Conclusion
10. We regard this as an inadvertent breach of the
rules, which could very easily have been avoided. When entering
into the arrangement to share a constituency office with a Member
of the Scottish Parliament and to sub-let part of it to his local
party, Mr Brown should have ensured that the House of Commons
authorities were consulted on the rules relating to Members' allowances.
11. The breach could, however, have been rectified
earlier if the House authorities had been more vigilant and had
picked up from the papers available to them that an impermissible
sub-letting arrangement had been entered into. It is disappointing
that this did not happen.
12. In a recent Report, we commented on a case where
a busy Cabinet Minister had overlooked the need to register a
donation, and we suggested that it should serve as a reminder
"particularly to Ministers and to front-benchers" of
the need to ensure they have complied with the rules of the House.[3]
This case leads us to restate that advice.
13. We conclude that Mr Brown should not have
sub-let part of his accommodation paid for from Parliamentary
allowances. However, neither Mr Brown nor the Labour Party derived
any financial benefit from this arrangement and there was no intention
to deceive. We accept that Mr Brown's breach of the rules of the
House was inadvertent and that he took steps to rectify it as
soon as it was drawn to his attention. Mr Brown has apologised
and in our view no further action is necessary.
14. We endorse the two observations made by the
Commissioner in the final paragraph of his memorandum. It is clearly
dangerous for Members of Parliament to assume that the rules of
other parliamentary assemblies in the United Kingdom are the same
as those of the House of Commons, or vice versa. We also
call on the House authorities to exercise greater care in checking
the information they receive from Members.
1 
