohibit the use of EU Parliament appropriations to
fund political parties or electoral campaigns. The guidelines
speak of "the electoral nature of a political and information
activity".[68] The
scope of the prohibition in the EU rules therefore appears to
be somewhat narrower than that in the relevant rules of the House—embracing
clearly the prohibition on campaigning material in the latter
but less clearly its ban on all party political activity. In any
event, the fact that Ms Bowles's advertising feature appears to
conform with EU rules is not determinative of whether or not it
conforms with the rules of the House. A separate judgement on
that is still necessary.
84. In his letter of 4 September[69]
Mr Baker goes on to dispute the view of the DFA's Director of
Operations that the contents of the advertising feature are party
political in character. The Director argues[70]
that the feature 'promotes the actions of the (then) Liberal
Democrat Leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and in so doing breaches
paragraph 11 of the IEP guidelines by "advancing perspectives
or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of
any political party or organization you support … ."'
Mr Baker says that Ms Bowles was simply seeking, as an elected
local representative, to report back to those she represents on
work she had been doing. The use of party labels is permissible
and there could be no objection to Ms Bowles reporting back on
her attempts to curb excess packaging. Her feature did not seek
to denigrate political opponents.
85. Mr Baker continues:
"The suggestion that this advertisement is
unacceptably political would therefore seem to rest solely on
the reference to my party leader Sir Menzies Campbell. I would
argue that this is in fact much less political than the use of
pictures showing candidates wearing rosettes, the use of party
logos, and the colour-coding of leaflets in party colours, all
of which are allowed (and none of which featured in my leaflet)."
[71]
The fact, however, that Mr Baker regards the content
of Ms Bowles's feature as "much less political" than
the use of party logos, etc does not absolve us of the need to
judge whether or not that content crosses the line into party
political material.
86. In my opinion, on balance it does. The fact that
the rest of the advertising feature focuses on what Ms Bowles
has been doing does not detract from the fact that it includes
a passage promoting her party leader. It is also relevant that
her feature describes what she has been doing as backing his campaign.
87. Finally Mr Baker argues that his motivation throughout
in accepting Ms Bowles's and other advertising has been to reduce
the call on public funds, and that it would be:
"… unhelpful to the House generally
if a Member were to be criticized for successfully reducing the
call upon public funds."[72]
Leaving aside the question whether Ms Bowles's feature,
having been paid for out of funds provided by the European Parliament,
has not also been financed from "public funds", I understand
entirely Mr Baker's point that if he had not accepted her contribution
he could simply have charged a higher sum to his IEP, and would
then have avoided exposure to criticism in this respect that he
had breached the rules of the House. But paragraph 5 of the DFA's
guidelines on funding publications from the Parliamentary allowances[73]
is very clear that no party political material is allowable "in
any part of a publication funded, in whole or in part, from the
allowances" and that if such material is included, the
whole cost must be met from a source other than the allowances.
Laudable though I accept Mr Baker's motives may have been, they
do not in my view allow him to escape culpability in this respect.
88. I therefore recommend that the first ground
of Mr Donovan's complaint, as set out in paragraph 78 above, be
upheld.
89. In so recommending, I have in mind not only the
view I have expressed in paragraph 86 above about the content
of Ms Bowles's advertising feature but one other point. Ms Bowles
is referred to in that feature as the "local Lib Dem
MEP" and Mr Baker refers to her in his letter of 4 September[74]
as an "elected local representative" (emphasis
added). Although Ms Bowles undoubtedly represents the region of
which Mr Baker's constituency is part, she is in fact one of 10
MEPs representing that region, of whom 2 are Liberal Democrats,
4 Conservative, 1 Labour, 1 Green Party, 1 UKIP and 1 Independent.
90. That Mr Baker chose to accept advertising solely
from a Liberal Democrat MEP could in my view serve to reinforce
any perception that his newsletter is a party political publication.
In itself, the inclusion of material from another elected representative
is not fatal, as the House's rules permit joint publications provided
they do not contain party political or campaigning material. But
given that, in my view and that of the DFA, Ms Bowles's feature
does contain party political material, the selective inclusion
in the newsletter only of material from one of the ten MEPs representing
the South East Region, who happens to be drawn from the same party
as Mr Baker arguably itself imports a party political element
into his newsletter.
(B) COMPLAINT AGAINST RT HON MALCOLM BRUCE
91. Ms Simpson's complaint about the newsletter issued
by Mr Bruce focussed on two points:
a) the timing of issue of the report, in the
run-up to Scottish Parliament elections;
b) the inclusion in the report of the photographs
of the Liberal Democrat candidate for re-election as the local
MSP, and of one showing Mr Bruce with the Scottish Liberal Democrat
Leader.
92. As regards the first of these grounds, there
is, as I have already noted[75]
no rule of the House prohibiting a Member from distributing a
Parliamentary newsletter or report in the run-up to a Scottish
Parliament (or indeed a Welsh or Northern Ireland Assembly, or
a local government) election.[76]
However, such newsletters must not include party political or
campaigning material. Mr Bruce's newsletter was funded from the
IEP. Paragraph 11 of the DFA's guidance on publications funded
from the Parliamentary Allowances[77]
says in this connection:
"You must not use IEP funded publications …
to promote, criticize or campaign for or against anyone seeking
election."
The more recently published guidance on the Communication
Allowance (CA) draws attention (in the particular context of photographs
of Members wearing Party rosettes) to the special care which is
needed close to or during an election period.[78]
93. It follows from the absence of any rule prohibiting
Mr Bruce from distributing a newsletter in the run-up to the Scottish
Parliament election that Ms Simpson's complaint cannot be upheld
on this ground. In his letter of 22 May,[79]
Mr Bruce explains that it was not in fact his original intention
that the report should go out over the election period, but that
a combination of practical factors led to this. In the event,
the report was extensively, though not exclusively, circulated
during the election period. Whilst this was not contrary to the
rules, it meant that the content of the newsletter was bound to
receive particular scrutiny.
94. It is in that context that the three photographs
mentioned in Ms Simpson's complaint fall to be considered. The
DFA's Director of Operations takes the view that these stray across
the line into party political or campaigning material, in that
taken together they create an impression of promoting the Liberal
Democrat Party. Mr Bruce argues that the two photographs of him
with Ms Radcliffe (the former MSP) are simply intended to show
him working closely with her on issues of local concern: they
were "just representative of the kind of work I do."
The photograph of him with Mr Stephen is justified by the fact
that it illustrates an article about transport, and Mr Stephen
was at the time Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive.
95. The inclusion in Parliamentary reports of photographs
of Members with local elected representatives is sensitive ground.
On the one hand, a Member may work closely with such representatives
on particular issues and may reasonably wish to illustrate that
he has done so. On the other—particularly when the local
representative is of the same political party as the Member—care
is needed to avoid the inclusion of such material as a means simply
of promoting the profile of the local representative concerned.
This last is a particular consideration as a relevant election
approaches.
96. The Committee has had occasion to consider such
matters in another recent report.[80]
On that occasion it did not criticize the inclusion of photographs
of two people who were candidates at the May 2007 local government
election in Reading because in one case the newsletter had been
distributed some months ahead of the election and the person who
featured in the photograph had clearly been involved with the
Member in the particular local campaign the photograph illustrated;
and in the other case the newsletter had (with the exception of
one ward, not the one in which the person concerned was a candidate),
been distributed in advance of the election period.
97. In the present case, Mr Bruce's newsletter was
widely distributed in the Holyrood constituency in which Ms Radcliffe
was a candidate during the Scottish Parliament election period.
It would have been clear to Mr Bruce when he received the revised
Royal Mail schedule for the distribution of his newsletter that
this was going to happen. It is therefore unfortunate that Mr
Bruce does not appear to have reviewed the content of his newsletter
with this in mind and in particular that according to his letter
of 22 May (WE14) he did not have time to check the captions to
the photographs. He concedes that they might have been more appropriately
worded. The inclusion of one photograph showing Mr Bruce with
Ms Radcliffe and one showing him with Mr Stephen might have been
capable of justification provided the captions had been
appropriately worded along the lines suggested by Mr Bruce and
the link with the accompanying article had been made explicit.
