House of Commons - Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Annual Report 2008-09 - Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Contents

3 Complaints

3.1 Under the Standing Orders of the House, the Commissioner has the remit to receive, and if he thinks fit investigate, complaints of breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and the associated Rules, including failure to register or declare interests or benefits as required by the House.

3.2 During the year beginning 1 April 2008, I received and considered 192 formal complaints. I inquired into 54 complaints, including 22 brought forward from the previous year.[17] I completed inquiries into 46 complaints. Of these I upheld 30 in whole or in part. I did not uphold the remaining 16. Eight complaints were carried over for inquiry in 2009-10.

3.3 The paragraphs which follow give more detail about this.

Complaints received and considered in 2008-09

3.4 The 192 formal complaints received and considered were against 126 named Members. Table 1 shows the number of formal complaints received, and those accepted and not accepted for inquiry in each quarter. A further 93 complaints in the form of faxes or emails were also received. Where these faxed or emailed complaints appeared to come within my remit and to be supported by sufficient evidence of a breach, complainants were invited to submit their complaints formally in writing so that I could consider them further.

3.5 All the complaints sent to my office receive careful consideration and an individual response, almost always within five working days. Table 1: Complaints considered in 2008-09

Quarter

1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total

1. Formal complaints received in 2008-09 55 43 34 60 192

2. Complaints subject of inquiry:

(a) Complaints under inquiry and brought forward from 2007-08 22 22

(b) New complaints accepted for inquiry 9 7 7 9 32

Total complaints subject of inquiry 31 7 7 9 54

3. Complaints not inquired into:

(a) because complaint fell outside remit 16 18 18 31 83

(b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules 10 5 4 13 32

(c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided 10 11 5 1 27

(d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted 10 2 0 6 18

Total complaints not inquired into 46 36 27 51 160

Note:

1. If a correspondent names more than one Member in a complaint, each is recorded as a separate complaint. Similar or duplicate complaints from different individuals are also recorded as separate complaints.

Complaints accepted for inquiry in 2008-09

3.6 There were 54 complaints against 48 Members which were inquired into during the year. These consisted of 32 complaints which I received and accepted for inquiry during 2008-09 and 22 complaints which were brought forward from 2007-08. During the year I concluded my work on 46 complaints against 40 Members, including all those complaints which had been received in 2007-08.

3.7 Chart 1 shows the subject matter of the complaints concluded in 2008-09. 25 (54%) concerned Members' use of the Communications Allowance or of pre-paid envelopes or official stationery; seven (15%) concerned the registration or declaration of interests; five (11%) concerned the use of Additional Costs Allowance; four (9%) concerned the use of the staffing allowance; three (7%) concerned the use of other House facilities or allowances, and two (4%) concerned other matters.

Chart 1: Subject matter of complaints considered and concluded in 2008-09

Complaints concluded in 2008-09

3.8 Table 2 sets out on a quarterly basis the numbers of complaints concluded during the year. I upheld thirty complaints against 27 Members in whole or in part, and did not uphold sixteen complaints. The thirty complaints which I upheld consisted of 14 which I concluded by means of Memoranda to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and 16 of a less serious nature which I was able to conclude by means of the rectification procedure without the need to report formally to the Committee. At the end of the year 2008-09 eight of the inquiries which I had opened during the year were carried forward.

Table 2: Complaints which were subject of inquiry and resolved in 2008-09

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total

1. Complaints upheld:

(a) by means of Memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges 5 0 2 7 14

(b) resolved informally through rectification procedure 2 5 7 2 16

Total complaints upheld 7 5 9 9 30

2. Complaints dismissed:

(a) without a formal report to the Committee 3 5 1 4 13

(b) subject of Memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges 1 0 2 0 3

Total complaints dismissed 4 5 3 4 16

3. Total complaints subject of inquiry and resolved 11 10 12 13 46

Note 1: During the year I submitted to the Committee ten Memoranda about complaints which I upheld. However, an inquiry may relate to more than one complaint. This was the case with two of these Memoranda, each of which dealt with three complaints.

Note 2: In addition, I submitted two Memoranda about complaints which I had dismissed. One of these concerned two Members, and therefore was counted as resolving two complaints.

