Memorandum
from Mr Sadiq Khan, 5 December 2007
Introduction
1. I have had the opportunity to read the Report
from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (hereafter referred
to as the Report), and would like this Memorandum to be considered
by the Committee, in addition to the report, before a conclusion
is reached.
2. I have separated the Memorandum into two main
subheadings;
A: Complaints made by my constituent, Mr D
Newman
- The leaflet "prominently"
(my italics) displayed the Labour Party's red rose logo on the
front page of my newsletter (hereafter called 'The Logo Issue').
- A picture, on the front page of my newsletter,
of me standing beneath a sign stating that I am the "Labour
Member of Parliament for Tooting" (hereafter called 'The
Labour MP Issue').
B: Additional comments from the Department
of Finance and Administration (DFA)'s Director of Operations
- The reference to "Labour
Councillors", in the 'Cleaner Streets in Graveney Ward' window
found on page.2 of my newsletter.
- The references to the Government's "commitment"
and "priorities" in the section 'Looking towards the
future', which is on p.3 of my newsletter. (Both hereafter called
the 'DFA Additional Comments').
3. I would invite the Committee to read the following
documents in addition to the Memorandum;
- Item 16 (p.51 of the Report)
- Item 20 (p.55 of the Report)
- Item 21 (p.57 of the Report)
Background
4. The Communications Allowance was introduced on
1st April 2007, and is intended to assist members to
"communicate proactively" (my italics) with their
constituents.
5. There are three basic areas where advice can be
sought by Members, before they draft a newsletter (such as the
one that forms the basis of this report);
a) Looking at newsletters other Members have
produced
and/or
b) Speaking to other, more experienced, Members
and seeking advice from more experienced colleagues
and/or
c) Obtaining prior approval of the newsletter
from the DFA and/or Serjeant-at-Arms
6. I sought advice from all three sources
of expertise before producing my newsletter.
Preliminary Comments
7. The newsletter was produced and distributed in
April & May 2007. There were no elections in Tooting and/or
London during 2007.
8. The DFA Guidelines (see item 8,
p.44 of the Report) states inter alia;
"Principles
4. The sole propose of the editorial elements of
the publication must be to inform constituents about your work
as a Member (my italics) and/or to provide information about
how to contact you"
Content
10. The following material is likely to be allowable,
subject to paragraph 11 below;
· Information
about you
· Factual
information about Parliament, debates etc
…..
· Factual
material about your work as a Member
· Factual
information about local services e.g. the local authority"
(My italics)
Dealing with the issues
A: Complaints made by my constituent, Mr D
Newman
"The Logo Issue"
9. I note that the Commissioner disagrees with the
views of;
- An official in the Serjeant-at-Arms
department (before publication). See para.43, p.17 of the Report.
- An official in the DFA (before publication).
See para.43, p.17 of the Report.
- The DFA's Director of Operations (after publication
and after complaint). See para.45, p.17 of the Report.
- My view, taking into account, my own responsibility
to comply with the relevant rules of the House.
10. The Commissioner cites the case of the conduct
of Mr Llwyd, Mr Price & Mr Williams as "fortification"
for his view. I have had a chance to consider this Report from
the Committee of Standards and Privileges. It would appear from
this that the Commissioner maybe using this case as a precedent.
11. I would respectfully distinguish my case from
the above examples for the following reasons;
- Para 14 & 15 (p.5) of the
Report from the Committee on Standards & Privileges (1st
Report of Session 2007-08) confirmed that the complaint against
Mr Williams was upheld on the grounds that his use of the Party
logo was not "proportionate and discreet". Whereas the
complaint against Mr Llwyd's use of the logo was not upheld
as Mr Price's advertisement had been prior-approved by the DFA
and this "should be the yardstick" against which Mr
Llwyd's advertisement should be held (as the size of Mr Llywd's
logo was the same as Mr Price's). Unlike Mr Williams' advertisement,
which did not receive prior-approval, I did get prior-approval.
The correct comparison is with Mr Price, and not Mr Williams.
Accordingly, the complaint against me should also be dismissed,
like it was in relation to Mr Price (on this point in the complaint
against him).
- The logo in my newsletter appears once over four
sides of A4. (Assuming that the Committee does not accept my above
submission that the correct comparator to my newsletter should
be Mr Price, rather than Mr Williams). When considering whether
my logo is "proportionate and discreet" the Committee
should consider it over four pages. In Mr Williams case, his logo
was 47mm high & wide, in colour, as a centre heading on each
and every page of an advertisement against a logo appearing
only once on a newsletter of four pages (as is the position
in my case). Accordingly, when assessing whether the logo was
proportional over all, the fact that there are three pages without
a logo clearly dilutes the impact of the logo and makes it "proportionate
and discreet".
Mr Williams logo was;
47mm + Name of Political Party (on every page) multiplied
by the number of pages
Whereas my logo was;
43mm x 65mm (but without the Name of Political Party)
on one page divided by 4 pages
12. In the Plaid Cymru example, the name of the Party
is next to the logo. There is no reference to my political
party next to the logo on my newsletter.
13. The Commissioner, in my view, placed a disproportionate
amount of weight on the photograph of me in front of my constituency
office. With respect, I find it a real stretch for the Commissioner
to use the factual description of myself (which I use in my correspondence,
business cards and office) LINKED to the colour red to therefore
conclude that the logo is disproportionate and indiscreet.