However, the inclusion of all three photographs with the captions
as published seems to me excessive. In the context of the impending
election campaign they could only serve to raise the profile of
the Liberal Democrat Party in general and Ms Radcliffe in particular,
and in so doing promote their interests at the Holyrood elections,
contrary to paragraph 11 of the DFA guidelines on publications
funded from the IEP.
98. On this ground, I recommend that the complaint
against Mr Bruce be upheld. In reaching this view, I also
record that I share the opinion expressed on balance by the DFA's
Director of Operations that the wording of the lead article about
post office closures on page 1 of Mr Bruce's newsletter could
appropriately have been adjusted to reduce its critical focus
on the actions of the Government in favour of a heightened focus
on the actions of Mr Bruce himself. This alone would not, I think,
justify upholding Ms Simpson's complaint but it is a consideration
to be borne in mind when assessing the impact on readers of the
report as a whole in the context of an election period.
(C) COMPLAINT AGAINST MR SADIQ KHAN
99. Mr Newman's complaint about Mr Khan's newsletter
focussed on two issues:
a) the inclusion on its front page of the Labour
Party's red rose logo; and
b) the picture, also on the front page, of Mr
Khan standing beneath a sign describing him as the "Labour
Member of Parliament for Tooting".
Mr Newman expressed shock at what he saw as the expenditure
of public money on promoting the Labour Party, contrary to what
he understood to be the rules of the House.[81]
100. My inquiries into the complaint have disclosed
that while Mr Khan sought to clear the text of his newsletter
in advance with the relevant Department of the House, his staff
initially approached the wrong Department (the Department of the
Serjeant at Arms rather than the DFA). A misunderstanding appears
then to have occurred both as to which was the appropriate Department
and about the length of time which would be required to clear
the draft copy of the newsletter. A comment by an official in
the Serjeant's Department that they didn't see any problems but
it would be sensible to get the DFA's input, was mistakenly understood
to constitute a green light. By the time the draft text had reached
the appropriate official in the DFA the material had, under pressure
of deadlines, been sent to the printer and the die was cast.
101. Several lessons emerge from this saga. They
include:
a) the importance, which Mr Khan himself has
noted,[82] of Members
being given as clear guidance as possible about who to approach
in respect of which type of issue and how long they should allow
for officials to provide the advice sought. These points are already
touched on in the guidance issued to Members[83]
but it appears from what happened in this case that they would
bear repetition.
b) When, nevertheless, an inquiry reaches the
wrong official, the importance of it being redirected as rapidly
as possible to the right one.
c) The desirability of any advice given to Members
being as clearly and precisely expressed as possible, and the
degree of authority it carries also being made clear.
d) The need for Members to allow sufficient time
for advice to be obtained from the right quarter and wherever
possible to avoid being boxed in by overly strict publication
schedules.
102. In drawing attention to these "lessons",
I do not intend to cast doubt on the good faith of everyone involved—Mr
Khan, his staff and those in the relevant department(s) of the
House. As Mr Khan himself concedes, we are dealing here with "extremely
busy individuals working with good intent",[84]
and have the advantage of being able to view what happened with
the benefit of hindsight.
103. It may well be that, when assessing the significance
of any breach of the House's rules revealed by Mr Newman's complaint,
the Committee will want to give some weight to the sequence of
events revealed by my inquiries. I am sure it will also want to
attach weight to Mr Khan's evident intention to clear the text
of his April newsletter in advance with the House authorities
and the efforts he and his staff have made subsequently to avoid
any problems arising again.
104. We are left, however, with the question whether
Mr Khan's April 2007 newsletter did in fact breach the House's
rules. I examine in turn each of the two aspects of Mr Newman's
complaint—the photograph and the party logo on page 1 of
the newsletter—and the other issues about its content raised
by the DFA's Director of Operations.[85]
105. I do not think that the photograph of Mr
Khan standing outside his constituency office beneath a sign describing
him as "Labour Member of Parliament for Tooting" breaches
the rules of the House. It is not contrary to those rules
for a Member to describe himself as "the Labour Member for
X" or "the Conservative Member for Y" and Members
of all parties frequently so describe themselves, for example
when in correspondence with constituents. (Whether it is appropriate
that the rules should allow them to do so is a separate matter
of policy.) Although the small print in the photograph certainly
makes clear Mr Khan's party allegiance, that is far more strikingly
revealed by other features of the front page of his newsletter,
notably the logo and the use of the party colour (red). I do
not therefore recommend that Mr Newman's complaint be upheld on
this ground.
106. I take a different view of the logo.
The DFA's guidance on the use of logos in newsletters funded from
the CA says:
"The use of party logos, whilst not disallowed
entirely, is restricted to proportionate and discreet use …".[86]
The DFA's Director of Operations clearly regarded
the size of the logo as acceptable. He commented on this point:
"The logo, of which there is only one, whilst
slightly large is in keeping with the size of the banner heading
…".[87]
I take this comment to mean that the Director considers
the logo to meet the requirement that it be "proportionate"
in that it is proportionate to the red banner heading of which
it is part. But is it "discreet"? The logo is 43mm high
and some 65mm wide. I doubt that the logo is "proportionate"
if one looks at the intended purpose of the document and the size
and overall content of the A4 page on which it is reproduced.
It is certainly not, in my view, "discreet".
107. I am fortified in taking this view of the logo
by the approach taken by the Committee in another recent case.[88]
In that case, the Committee concluded that a logo 47mm high and
wide, in colour, as a centred heading on facing pages of a Member's
report and associated with the name of the Member's party, did
not come remotely near meeting the "discreet and proportionate"
test. The circumstances of Mr Khan's case are not the same in
that the logo appeared only once and it was not associated directly
with the name of the Member's party (though if any reader were
in doubt on that point, they had only to look at the photograph
lower down the page which I have previously discussed to gain
confirmation of it). However, the size of the logo (in my view,
disproportionate when viewed in the context of the page as a whole),
its bold appearance and prominent position and its association
with a Labour Party campaign slogan means that it too fails to
meet the "proportionate and discreet" test. Accordingly,
I recommend that this aspect of Mr Newman's complaint be upheld.
108. In making this recommendation, I also draw the
Committee's attention to the reservations expressed by the DFA's
Director of Operations about some of the content of Mr Khan's
newsletter, to which I have referred in paragraph 46 above, He
notes that his staff were concerned by the references in the Graveney
Ward item on page 2 of the newsletter to local "Labour"
councillors, and by the references to the Government's "commitment"
and "priorities" in parts of the section on "Looking
forward to the future" on page 3. I share the Director's
view that these references (particularly the references to the
Government on page 3) are "small examples of this newsletter
promoting a political party or its policies". Whilst
Mr Khan can fairly point out that the DFA did not feel so strongly
about them as to decline, on the basis of them, to fund his newsletter,
they are , I believe, factors to be weighed in the balance when
forming an overall assessment of Mr Newman's complaint.
Postscript
109. In its First Report of the current session,[89]
the Committee welcomed my intention to bring forward for its consideration
a further report examining some general issues relating to the
Communications Allowance which have been identified by recent
cases. It will be apparent to the Committee that the three cases
covered in the present report also raise such issues, including
the question of the distribution of a newsletter during an election
period (Mr Bruce) and the acceptability or otherwise of distinguishing
party logos (Mr Khan). The views the Committee expresses on these
three cases will inform the further report, to the preparation
of which I shall now turn.
27 November 2007 Sir Philip Mawer
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr C Swainland,
9 June 2007
I am writing to confirm in writing our email correspondence
of 2nd and 3rd May. I am sorry for the delay
but I have been unable to reply sooner.
My complaint regarded the House of Commons fees office
funds being used by our local MP for little more than electioneering
at the public expense. Although this is unfortunately legal, on
April 25th, Ms Kirkbride used the money to carry a
four page cover spread in the local paper (the paper stated that
it was paid for by the fees office). The photo spread advertising
her work as a Conservative MP was coloured blue and looked like
any other piece of Conservative election literature. The local
candidates made much of their links with the town MP.
As you are aware the public finding of political
parties is extremely unpopular with the general public and most
people I have mentioned Ms Kirkbride's actions to have been shocked
that it is allowed to happen. To carry out such advertising, paid
for at taxpayers' expense, in the middle of a local election campaign
falls below the standard that I as a member of the public would
expect of my MP.
Having contacted the Electoral Commission they have
suggested that I refer the matter to you. I look forward to your
reply.