Note 3: Included in the complaints which were dismissed without a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges are two which were accepted in 2007-08 but dismissed early in 2008-09: Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Annual Report 2007-08, 17 July 2008, HC 797.

(i) Complaints upheld and reported to the Committee

3.9 Three of my Memoranda on complaints which I upheld concerned Members' communications. The first related to the content of a Member's Parliamentary Report, which was published in spring 2007, shortly before the Scottish parliamentary elections.[18] I upheld only one element of this complaint, which related to a sentence in an article about Post Office closures, which I concluded crossed the line into an expression of party political activity. The Member had very properly consulted the House authorities about the content of his Report but by an oversight this sentence was not removed as he had intended. Nevertheless, I did not believe that this oversight contaminated the whole publication. The Committee agreed with me, and did not recommend any further action. This conclusion was helpful in establishing the point at which a Member's statements can become an expression of party political activity and the consequences of this.

3.10 My second Memorandum about a Member's communications concerned a survey about the NHS which was funded by the Communications Allowance and which had been publicised in a newsletter funded and circulated by the Member's local party.[19] While I did not uphold the complaint about the content of the survey, I considered that the Member should not have distributed it outside his constituency, nor deployed its findings in his party newsletter. In so doing he had used the product of material paid for from the Communications Allowance for party political or campaigning purposes. The Committee agreed and asked the Member to repay £500.

3.11 My third Memorandum about Members' communications concerned the use of pre-paid envelopes and House stationery, principally for a Member's letters written in common format, following an on-street surgery, to all the residents whom she believed she or her team had spoken to.[20] Members may not use pre-paid envelopes to correspond with constituents who have not previously contacted them, or who have contacted them only at the Member's instigation. I considered therefore that the Member should not have used such envelopes for the follow up to her on-street surgery, or for one further letter to a group of constituents. Nor should she have used stationery bearing the portcullis - albeit paid for by herself - to write to Party supporters. I did not however uphold the other elements of the complaint. The Committee agreed with me and deprecated the Member's continued misuse of House stationery after earlier advice from the House authorities. They noted with regret that the Member had continued to dispute parts of my findings and that she had offered no apology. They asked her to repay £500 and to submit an unequivocal written apology. In the light of this inquiry, I made a number of suggestions for clarifying the rules about Members' communications. The Committee commended to the Members Estimate Committee the recommendations which I made following the inquiry described above.[21]

3.12 The following four Memoranda concerned complaints which I upheld about the use of other parliamentary allowances. The first concerned claims made against the Additional Costs Allowance by two Members who are married to each other, and had since 2002 claimed for the rental of a flat which was owned by a trust of which they were trustees and their three children the sole beneficiaries.[22] The purpose of the Additional Costs Allowance was to reimburse Members for costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in staying away from their main home in order to perform their parliamentary duties. Since 2006 the rules had prohibited arrangements which gave rise to a benefit for the Member or any organisation in which the Member, their partner or family member had an interest. I therefore considered that the Members' claims had been contrary to the rules of the House at least since that date, and I upheld the complaint. The Committee agreed with me, and recommended that the Members bring the lease to an end at the earliest reasonable date and by 1 September 2008 at the latest.

3.13 My next Memorandum concerned the use made of the Staffing Allowance for a Member's employment, from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004, of his son who was then an undergraduate and subsequently a graduate studying in London.[23] The complainant alleged that the work done by the Member's son did not justify the payments made to him.

3.14 The inquiry was a difficult one, made so by the time elapsed since the events complained of and by the record keeping practices of both the House authorities, who do not retain staff data longer than three years, and of the Member concerned. After extensive investigation, I concluded that the Member had breached the rules of the House by paying his son in the last 2½ years of his employment at above the level necessary for the type of duties he performed, with the result that this element of his Parliamentary expenditure was not necessarily incurred. But I found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that the son failed to work the 18 hours a week for which he was paid, or the hours for which he received an overtime payment. I therefore did not uphold these parts of the complaint.