14. I would ask the Committee to look at the photograph
of me outside my constituency office and pay particular attention
to the 'strap line' under the photo. This states 'Contact Sadiq'
and is next to the box 'Inside this issue' (on p.4 of the newsletter
I list seven ways for my constituents to contact me). The DFA
Guidelines (para.4, item.8 p.44 of the Report) specifically state
that one of the purposes of the newsletter should be to "provide
information about how to contact you". I am the first Member
of Parliament for Tooting to have a constituency office since
the early 1990s, and this was the reason for the small photograph
- to promote a way of contacting me, rather that promoting my
political party.
15. The photograph in question is also extremely
small in context of the whole page. It is one of five photographs
on the first page (and not even the largest photograph!).
16. Further, the Commissioner accepts that it is
not contrary to the rules for a Member to describe themselves
as "the Labour Member for X". This is a statement
of fact. I would further point out that there is also nothing
in the rules prohibiting the use of certain colours.
17. I would distinguish my case also from the case
of Mr Rob Wilson (HC 1071). In that case the Conservative
Party logo was accompanied by the words "Reading East Conservatives".
In fact, in a four page leaflet he used the logo coupled with
the name of his political Party on three occasion prominently
in the foreground, and has the Party logo (the Conservative 'Oak
Tree') embedded on all four pages in the background. My newsletter
is clearly distinguishable from this case as well. I have attached
a colour copy of his newsletter to this Memorandum for convenience.
18. Just like the Plaid Cymru case, it was the coupling
of the particular choice of words with the logo that created the
impression that the report was Party political rather that a Parliamentary
publication.
19. I think the Commissioner may have been on stronger
ground if the largest picture on p.1 of my newsletter had been
of me standing outside my office (with the sign describing my
political party) rather than in being one of five photos (and
one of the smallest).
20. I would add that if the picture on p.1 of my
newsletter, which confirms that I am a "Labour Member of
Parliament for Tooting", is within the rules and identifies
to the reader that I am a Labour MP. Why would I need to put a
logo on the same page?
21. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that the
Commissioner has misdirected himself on this issue.
"The Labour MP issue"
22. The Commissioner dismisses this complaint and
does not recommend that Mr Newman's complaint be upheld. I note,
on this occasion, that he agrees with
- An official in the Serjeant-at-Arms
department (before publication).
- An official in the DFA (before publication).
- The DFA's Director of Operations (after publication
and after complaint).
- My view, taking into account, my own responsibility
to comply with the relevant rules of the House.
23. I also note that the Commissioner accepts that
it is not contrary to the rules for a Member to describe himself
as "the Labour Member for X", on p.1 of the newsletter.
B: Additional Comments from the DFA's Director
of Operations
"DFA additional comments"
24. I would draw the Committee's attention to the
following parts of the report;
i) Para 103, p.39 of the Report
ii) Para 101, p.38 of the Report
iii) Para 66, p. 26 of the Report
iv) Para 100, p.37 of the Report
v) Para 63, p.25 of the Report
25. The Director of the Serjeant-at-Arms has confirmed
that he could understand "Mr Khan's (sic) distress that apparently
contradicting advice came from different departments of the House".
26. And also, "But I can also see that some
extenuating circumstances arise in this case"
27. Dealing with the substantive concern,
(1) "Labour Councillor"
If the Committee examine the box "Cleaner Streets
in Graveney Ward" (p.2 of newsletter) they will see that
it is a statement of fact, as all three Councillors in Graveney
ward are Labour representatives. It is therefore "factual
material about my (sic)work a s a Member" and "factual
information about local services e.g. the local authority"
as specifically allowed in the DFA Guidelines. Had the ward been
a 'split ward', with representatives from more than one Party,
I could perhaps understand the concern.
28. The map in the boxes sought to show the work
that I had been doing in each of the wards in the constituency
of Tooting.
29. I would respectfully draw the Committee's attention
to the DFA Guidelines, the key paragraph of which I have set out
above (see para.8, bullet points 1, 3 & 4)
(2) The Government's "commitment"
and "priorities" in parts of the section "Looking
towards the future"
30. I also find these concerns unfair. I would respectfully
ask the Committee to read the section, half way down page 3 of
my newsletter, and the entire leaflet in the context of the DFA
guidelines. The Environment is a key theme throughout the newsletter.
31. On p.1, I have a photo of the (then) Secretary-of-State
for the Environment, and I am holding an energy-efficient lightbulb.
Next to a picture of a bike (an environmentally friendly mode
of transport), I state what I believe to be the most serious threat
we face. I then set out some unarguable sentences of facts. I
am unclear which of these are partial or inaccurate.
32. Once again, had I preceded the word "Government"
with that of "Labour" I could understand some concern,
however even then they would still be a statement of fact.
33. I hasten to add that I have not commented
on and/or criticised any other political party's stance or policies
on the environment (which may have led me to fall foul of the
DFA Guidelines).
34. I am confused how a MP can write about the policies
of a Government (when it is from the same Party as the MP) without
being accused of "promoting a political party or its policies"
if these sentences are adjudged to be in breach of the rules (albeit
in a small way).
Conclusion
35. I note that the DFA believes my newsletter is
a "borderline" decision, where the benefit of the doubt
should be given to me.
36. I still feel aggrieved that I appear to be penalised
for reasons other that the original complaint, simply because
I took the trouble to seek advice (in relation to "the DFA's
Additional Comments"). Worse, where I took the advice on
my newsletter and was given the green light to ensure that the
newsletter was within the scope of the rules the Commissioner
has decided to overturn the DFA's Director of Operations findings
(in relation to "the Logo Issue").
37. Further as there were no elections in London
I had nothing to gain politically by taking any risks, especially
as I had sought prior approval from the relevant authorities.
38. I would hope that the Committee dismisses all
the complaints against me
90 