9 June 2007
2. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Tristan
Donovan, 11 April 2007
I wish to bring to your attention concerns I have
about the use of parliamentary funds for a recent newsletter produced
by the Member for Lewes, Norman Baker MP.
At the end of March, Mr Baker distributed an 8-page
magazine entitled Talk of the South Downs to every household in
his constituency (a copy is enclosed). The magazine states that
it was funded by Mr Baker's incidental expenses provision and
by advertising revenue (see the back page).
The Green Book clearly states that the incidental
expenses provision cannot be used to meet the costs of party political
activities or campaigning (Section 5.1.1). I believe it may be
the case that part of the content of Mr Baker's magazine could
be in breach of that rule.
My concern is about the article on page 7 of the
magazine promoting the Liberal Democrats' national policies and
the work of Sharon Bowles, a Liberal Democrat MEP. The article
does not provide information about the work of Mr Baker and clearly
promotes the Liberal Democrat party.
While the article is described as advertising paid
for by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I believe
it raises two questions that should be investigated further.
Firstly is it acceptable for the incidental expenses
provision to be used for a publication that also carries party
political material even as advertising? Surely if this is the
case it would allow Members of Parliament to partially subsidise
the cost of party political literature using the incidental expenses
provision by including content that promotes the work of the Member
in a non-party political way.
Second if the article was paid for by the Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, it would be proper for them
to have paid proportionally the same amount as other advertisers
in the magazine. If the alliance paid less than other advertisers
for the same amount of space, it would suggest the incidental
expenses provision has subsidised that advertising.
I hope you will agree with me that this matter deserves
further attention.
11 April 2007
3. Facsimile of Mr Norman Baker's Annual Report
[Please insert file 'Pages from Baker Report 2007
greyscale.pdf' here]
4. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Ethel
Simpson, 28 April 2007
Two years ago, in March, I wrote you about MP Malcolm
Bruce issuing his Parliamentary report, paid for from the incidental
expenses provided to MPs, on the eve of the General Election.
He has now issued his latest report smack in the
middle of the Scottish elections. It is clearly designed to bolster
the campaign of Lib-Dem candidate Norah Radcliffe. She is even
included in two of the pictures and Lib-Dem Scottish leader Nicol
Stephen is also included.
Yet again, this is blatant electioneering by Malcolm
Bruce using tax-payers money and is grossly unfair to all the
other candidates in this hotly-contested seat. He could have issued
his report at any time well before or after the election.
I know from my previous correspondence with you that
what he has done is legal, but it is unjust and unethical—tantamount
really to dirty tricks using tax-payers money.
The amount of MPs' expenses is a bigger sore point
than ever in my neck of the woods. This sort of behaviour only
brings them further into disrepute.
As I suggested before, MPs should be banned from
using their incidental expenses to issue leaflets at least six
months before an election or during other elections.
I'm sorry to have to bring the case of Malcolm Bruce
to your attention again, but, as a tax-payer, it bugs me to think
some of my money is being used to promote the Lib-Dems. You will
gather I am not one of their supporters!
28 April 2007
5. Facsimile of Mr Malcolm Bruce's Report
[insert first page of file 'M Bruce report 2007v3
greyscale bc.pdf' here]
[insert second page of file 'M Bruce report
2007v3 greyscale bc.pdf' here]
6. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Ethel
Simpson, 5 May 2007
Thank you very much for your reply to my letter.
As I have a bee in my bonnet now about the use of MP's incidental
expenses as an electioneering ploy I am happy to make a formal
complaint against Malcolm Bruce in the hope that something will
be done about it.
In my view, a limit should be placed on the times
MPs can use these expenses for their leaflets—on the grounds
that to use them to further their own (or fellow party members')
prospects at elections is unethical and unfair to other parties.
When I have pointed out to fellow tax-payers that
Malcolm Bruce has been using our money to fund some of his leaflets
they have been aghast—and angry.
Most people never notice the timing—and, in
the latest case, almost undecipherable print at the bottom of
his so-called Parliamentary reports.
It really does concern me that MPs are now held in
so much contempt—mainly because of their huge expenses.
I think it's one reason for the low polls now.
I feel Mr Bruce, because of his age and standing
in politics, should set an example and be whiter than white in
his use of public money.
Mr Bruce featured prominently in all Norah Radcliffe's
election material. As an example, I am enclosing a letter from
him, presumably sent out all over the constituency, which I got
on the eve of poll. It shows how much he used his name to boost
her campaign. This backs up my case that he timed the issue of
his Parliamentary report to help her.
If it is all right with you, I would be interested
in hearing the outcome of my complaint.
5 May 2007
7. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr D Newman,
9 May 2007
I recently received the enclosed leaflet from my
local MP Sadiq Khan, which was delivered through my door.
I was somewhat surprised to see that the leaflet
appears to contain the Labour Party 'rose' on its front page (see
enclosed copy of Labour logo downloaded from the Labour Party
website). My understanding from what I have read in the press
is that communication from a local Member of Parliament, paid
for out of his Communications Allowance, must not in any way promote
the party to which the Member belongs.
As a supporter of the Labour Party myself, I was
shocked to see tax payers' money being spent in this way. I was
also concerned at the picture on the front cover of the leaflet
which clearly displays Mr Khan standing beneath a sign stating
that he is the 'Labour Member of Parliament'.
I would very much appreciate your assistance in clarifying
the matter.
9 May 2007
8. Facsimile of Mr Sadiq Khan's Newsletter
[insert first page of file 'Sadiq_Khan_MP_Newsletter.pdf'
here]
[insert second page of file 'Sadiq_Khan_MP_Newsletter.pdf'
here]
[insert third page of file 'Sadiq_Khan_MP_Newsletter.pdf'
here]
[insert fourth page of file 'Sadiq_Khan_MP_Newsletter.pdf'
here]
9. DFA Guidelines on Use of Parliamentary
Allowances (published April 2006)
Funding publications from the Parliamentary Allowance
1. This factsheet sets out the rules that apply if
you use the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) to meet some or
all of the costs of preparing, printing and distributing publications
to your constituents. Distribution costs may also be met from
your Staffing Allowance. Please note that separate rules apply
during any Dissolution period.
Scope of permitted publications
2. Subject to the rules which follow, you may use
your allowances to fund newsletters, circulars or annual reports,
small calendars or business cards.
3. The following are not permitted: questionnaires
and surveys relating to national issues (see paragraph 10 below),
18th birthday cards, Christmas cards and merchandising.
Principles
4. The sole purpose of the editorial elements of
the publication must be to inform constituents about your work
as a Member and/or to provide information about how to contact
you.
5. No party political or campaigning material is
allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or in
part, from the allowances. Members wishing to produce a joint
publication with their local party, an MSP, MEP or AM must ensure
the entire content is free of such material. If you wish to include
material not allowed under these rules, you must fund the whole
cost of your publication from another source.
6. You alone are responsible for ensuring that these
rules are fully observed. If they have not been, you will be asked
to repay any costs involved, and you may also expose yourself
to allegations of misuse of the allowances. The Department of
Finance and Administration (DFA) can provide advice on the rules
and review any publication on your behalf.
Distribution
7. Parliamentary newsletters and other publications
must be sent or made available (e.g. in libraries or community
centres) to all constituents or all constituents within a locality.
Publications should not be targeted at constituents based on age,
race or social background.
8. Parliamentary newsletters and other publications
may be included in the same mail drop as any political material
but it must be placed in a separate envelope or cover. The IEP
should not be used to meet the cost of distributing the non parliamentary
material.
9. You must not use prepaid envelopes or other House
stationery for these publications. The cost of envelopes and postage
can be met from your Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP).
Content
10. The following material is likely to be allowable,
subject to paragraph 11 below:
- Information about you
- Factual information about Parliament, debates
etc
- Details of surgeries and how to get in touch
- Factual material about your work as a Member
- Factual information about local public services
e.g. the local authority
- Surveys/questionnaires relating to specific local
matters or for use by the Member locally
- Paid advertising by locally based businesses,
if the receipts are set against the cost of the publication or
reimbursed to the Incidental Expenses Allowance.