3.15 The Committee upheld my findings, noting that following my predecessor's report about overpayments to the same Member's younger son, which had led to the House suspending the Member without pay for ten sitting days and requiring him to repay the House authorities, the Member's political career was over.[24] They felt that a further period of suspension would be disproportionate and therefore asked him to write to the Chairman to apologise to the House for his breach of the Rules, and to reimburse the House for the full cost of the latest overpayments, which was £3,758. The Member complied and after an initial statement to the media, which he then withdrew, repeated his apology in the Chamber. [25]

3.16 The second inquiry into the use of the Staffing Allowance which I reported to the Committee concerned events which took place even longer ago, from 1997 to 1999.[26] Following media reports that parliamentary allowances might have been misused to pay for a nanny, the Member herself asked me to inquire into the allegation. Normally, I do not consider cases that go back more than seven years. Neither may I launch an investigation in the absence of a complaint without the express authority of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I considered that this allegation was sufficiently serious for me to recommend to the Committee that exceptionally I should accept the referral from the Member and waive the seven year rule. I therefore sought, and obtained, the Committee's agreement to this action.

3.17 In both this case and in the one previously described, I employed a high standard of proof, namely that the allegations must be significantly more likely to be true than not to be true. This reflected the seriousness of the complaints and the potential consequences for the Member and their personal integrity. I concluded that the Member had paid from her parliamentary allowances a salary that enabled her part-time administration assistant to work also as her nanny without additional or separate financial reward for the two years of her dual role. My conclusion was that these arrangements had the unintended but, in my view, undoubted effect of misapplying some of the Member's parliamentary allowances for non-parliamentary purposes. The Member accepted my findings, and the Committee asked her to repay the House authorities the sum of £9,600, based on an overpayment of £4,800 in each of the years in question.

3.18 My final Memorandum relating to the allowances concerned an allegation that a Member had sub-let part of a constituency office, contrary to the rules of the House, and had not registered the income from this.[27] Since 2004 the Green Book had specifically stated that Members may not sub-let accommodation which they pay for out of the Incidental Expenses Provision. I upheld this part of the complaint. But I found that the arrangement brought no financial benefit to the Member. I did not therefore uphold a further complaint about the alleged failure to register of the income from the sub-let. I accepted that the Member broke this rule inadvertently, and I noted that as soon as the Member learnt that the sub-letting arrangement was not permitted, he terminated the sub-lease and brought his arrangements within the rules. He had also apologised. The Committee recommended no further action.

3.19 In 2008-09 I submitted to the Committee three Memoranda upholding complaints about Members who had failed to register interests within the appropriate time.[28] All concerned Members of some seniority, two of whom held, or had held, Ministerial office. The first concerned a complaint that a Member had failed to include in his personal entry in the Register details of donations made to his Party but, in accordance with the wishes of the donor, used by the Party to support the cost of running his Shadow Ministerial office.[29]Each of these donations had been reported to the Electoral Commission as donations to the Party in accordance with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but they had not been recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Since some, but not all, Shadow Ministers had registered such donations, the inquiry raised the question of whether the donations fell to be so registered.

3.20 I took the view that financial support received by Members to support front-bench duties ought, in principle, to be registrable if it comes from an identifiable donor, whether the donation is for the use of an individual Member by name, or is used by him or her by virtue of the Shadow office they are holding. I concluded that the complaint against this Member should be upheld but that, in all the circumstances, it would not be fair or reasonable to criticise him. The Committee supported my conclusions, noting that a number of Members in Shadow posts would need to amend their Register entries. [30]

3.21 The two other Memoranda submitted to the Committee each concerned an omission that the Member had corrected. In such circumstances, as explained in paragraph 3.34 below, I would expect to consider use of the rectification procedure set out in subparagraph 3 of Standing Order 150. But I considered that these two cases were each of a seriousness that required a formal Memorandum to the Committee, one because of the failure by the Member to take the various opportunities he had to register, and the other because of the scale of the donations he failed to register.

3.22 One of these two complaints about registration concerned sponsorship of a dinner to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Member's election to Parliament.[31] The Member had not registered the donation of the sponsorship either when it was received in 2004, or when the need to register was drawn to his attention in 2006. He had also failed to notice that the donation did not appear in his Register entry when this was sent to him in early 2007. The Committee considered that this was a clear, albeit inadvertent, breach of the Rules. Since the Member had now apologised and updated the Register, the Committee did not recommend any further action by the House. They did however comment that the Member had clearly been negligent and that the case ought to serve as a reminder to Members to ensure their register entries are kept up to date at all times.

3.23 The third complaint about registration concerned a Member's failure to record in the Register of Members' Interests within the four week time limit all the donations he received in respect of his campaign for election as Deputy Leader of his political party.[32] With the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee, I had suspended my inquiry in February 2008 pending the completion of police investigations into the Member's failure to report these donations to the Electoral Commission. I resumed the inquiry in December 2008 when the prosecuting authorities announced there was insufficient evidence to charge the Member with an offence under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I reported the outcome of my inquiries to the Committee in January, noting that while the Member had not sought to avoid his own responsibility for failing to report his donations, the oversight was both serious and substantial.

3.24 The Committee supported my decisions to submit Memoranda and my conclusions in these two cases. They recommended that the second Member apologise by means of a personal statement on the floor of the House, which he did.

(ii) Complaints upheld by means of the rectification procedure

3.25 In addition to the cases which I reported formally to the Committee during 2008-09, I was able to conclude my inquiries into 16 complaints by making use of the rectification procedure set out in subparagraph 3 of Standing Order 150. This provides that no report shall be made by the Commissioner:

"(a) in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, if it is the Commissioner's opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose; and

(b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances, or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable."

3.26 I normally consider whether to institute this procedure in circumstances where the Member accepts that there has been a breach of the rules of the House, where there was no clear evidence that the breach was intentional and it was at the less serious end of the spectrum. I also consider whether the Member has taken appropriate action to rectify the matter, including any financial recompense, and to avoid a recurrence. The Committee expects the Member to tender an apology. In such circumstances, I write to the complainant explaining the actions the Member has taken, and I report the matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, at the same time conveying the Member's apologies.

3.27 During 2008-09 I used the rectification procedure to conclude one complaint concerning a failure to register an interest within due time, and fifteen complaints concerning comparatively minor misuse of the allowances or facilities of the House. Eight concerned the use of Parliamentary stationery, principally pre-paid envelopes; six concerned the use of the Communications Allowance, and the remaining complaint concerned the use by a Member's employee of a parliamentary e-mail account.

(iii) Complaints dismissed

3.28 In 2008-09 I dismissed a total of sixteen complaints after inquiry. Thirteen of these cases were concluded without a formal Memorandum to the Committee. Eight of these related to the Member's alleged use of the Communications Allowance or of House stationery, two to the employment of staff, two to articles or letters written by the Member, and one to the registration and declaration of an alleged interest. In each case, after inquiry, the evidence did not substantiate the allegation that the Member in question had breached the rules of the House. In each case I wrote to the Member and the complainant and informed the Committee of the outcome.

3.29 In addition, during the year I prepared Memoranda to the Committee on three complaints which I had dismissed, but where I took the view that the public interest in these cases required me to set out the evidence and my findings in a formal Memorandum which would then be published. The first related to claims for taxis on the authority of an office holder of the House.[33] I concluded that the use of taxis paid for from public funds in support of the normal duties of this office holder was reasonable in all the circumstances. The Committee endorsed both my decision to dismiss this complaint and the grounds on which I did so.

3.30 The second Memorandum related to two complaints about claims made under the Additional Costs Allowance by two Members who are married to each other. The claims were for their second home which they identified as being in London.[34] The issue turned on the interpretation of the rules in the Green Book about the identification of a Member's main home. The Members had identified their constituency residence as their main home. The evidence showed they had in fact spent more nights in their London home. I concluded that the rules allowed for exceptions to the general rule that a Member's main home is where they spend more nights than any other. Taking account of all the circumstances identified in the course of my inquiry, I concluded that the Members' decision to locate their main home in or near their constituencies was reasonable and was fully in accordance with the letter and spirit of the rules of the House.