11. You must not use IEP funded publications:
- To promote, criticise or campaign
for or against anyone seeking election
- For the purpose of advancing perspectives or
arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any
political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests
of any other such party or organisation
- For fund raising
- For general surveys based upon social background
or demographics
- To conduct business activities, or to obtain
inappropriate private benefit.
Payment arrangements
12. Your publications must include a short notice
explaining that costs are to be met from the allowances, and giving
the source of any other funds.
13. It is your responsibility to keep records of
any receipts e.g. from advertising, to make any necessary entry
in the Register of Members' Interests, and to notify the HM Revenue
& Customs if appropriate.
Procedures
14. The Department of Finance and Administration
is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rules relating
to Parliamentary allowances, as set out in the Green Book. If
you are satisfied that your publication conforms to the above
rules, you may meet the costs from your allowances in the normal
way. Members are not required to submit publications to the DFA
prior to printing. You may also use the House emblem (the crowned
portcullis).
15. If you want advance on the proposed content of
any publication, you may approach the DFA whose experienced staff
will undertake a review on your behalf. The Department will aim
to complete this within 3 working days. Members are advised to
make allowance for this process before going to print. While the
Department will always offer advice in good faith, responsibility
for ensuring compliance with the rules remains unchanged. However,
in the event of a complaint, the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards will wish to know whether advice was sought.
Tax liability
16. HM Revenue & Customs reserve the right to
assess as income payments made from public funds in respect of
Members' publications. However, DFA is advised that in general
they are unlikely to levy a tax charge if your publication meets
the above rules.
April 2006
10. Letter to Mr C Swainland from the Commissioner,
13 June 2007
Thank you for your letter of 9 June confirming your
wish to complain about a four page wrap-round cover which Ms Kirkbride
added to the "Bromsgrove Advertiser" on 25 April and
which was funded from her Parliamentary Allowances. You express
concern about this on two grounds:
1. the timing of distribution of the material during
the local election campaign;
2. the use of the colour blue in it which, you say,
made it look "like any other piece of Conservative election
literature".
As you may know, Members of Parliament are provided
with an allowance to enable them to communicate proactively with
their constituents. Members must use the allowance for Parliamentary,
not for party political or campaigning purposes.
The relevant guidelines provided to Members allow
the use of Party colours in publications funded from the Allowance.
They do not prohibit Members from circulating material to constituents
during a local election period. On this basis, I am afraid I cannot
uphold your complaint against Ms Kirkbride. Nor am I aware of
any other respects in which her recent publication breaches the
House's rules.
I should add, however, that I have received a number
of other complaints recently which suggest that the possibility
of Members being prohibited from circulating material in the immediate
run-up to local or similar elections should at least be considered.
If I may, I will refer to your complaint in that context, as another
example of public concern on this matter.
In view of Ms Kirkbride's personal involvement in
this, I am copying this letter and yours to Ms Kirkbride, so that
she has the opportunity to comment to me on the wider issues which
your complaint raises.
13 June 2007
11. Letter to Mr Norman Baker from the Commissioner,
16 April 2007
I enclose a copy of a letter of complaint I have
received from one of your constituents, Mr Tristan Donovan.
This complaint focuses on an article on page 7 of
the newsletter "Talk of the South Downs" which you recently
circulated to your constituents. The article in question—identified
as an "advertising feature" paid for by the Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe—featured the work of
Sussex Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles in opposing the excessive
use of food packaging by supermarkets.
Mr Donovan alleges that the article clearly promotes
the Liberal Democrat Party (and Ms Bowles in particular) and therefore
breaches the requirement in paragraph 5.1.1 of the "Green
Book" on Members' Pay and Allowances, etc. that the Incidental
Expenses Provision (IEP)—out of which it appears the newsletter
was in part funded—cannot be used to meet the costs of party
political activities or campaigning.
You will see that Mr Donovan asks, (a) whether it
is acceptable for the IEP to be used for a publication that also
carries party political material even as advertising; and, in
effect, (b) whether the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe paid proportionally the same as other advertisers in the
newsletter, or were subsidised by the IEP.
As you know, paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct
approved by the House provides:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
Guidance issued by the House's Department of Finance
and Administration (DFA) in force when your newsletter was issued
(and a copy of which I enclose) also contains a number of relevant
provisions (paragraphs 5 and 11). I draw your attention to paragraph
5 in particular which reads:
"No party political or campaigning material
is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or
in part, from the allowance. Members wishing to produce a joint
publication with their local party, an MSP, MEP or AM must ensure
the entire content is free of such material. If you wish to include
material not allowed under these rules, you must fund the whole
cost of your publication from another source."
In the light of these provisions, I should be grateful
if you will let me have your response to Mr Donovan's complaint
and your comments on the two questions he poses. It would be helpful
if, when replying, you could let me know:
1. How many copies of your newsletter were distributed,
how and to whom.
2. How precisely its publication and distribution
were funded, including a breakdown of the contributions made by
the IEP and by each individual advertiser (including the Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) to meeting those costs.
3. Whether you sought advice from the DFA at any
point on the newsletter.
Once I have your response I will consult the Director
of Operations in the DFA, …, (to whom I am copying this letter)
on the issues raised, before deciding how to proceed.
I enclose a copy of a note I send all Members who
are the subject of a complaint, setting out the procedure I follow
in handling such matters. If, at any time, you would like a word
about the complaint, please do not hesitate to get in touch on
the number above.
16 April 2007
12. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Norman
Baker, 2 May 2007
Thank you for your letter of 16 April concerning
the above. I am of course happy to respond fully to you on this
matter to the best of my ability.
Let me begin by addressing the three specific questions
you raise, which for convenience, I deal with in the order you
set out.
1. 39,000 copies were printed. Of these, 35,297
were delivered to addresses within the constituency by the Royal
Mail. Most of the remaining copies were delivered to addresses
within the constituency by volunteers, with a small residual being
retained in my constituency office.
2. (a) In respect of how the costs were met,
the Royal Mail delivery bill amounted to £1,658.95, which
represents a unit cost per leaflet of 4.7p. This sum was paid
entirely by me from my own personal resources, and involved the
use neither of public funds nor advertising revenue.
(b) The contributions from individual advertisers
are attached at Schedule A. Out of consideration for those businesses,
I would ask that this information could be regarded as for your
eyes only. You will see, however, that the amount paid by Sharon
Bowles MEP was at a fully competitive rate, occupying roughly
the same space as, for example, the advert from … on the
back page, for which the same rate was charged.
(c) The total cost of printing the leaflet was £2,115.00,
which, deducting the contributions from advertisers, leaves a
claim from public funds of £985, actually yet to be submitted.
3. I have sought guidance from the DFA in previous
years on matters to do with my Annual Report, including content,
but did not do so this year. In retrospect, that might have been
helpful.
I am not certain if you have seen a full copy of
the Annual Report in question, but I enclose a copy now in case
not. You will see that it contains a significant number of advertisements,
of which that from Sharon Bowles MEP is but one, and I wish to
make it clear that the sole reason for their inclusion in the
publication was to keep the costs to the public purse to the lowest
possible level.
As the complaint relates only to an advert, which
is clearly labelled as such, it would seem that there is no concern
about the editorial content. It follows therefore that, had I
not sought advertisements to offset part of the cost of publication,
you would not have received a complaint. It would have been open
to me not to have used advertising and to have charged a larger
amount to public funds through the allowance system available
to Members. There was really no advantage to me in including advertising,
other than that of the public interest, as all this does is reduce
the amount of editorial space available.
The second substantive point I would make is that
the advertisement from Sharon Bowles MEP is funded by an allowance
supplied by the European Parliament, also therefore from public
funds though not directly those of the British Exchequer, and
also has to meet eligibility criteria. These include one, amongst
others, that material supplied should report on the work of the
MEP in question. It is not permissible to criticise other parties
or groups. In other words, the criteria are not dissimilar to
those which apply to MPs in the House of Commons using the allowance
system for publications.
The inclusion of the phrase, "This column is
supported by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe",
is one required by the European Parliament for such advertisements.
I attach the relevant extract from this guidance, "Internal
Regulations concerning the use of appropriations on budget line
4000, ALDE's Group Budget Chapter 7", as Appendix 1, and
would refer you to 7.2 and 7.5 in particular. The document itself
makes it plain that the guidance is "in conformity with the
decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 December
2000". I am able to email you the entire document, if that
would be helpful.