Other complaints in 2008-09

3.31 It is in the nature of most complaints systems that a large number of the complaints received raise matters which are not proceeded with. That has been the position with complaints sent to the Commissioner since this office was established. This year has been no exception. My role is to inquire into complaints which come within my remit and where the complainant has provided sufficient evidence to justify at least a preliminary inquiry into whether the Member identified by the complainant has broken the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and its associated rules.

3.32 Of the complaints I received in 2008-09, 83 fell outside my remit, for example because they were complaints from a Member's constituent about the way the Member had handled their case, or because the complainant took exception to the views or opinions expressed by a Member. Some of these complaints were about the actions of government Ministers. All these matters fell outside my remit.

3.33 It is understandable that many complainants are not familiar with the rules of the House. I therefore receive a significant number of complaints where the Member's action, if substantiated, would not constitute a breach of the rules. There were 32 such complaints last year. A number of these complaints concerned the content of newsletters and other publications. In some cases the content was in fact permissible under the rules on the Communications Allowance, and in others there was no evidence that the communications had been funded from that Allowance.

3.34 Other complainants wrote, or sent media reports, making what amounted to unsubstantiated allegations that a Member had broken the rules of the House. There were 27 such complaints last year. An inquiry by the Commissioner is always a serious matter, and it is intended to be so. It is serious because it puts into question the probity and integrity of the Member. The fact that an inquiry has been launched by the Commissioner is often public knowledge—and if asked my office will always confirm that I have initiated such an inquiry—and, whether or not they are eventually found to be in breach, the Member is inevitably under a cloud until at least my inquiries have been concluded. The House has determined that the Commissioner should embark on inquiries only when he is satisfied that they raise matters which go to the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House and that there is sufficient evidence provided by the complainant to justify such action.

3.35 The rules established for the Commissioner by the House provide that I would not normally regard a complaint founded upon no more than a newspaper story or television report as a substantiated allegation.[35] Nevertheless, where a complainant sends a media report which provides sufficient evidence to justify my making an inquiry, then I will institute that inquiry. Where sufficient evidence is not provided, then I am not able to institute an investigation. I am however always ready to consider the complaint afresh if substantiated evidence is subsequently produced.

3.36 Finally, there were some 18 complaints about matters I was already inquiring into, and where the new complaint did not add to the evidence I had already received and accepted. I so informed the complainants.

Frivolous or vexatious complaints

3.37 If I receive a complaint which appears to be frivolous or vexatious I will draw this to the attention of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am pleased to say that I have not needed to consult the Committee in this way in 2008-09.

Trends in complaints from 2004 to 2009

3.38 Table 3 shows that while in 2008-09 I received fewer formal complaints than I did in 2007-08, there were more than any recent previous year and, if informal (email) complaints are included, the intake reflected a continuing upward trend, more than doubling in the last five years. The use of the rectification procedure has also increased since 2005-06 when Standing Order 150 was amended to enable the Commissioner to make use of it in cases of less serious misuse of the allowances, facilities and services. The balance between complaints which were not inquired into because they were outside the Commissioner's remit and those which were not inquired into for other reasons has changed in the last two years. This may be a reflection of changes in recording practice over that period.

3.39 Minor variations in the numbers of complaints received from one year to the next may not be significant. The statistics for any given year can be inflated by our practice of recording a single letter from a complainant as multiple complaints if it names more than one Member. Thus the unusually high number of complaints accepted and resolved in 2006-07 reflects the 50 complaints relating to dining clubs which were considered during the year. Table 3: Complaints received, from 2004 to 2009

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

1. All complaints received 137 133 214 248 285

2. Specific complaints against a named Member 118 129 176 226 192

4. Complaints subject of inquiry:

a) Complaints subject of preliminary inquiry then dismissed 15 15 11 29 13[36]

b) Complaints subject of further investigation 27 8 70 42 33

Total complaints subject of inquiry : 42 23 81 71 46

3.Complaints not inquired into

a) because complaint fell outside remit 67 105 87 94 83

b) for other reasons 9 1 8 61 77

Total complaints not inquired into 76 106 95 155 160

5. Complaints resolved

a) by rectification procedure 0 0 10 7 16

b) by means of Memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges 21 0 53 15 17[37]

Total complaints resolved 21 0 63 22 46