In summary therefore, the piece in question was a
genuine advertisement, clearly marked as such, for which an appropriate
and standard rate was charged. Because it conforms to a scheme
run by the European Parliament for MEPs to use public funds to
publicise their work, a scheme which has similar standards to
that operated by the House of Commons, I did not regard the piece
or its contents as political. My only motivation in including
this advertisement, and indeed all the others, was to minimise
the cost to public funds.
I am very happy to try to answer any further points
you might have, or indeed to meet, if you feel that would be helpful.
2 May 2007
13. Letter to Mr Malcolm Bruce from the Commissioner,
9 May 2007
I enclose a copy of a letter dated 28 April from
Ms Simpson, one of your constituents, in which she expresses concerns
about your recently circulated annual report. You will see that
Ms Simpson's concern focuses on:
1. the timing of issue of your report, in the
run-up to Scottish Parliament and local elections.
2. the inclusion in the report of 2 photographs
of a Liberal Democrat candidate for the Scottish Parliament, Ms
Nora Radcliffe, and of one showing you with the Scottish Liberal
Democrat Leader, Mr Nicol Stephen.
Ms Simpson did not say in terms in her letter that
she wished to make a formal complaint about your report and on
receipt of her letter I therefore wrote to ask her if she did
wish to do so. She has now confirmed that she does.
I see that your annual report was paid for out of
your Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP). Paragraph 14 of the
Code of Conduct for Members approved by the House provides:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
The guidelines issued by the House's Department of
Finance and Administration (DFA) on funding publications from
the IEP (a copy of which I enclose) provide that:
"No party political or campaigning material
is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or
in part, from the [Parliamentary] allowances" (paragraph
5).
They also provide (paragraph 11) that IEP-funded
publications must not be used:
"to promote, criticise or campaign for or against
anyone seeking election."
I have made clear in correspondence with Ms Simpson
that the guidance relating to IEP-funded publications does not
contain anything limiting or preventing their publication during
a local or Scottish parliament election period. Nonetheless her
complaint raises, I believe, an important issue of principle,
which is also relevant to several other complaints concerning
reports or newsletters issued by other Members I have recently
received.
Accordingly, in line with the procedures agreed by
the House for handling complaints—a note of which I enclose—I
am writing to invite your response to Ms Simpson's complaint.
It would be helpful if this could include information about the
date(s) or period, and the manner of distribution of your report,
as well as the number of reports that were distributed and the
area covered.
If you would like a word about this matter, please
do not hesitate to get in touch. I am copying this letter and
enclosures to … (the Director of Operations in the DFA),
whose advice I shall seek in the light of your response before
deciding how best to proceed.
9 May 2007
14. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Malcolm
Bruce, 22 May 2007
Thank you for your letter of 9 May.
I think it would be helpful if I explained the process
through which I went prior to the distribution of the annual report,
which, incidentally is not yet complete and covers my Westminster
constituency which differs significantly from the Scottish Parliament
boundaries in that 36 per cent of the electorate lives in the
City of Aberdeen and the Scottish Parliament constituency of Aberdeen
North.
Work started last November when I approached the
Royal Mail with a view to distributing the report early in the
New Year and was offered a distribution date in February. Preparation
took longer than expected due to staff changes and the introduction
of new software.
When it was near completion Royal Mail changed the
proposed distribution dates to the period covering 21 March to
26 May. Had we not accepted these dates the distribution would
have slipped to a period starting in July, which would have made
the information in the annual report more than half a year out
of date and outside the 2006/07 financial year.
For these reasons I took the view that we could not
delay any further nor abandon the near completed artwork and start
again. The firm intention was for the distribution, which normally
takes place early in the New Year, to be complete well before
the election.
As far as the content was concerned I was careful
not to use it in a party political way. There is no other mention
of my party in the report apart from the caption of the picture
of Nicol Stephen. The pictures of Nora Radcliffe were just representative
of the kind of work I do.
I also mention Joan Ruddock by name and refer to
the Prime Minister and a defence minister but would hardly regard
this as promoting the Labour Party.
The captions were inserted at the last minute and
I did not have time to check them. However at the time the photographs
were taken Nora Radcliffe was the MSP but I would have left the
letters out. Nicol Stephen was Transport Minister and Deputy First
Minister at the time and that is how I would have chosen to describe
him.
As far as I have been able to check, out of a total
of 35,092 reports a maximum of 13,063 were distributed in the
Gordon Holyrood constituency during the period of the election.
A further 11,708 were distributed either side of polling day in
the Aberdeen North part of my constituency. 7,618 were distributed
before or after the election period.
I believe both in the content of the report and its
distribution I adhered to the guidelines and would refute that
this is party political or campaigning material or promoting any
candidate.
However, given the House has now voted for a communication
allowance which will increase the amount of material members will
send out in their constituencies I would appreciate clear guidelines
for the future—subject to the understanding that MPs will
inevitably present themselves in a positive light in this kind
of literature and therefore partisan opponents are likely to take
exception.
I hope this reply meets your requirements but please
get in touch if you need any further information.
22 May 2007
15. Letter to Mr Sadiq Khan from the Commissioner,
15 May 2007
I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from
a Mr D Newman, one of your constituents, expressing concern about
the Parliamentary newsletter—funded from the new Communications
Allowance (CA)—which you recently circulated in your constituency.
You will see that Mr Newman complains about:
1. the prominent display of the Labour Party
logo in the heading on page 1 of the newsletter;
2. the photograph of you (also on page 1) standing
beneath a sign stating that you are the 'Labour Member of Parliament
for Tooting'.
He asks whether these amount to material promoting
the Labour Party, and whether they are therefore in breach of
the rules relating to the CA.
Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct for Members provides:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
The rules and associated guidance relating to the
CA were circulated to Members last month. They make clear that
the allowance must not be used to meet the costs of party political
activities or campaigning.
In relation to party logos, the guidance about newsletters
funded from the CA says (paragraph 16):
"The use of party logos, whilst not disallowed
entirely, is restricted to proportionate and discreet use; alternatively
you may prefer to use the House emblem (the crowned portcullis)
as this reflects the Parliamentary nature and purpose of the material
being circulated."
As regards the photograph about which Mr Newman complains,
I am aware that Members have for some time been allowed to describe
themselves as the "Labour [or Conservative] Member for X"
when writing to constituents.
I have informed Mr Newman of both these points. Nonetheless
I feel it right to put his complaint to you and invite your response,
in accordance with the procedures for handling complaints approved
by the Committee on Standards and Privileges and set out in the
enclosed note.
I shall also be seeking advice on the complaint from
the House's Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), with
which I shall share your response. When you respond I should be
grateful if you could make clear, in addition to any other comments
you wish to offer:
1. How many copies of your newsletter were distributed.
2. When, how and to whom.
3. Whether you consulted the DFA at all on the
draft text of the newsletter.
4. What is the nature of the "Sadiq Khan
Supporters Network" mentioned in the tear-off slip on the
final page of the newsletter.
5. What is the nature of the 'newsletters' referred
to in the final tick box on this same slip. Do those to be delivered
include Labour party material?
I look forward to hearing from you. If you wish a
word at any point, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
15 May 2007
16. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Sadiq
Khan, 22 May 2007
Thank you for your letter, dated 15th May 2007, dealing
with the five questions you asked.
Please note, for your records, that Mr Newman's post
code is actually … (he got it wrong in his letter!).
1. I distributed 40,000 copies of the newsletter—one
per household in my constituency—using the funds in my Communications
Allowance.
2. The newsletters have been delivered during
May by a local private company—County Distributions Group.
3. Prior to printing, my office contacted both
the Serjeant-at-Arms and the DFA to send them a copy of the newsletter
for their approval. The DFA did raise queries with two elements
of my newsletter's content—neither of which were the subject
of Mr Newman's complaint—but felt that neither point of
query warranted a change to the document, nor a prevention of
using my Communications Allowance to pay for the production or
distribution of the newsletter. My office can provide you with
both the name of the gentleman from the DFA who e-mailed his approval
and a copy of the email itself if you require it.
4. The 'Sadiq Khan Supporters Network' is a group
of constituents who volunteer to assist me with my Parliamentary,
as opposed to political, work. Their time is used stuffing envelopes
with 'Totally Tooting'—my regular newsletter.
5. 'Totally Tooting' is a non-political newsletter
that I send out to update my constituents about my Parliamentary
and constituency work. I am happy to provide you with previous
editions of 'Totally Tooting' should you wish to see these.
I hope this letter has allayed the concerns that
Mr Newman purported to raise in his letter of 9th May 2007.
My office and I have always adhered to the Parliamentary
standards and rules, so I am confident that you will decide not
to uphold the complaint raised. If, of course, you require any
further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.
22 May 2007
17. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Norman
Baker, 4 September 2007
Thank you for your letter of 18 July, and the opportunity
to be able to discuss this briefly with you subsequently. I am
sorry not to have been able to get this reply to you before the
House rose and before holidays intervened.
I have read carefully the letter you sent to me,
which in turn incorporated comments from the Director of Finance
and Administration at the Fees Office.
The original complaint from Mr Donovan was on two
grounds. One of these questioned whether the fee paid by Sharon
Bowles MEP was proportionate. I note that it has been accepted
by the DFA that the fee was indeed proportionate and that you
appear to be satisfied on this count.
The other issue related to whether the advertisement
should be deemed political. I have noted the comments of the DFA
in this regard.
The first point I would make is to reiterate that
the piece was clearly marked as an advertisement. This should
have signalled to the reader that it was not part of editorial
content relating to the MP.
Second, the advertisement had been approved as qualifying
for public funds under the scheme operated under the auspices
of the European Union, which naturally also has rules on party
political content of publicly financed material. The EU rules
do not regard the disputed advertisement as political.
Third, I would also dispute that the contents of
the advertisement were political. Sharon Bowles MEP is an elected
local representative, who was seeking to use an avenue to report
back to her constituents on the work she has been doing, just
as Westminster MPs report back to their constituents. Under the
rules relating to the IEP, and now the Communications Allowance,
it is permitted to use party descriptions. Nor, I suspect, is
there an objection to reporting back on her attempts to curb excess
packaging. Nor was there any content which sought to denigrate
political opponents.
The suggestion that this advertisement is unacceptably
political would therefore seem to rest solely on the reference
to my party leader Sir Menzies Campbell. I would argue that this
is in fact much less political than the use of pictures showing
candidates wearing rosettes, the use of party logos, and the colour-coding
of leaflets in party colours, all of which are allowed (and none
of which featured in my leaflet).
Fourth, the underlying allegation appears to be that
by producing this leaflet, public funds might have been used to
aid party political activities or campaigning. Your letter, paragraph
8, specifically draws attention to paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green
Book in this regard, and the DFA refers, in your paragraph 20,
to the material having "been paid from public funds".
Can I reiterate that the reverse is actually the case, insofar
as the matter relates to public funding provided to me as a Westminster
MP.
It has already been accepted that the fee paid for
the advertisement was proportionate, and indeed the highest amount
paid for any advertisement in this publication. There is therefore
no question of cross-subsidy, as the DFA accepts and as is included
at your paragraph 21.
The net result of the inclusion of this advertisement,
therefore, and indeed all the other advertisements, has been to
reduce the call upon public funds available to me. Under the rules,
it was open to me to omit this and all other advertisements and
simply to submit a higher demand under the IEP. Had I done so,
no complaint would have been generated, as the complaint that
has been made relates not to the editorial content but exclusively
about an advertisement. It follows that there has been no use
of public funds to aid party political campaigning, contrary to
paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green Book. On the contrary, there has
been the extensive use of advertisements, including the one from
Sharon Bowles MEP, to reduce the call upon funds made available
to MPs.
You will note that, of the total bill for publication
and distribution of the newsletter of £4,157.95, all of which
would have been claimable under IEP, it was my stated intention
to claim only £985 from public funds, thereby saving the
taxpayer over £3000.
I have not yet claimed the £985 pending resolution
of this matter (though I note that the DFA recognises that this
is a borderline case and that, at paragraph 22, it suggests that
should I "seek reimbursement of the costs, that this should
be made") and I recognise that if I were not to claim, then
the complaint would automatically fall.
I think it is useful, however, for this issue to
be raised, for the definition of "party political campaigning"
to be further considered, and in particular for the relationship
between the approved scheme of the Westminster and European parliaments
to be considered.
Lastly, in general terms, I must say I think it would
be unhelpful to the House generally if a Member were to be criticised
for successfully reducing the call upon public funds.
I hope this is helpful and look forward to hearing
from you further.
4 September 2007
18. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Malcolm
Bruce, 24 July 2007
Thank you for your letter of 18 July 2007 and the
accompanying draft memorandum incorporating comments from the
DFA and inviting my comments. I appreciate the courtesy.
I must admit to being very disappointed in the Director
of the DFA's comments.
I have produced annual reports for a number of years
now and do not believe there is anything in this one that differs
significantly from previous ones. In particular, when the Westminster
and Holyrood boundaries were co-terminous I put out a joint report
with the local MSP. My report was on one side and hers on the
other—clearly demonstrating that we worked together. I believe
other MPs followed this approach.
Since the Westminster boundary changes in 2005, I
concluded for organisational reasons it would be better to produce
my own.
I thought it was perfectly reasonable to incorporate
photographs of Nora Radcliffe to demonstrate that we worked together
on issues in which the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments both
have an interest.
Had I elaborated on the work we had done together
on behalf of local post offices or farmers I believed I would
have been straying into campaigning on Nora Radcliffe's behalf.
I do not believe that informing people that we did work together
is in breach of the rules.
The pictures illustrate that we visited post offices
and farmers together. As it happens we also spent the day with
the same local vet but I thought it only appropriate to mention
my own visit.
Turning to the photograph with Nicol Stephen, which
the Director describes as "superfluous to the article with
which it was connected" I can only point out that the article
was about transport and Mr Stephen was Transport Minister when
the photograph was taken. The picture is on the railway line at
Kintore and the story refers to my ongoing support for a new station
at Kintore.
The Director then states he has reservations about
some of the language used in the article on post office closures
and possibly the one on climate change, although he does not identify
what these are.
I can only assume it relates to what I say about
the Government's actions but I firmly maintain that these are
statements of fact—i.e. the Government has reduced the number
of post offices and the range of services and has now started
another round of closures.
As to the article on climate change I would point
out that when I was Chairman of Globe UK, the vice-chair, Joan
Ruddock, and I did recruit an able and energetic director who
has set up an international forum on climate change involving
Parliamentarians from the G8 plus countries. I chaired the first
one in London the week before Gleneagles and the Washington one
referred to in the annual report was addressed by no fewer than
8 US Senators.
Although it is acceptable to use a party logo, party
colours, feature members wearing rosettes and describe the Member
by his party description I did none of these things. The only
reference to the Liberal Democrats is in the caption describing
Nicol Stephen as Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader. The logo used
was the portcullis and the colour used is House of Commons green.
I did not submit the final proof to the DFA for approval
as I was not required to and understood that in relation to reports
being paid for out of IEP the DFA did not wish to see advance
proofs. As I have described there were difficulties securing a
delivery slot with Royal Mail and pressure to get the report printed
in time to meet what was eventually offered.
I did not want to overlap the election period but
was left with no choice if it was to be completed within the 2006/07
budget period. As the rules do not preclude issuing reports during
local or Scottish elections I decided for reasons of budgeting
and topicality to accept the delivery slots offered.
I should also point out that approximately forty
per cent of the electorate live outside the Holyrood constituency
of Gordon and the distribution was not completed until after the
election. I think that should be measured against Mrs Simpson's
claim that "this is blatant electioneering".
This report was produced with full consideration
of the rules of the House and in the belief that it complied.
I do not accept that the photographs in question amount to promotion
of the Liberal Democrats. I have also stated that I do not believe
the text contravenes the guidelines.
I am extremely concerned that a report that was produced
in good faith and in accordance with the rules could become the
subject of a published criticism of my actions.
If there is any future guidance or clarification
arising out of this I would have thought informal briefing to
the Member or Members would be all that is required or justified.
Of course, I will in future be happy to accept clear
guidance and submit proofs to the DFA. I would stress that guidance
is open to interpretation and I am sure I and other Members would
appreciate further clarification.
I am so concerned about the implications of this
that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with
you and discuss this matter further before it goes forward for
publication.
24 July 2007
19. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director
of Operations, DFA, 13 August 2007
Thank you for your letter of 26 July enclosing one
from the Rt Hon Malcolm Bruce MP. Mr Bruce has commented on your
draft report and specifically on my observations contained within
it. You have invited any further comments I might have.
Can I first mention that Mr Bruce is right to say
that Members are not required to submit proofs of reports before
publication. However, he is not right to say the Department 'did
not wish to see advance proofs'. We have for some time offered
a checking or screening service for Members in respect of their
Parliamentary reports and this has been made very clear in our
guidance. Indeed, the new Communications Allowance guidance encourages
Members to use the service we offer.
On the substantive issues made by the complainant
on which I have already commented, I note Mr Bruce's disappointment
with my views. I can only try to explain more clearly the general
points I have already made. First, the photographs and associated
captions (two include Ms Radcliffe and one Mr Stephen), in my
view, create an impression of promoting the Liberal Democrat Party.
For this reason had the Department been asked to comment before
publication we would have asked for some changes. The caption
referring to Mr Nicol Stephen identifies him solely as the Scottish
Liberal Democrat Leader and makes no reference to his role as
Transport Minister. Arguably, this reinforces the overall party
political impression one could gain from the report. However,
I must acknowledge that I was unaware of Mr Stephen's former role
as Transport Minister when I wrote to you in July and I concede
this does put the inclusion of that particular photograph in a
somewhat different light.
On the text of the report, it was, as Mr Bruce surmises,
his references to the government's closure programme of Post
Offices that left me with concerns. In general, we try to dissuade
Members from attacking (or praising) the government of the day
on their policies. In this case, which I accept is a difficult
one, we would have asked Mr Bruce to adjust the text to reduce
or eliminate the emphasis it placed on the government's alleged
actions and focus instead on the Royal Mail's plans or his own
constituency campaign.
The reason for writing to you again therefore is
first, to acknowledge and to accept Mr Bruce's argument that
the guidance is open to interpretation; and secondly, to reiterate
that it is the House itself that has asked the Department to undertake
this very function (i.e. of interpreting the guidance). Had my
staff been asked by Mr Bruce prior to publication to review his
report we would have advised him that in our judgement, in the
two respects set out above, his report crossed the line into party
politics. That said, I also acknowledge Mr Bruce's right to argue
that on this quite fine judgement the Department has erred. I,
too, would welcome any clarification this process now taking place
through your offices might establish.
13 August 2007
20. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Sadiq
Khan, 25 July 2007.
Thank you for seeing me on the 25th of July and your
letter, dated 18th July 2007, which enclosed the draft
memorandum 'Complaints about Parliamentary Newsletters'. As I
explained, I am very disappointed that this matter may be reported
formally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, especially
as the complaints have not been found to be in breach of any rules.
I would like to submit the following comments for inclusion in
the report.
With regards to the initial complaint made by Mr
David Newman, I welcome the Director of Operations decision that
neither grievance was a breach of the Department of Administration's
guidelines nor use of the Communications Allowance.
I am disappointed that, notwithstanding the above,
you and the Director of Operations of the Department of Finance
and Administration have sought to look into matters well outside
the remit of Mr Newman's initial complaint.
In the interests of providing you with the clearest
understanding into the publication of my newsletter, I feel that
I should clarify the timeline of events.
There is no requirement on Members to seek advice
from anyone before printing and distributing newsletters. However,
on Monday 9th April, my office contacted the Serjeant-at-Arms
to enquire how long it would take for the relevant Officer to
examine my newsletter and indicate whether they felt it was in
accordance with Parliamentary guidelines. My office was informed
that such a review could be done within an hour of receiving the
(electronic) soft-copy and that the electronic copy should be
sent to a Ms B. We had diligently investigated quotes for the
cheapest cost of producing the newsletter. Due to pressures from
the printers, the only window available to us in the near future
required the newsletter to be sent to them on the 17th April.
A similar exercise had been undertaken with distributors of the
newsletters. If the newsletters did not reach the distributors
by the 23rd April we would not be able to have the newsletters
delivered by the local company for a considerable time by which
some of the news would have been out of date.
There were no elections held in London during 2007,
and so there was no apparent or real electoral advantage in getting
out the newsletter at that particular time. I note that one of
the reasons why Mr A had minor concerns (as set out in his email
of 19th April 2007) about my Newsletter was that "with
local elections approaching this is a sensitive time" (see
Page 2 of enclosures).
On Monday 16th April my office sent an electronic
copy to Ms B requesting confirmation that the soft-copy did indeed
comply with Parliamentary protocol. She replied, an hour later,
that it was being forwarded onto Ms C—also in the Serjeant-at-Arms'
office (see Page lb of enclosures).
My office chased up Ms C. On the 18th April she confirmed
that she "didn't (sic) see any problems" with the newsletter
but asked Ms B to send it onto Mr A in the DFA to look at it.
I have attached a copy of the email (see page 1a of enclosures).
My office took the above to be an approval by the
Serjeant-at-Arms of the newsletter. On the basis of the above,
and bearing in mind our prearranged slot with both printers and
distributors, my office assumed they were in order and proceeded
to send this to the printers. Once again, this is notwithstanding
the fact that prior approval is not required, and is not normally
sought, by Members.
Because I wanted further confirmation of the above
my office chased, by way of email, Mr A requesting his own written
confirmation stating that he was happy with the design and content
of the newsletter. A further copy of the Newsletter was sent to
him (see page 4 of enclosures). Later on that afternoon he replied
noting his two minor concerns, which are detailed in the report.
At this point my office contacted the printers to cease the print-run,
and they learnt that a significant portion of the order had been
completed. My office then spoke to Mr A to deal with the points
he had raised and to enquire if this situation was of the severity
that any submitted invoices would have been refused. Mr A said
that these issues were not of such significance as to withhold
payment of the invoices (see page 3 of enclosures).
I would further point out that there were no elections,
of any kind, in my constituency in, or around, the time of the
newsletter going out. There was no advantage to me personally
in delaying further advice. The reason I didn't wait for further
confirmation was primarily due to the email from the Assistant
Serjeant-at-Arms on the 18th of April, as well as the consequential
long delay should our window with the printers and distributors
be missed.
I now understand that the decision not to postpone
the printing and await Mr A's amendments may have made the Director
of Operations 'a little less comfortable' (page 8 of the draft
memorandum), but seeking the Serjeant-at-Arms and Department of
Finance and Administration's approval is not compulsory, and my
office did allow the Serjeant-at-Arms' office time, which we had
been previously advised would be sufficient, to suggest any amendments
(which they did not) before printing. Further, the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms,
Ms C, did not see any problems with the newsletter. I would further
add that the queries raised by Mr Newman were not picked up by
the Serjeant-at-Arms or Department of Finance and Administration.
In fact, no one else has complained about my newsletter and the
Director of Operations has confirmed that neither of the matters
raised by Mr Newman breached the guidelines. I would further point
out that the Director of Operations has volunteered further comments
about matters that have not been raised by Mr Newman or any other
constituent.
Whilst I can see the usefulness of general policy
issues being clarified by way of the Draft Memo, I feel slightly
aggrieved that a complaint that is not in breach of any rules
is being used as the basis of this.
Can I also reassure you that my office and I would
not have submitted the invoices to be paid out of Parliamentary
allowances had we not been assured by the Department of Finance
and Administration that they would be deemed payable—which
I understood to mean that it must have complied with the existing
guidelines.
I believe that my office and I have always adhered
to Parliamentary standards and rules with regards to the publication
and distribution of literature. However without prejudice to this,
and following this incident, I will ensure that all future submissions
to the Serjeant-at-Arms and Department of Finance and Administration
are sent off with additional good time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish
to discuss this further.
25 July 2007
21. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Sadiq
Khan, 18 November 2007
Thank you for sending me the latest draft of your
report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I received
on Thursday 14th November, and your invitation to respond to it.
Previous correspondence between us will have detailed
my concerns with being included in this report, so I shall only
discuss points raised in 'Further Comments by the Members Concerned,
(a) Mr Sadiq Khan' (which can be found on p.10 of the draft report).
Your report is valid in respects that it is now clear
my staff did not contact the Serjeant-at-Arms office on Monday
9th April, as this was Easter Monday. I have again spoken to the
member of my office … who contacted the Serjeant-at-Arms
office to question why they provided me with this date when I
was drafting my correspondence of 25th July. He has informed me
that the exact date he made the call was an error on his part,
and had been made in all innocence because he was trying to remember
when a telephone call had taken place. As he was simply enquiring
when we needed to submit a soft-copy of the newsletter he telephoned
the Serjeant-at-Arms, rather than send an email (my office, like
that of other Members, is a very busy environment and as such
does try to manage its time as effectively as possible). I know
the member of staff wishes that an e-mail had been sent—in
order to keep a 'paper trail' for such an occasion as this—but
as he was simply seeking to find out whom to send the soft-copy
through to, and how long would be required to review it, he thought
a telephone call would be sufficient. I have been assured that
the telephone call did take place and was made at the very beginning
of the working week—which would transpire to be Tuesday
10th April—and if there is any method of seeing a record
of internal telephone calls placed by my office on this date this
could be verified quite easily. I do not doubt that my employee's
recollection is correct and he did telephone the Serjeant-at-Arms
office, albeit at a different date to the 9th April. I would like
to offer my apologies if this mistake has in any way inconvenienced
the production of this report.
The draft report states that the Serjeant-at-Arms
office were 'surprised that Mr Khan's staff had gained the impression
that they could have commented on the proposed copy for the newsletter
within one hour as they could never turn around such requests
in that period, and the responsible officer was in any case on
leave at the time'. My member of staff was simply calling the
Serjeant-at-Arms to find out two simple points—who to send
the soft-copy through to, and how long would be required to review
it. I do not believe that my staff could have mistaken the response
given to them. Were my office informed that it took longer than
one hour to review the soft-copy then this would have been accounted
for in the production schedule—and I do not believe that
insinuation that they arbitrarily chose to allow the Serjeant-at-Arms
only one hour to complete a review is warranted in the draft report.
I note that the Department of Finance & Administration
are not disputing that they were contacted by my member of staff.
I think it reasonable to assume that my member of staff had indeed
been misinformed by a member of the Serjeant-at-Arms' office as
to the time the Serjeant-at-Arms would require to review the soft-copy,
as they were also misinformed whom to send it to (see my letter
dated 25th July 2007)—for example, had they been correctly
informed that Ms C was the person to send the soft-copy to they
would not have sent it to Ms B.
I note, and agree with, the Director of Operations
of the DFA that "some extenuating circumstances arise in
this case".
I do feel that this particular draft report—which
has strayed considerably from the initial complaint made by my
constituent—should be attributed to a communication failure
made by extremely busy individuals working with good intent. As
far as my office is concerned, we have made efforts to avoid such
incidents happening again—in September 2007 my office sought
approval of the DFA before the production of further pieces
of literature. The DFA advised on a couple of minor points and
advised my office to make minor changes. On this occasion we happily
accepted the unambiguous (and non-contradictory) advice on the
draft literature which was amended ahead of the commencement of
printing.
As the original complaint has not been upheld, and
as there have been no further complaints from any constituent
about any part of my newsletter, and seeing as the DFA did agree
that the only points of contention were not 'significant enough
to withhold payment' (Mr A's email dated 19th April and provided
with my correspondence of July 25th) I would hope that this matter
can now be concluded.
I am puzzled how the Director of Operations maintains
that 'strictly speaking Mr Khan's newsletter was outside of the
rules' when he also accepts that my office was given contradictory
advice previously by the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms office.
As I have always stressed, I believe that my office
have acted in good faith and in accordance with Parliamentary
protocols and procedures. Whilst I acknowledge that there is no
obligation for Members to seek approval from the Serjeant-at-Arms
or the Department of Finance & Administration, I do think
that if we are to encourage more Members to adhere to 'best practice'
as I do, and seek prior approval, it is important that there is
better communication between the DFA and the Serjeant-at-Arms
departments and better guidance to Members about exactly who to
contact and how much time to allow for their approval (including
time permitted for further approval being given by the DFA) to
further drafts of the newsletter that are subsequently amended
to take into account initial DFA advice.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish
to discuss this matter further.
18 November 2007
34 Conduct of Mr Martin Salter and Mr Rob Wilson,
Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 1071; Conduct of Mr Elfyn
Llwyd, Mr Adam Price and Mr Hywel Williams, First Report of Session
2006-07, HC 94. Back
35
Principally the Members Estimate Committee, which is responsible
for advising Mr Speaker and the House on the Parliamentary allowances
regime. Back
36
The text of Mr Swainland's letter is at WE 1. Back
37
The text of Mr Donovan's letter is at WE 2. Back
38
A facsimile of Mr Baker's annual report is at WE 3. Back
39
The text of Ms Simpson's letter is at WE 4. Back
40
Ms Radcliffe was not, in the event, re-elected. Back
41
A facsimile of Mr Bruce's report is at WE 5. Back
42
WE 6 Back
43
The CA was introduced on 1 April 2007 and is intended to assist
Members to communicate proactively with their constituents. Publications
funded by Members from their Parliamentary allowances have since
that date been funded from that allowance. Back
44
The text of Mr Newman's letter is at WE 7. A facsimile of Mr
Khan's newsletter is at WE 8. Back
45
HC 351, Session 2005-06. Back
46
Whilst Mr Baker's newsletter indicated that it had been funded
from the IEP, in the event the printing bill was submitted so
late that it was actually paid from his 2007-08 Communications
Allowance. In what follows I have assumed that the relevant rules
against which to assess the complaint against Mr Baker are those
relating to the IEP, since these were the rules actually in force
at the time his newsletter was published. Back
47
The text of the Green Book as at July 2006 is available on the
House's website at www.parliament.uk. Back
48
The text of these guidelines, last published in April 2006, is
reproduced at WE 9. Back
49
The text of this guidance-'The Communications Allowance and the
use of House stationery'-can also be found on the House of Commons
website at www.parliament.uk. Back
50
In the case of the complaint against Ms Kirkbride, having dismissed
the complaint immediately (see paragraph 5 above), I invited her
to let me have any comments on the issues raised if she so wished.
I have also shared with her successive drafts of the relevant
factual sections of this report. Back
51
WE 1 Back
52
The text of my letter to Mr Swainland is at WE 10. Back
53
WE 11 Back
54
WE 12 Back
55
The text of my letter to Mr Bruce is at WE 13. Back
56
WE 14 Back
57
The text of my letter to Mr Khan is at WE 15. Back
58
WE 16 Back
59
WE 17. Back
60
The rules on the use of Appropriations from Budget item 4000
- adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 30 June
2003 - say that such appropriations may not be used, inter alia,
"to finance any form of European, national, regional or local
electoral campaign." Guidelines at Part 3 of the Rules give
further guidance on the interpretation of this provision. Back
61
WE 18 Back
62
WE21 Back
63
Ibid. Back
64
I note that paragraph 20 of the guidance on producing newsletters
and other publications from the Communications Allowance circulated
to all Members in April 2007 says that the DFA will aim to review
draft publications within 3 working days. Back
65
See paragraph 8 above and WE2. Back
66
I have set out the detail of the relevant rules in paragraph
15 above. Back
67
WE 17 Back
68
Part 3 - guidelines, paragraph 2. Back
69
WE 17 Back
70
Letter of 27 June 2007, see paragraph 30 above. Back
71
WE 17 Back
72
Ibid Back
73
Reproduced at WE 9. Back
74
WE17 Back
75
See paragraph 19 above. Back
76
I note that, in a recent report, the Committee has expressed
surprise at the absence of such a prohibition (First Report of
Session 2007-08, HC 94, paragraph 25). Back
77
WE 9 Back
78
Rules and guidance on producing newsletters and other publications
from the Communications Allowance, paragraph 17. Back
79
WE 14 Back
80
Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 1071. Back
81
WE 7 Back
82
WE 21 Back
83
See, for example, paragraph 1.5 of the booklet on the Communications
Allowance and paragraph 20 of the detailed guidance on newsletters
at Appendix 2 to the booklet. Back
84
WE 21 Back
85
See paragraph 46 above. Back
86
For the text of the relevant paragraph in full, see paragraph
18(c) above. Back
87
See paragraph 45 above. Back
88
Conduct of Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Adam Price, and Mr Hywel Williams,
First Report of Session 2007-08 (HC 94). Back
89
HC 94 Back
| 
