My Inquiries
12. Before the Committee's meeting on 17 June, I
had invited the Acting Director of Operations in the Department
of Resources to let me have any documents or information held
by the Department in relation to the employment of Mrs Spelman's
assistant from 1997 to about 1999. The Acting Director replied
on 12 June.[40] He noted
that the Department held no records, electronic or paper, which
gave any information about the nature of the employment of Mrs
Spelman's assistant. No payments were made on behalf of the employee
to a personal pension fund. The Department's electronic records
did not show the details of any member of staff employed before
17 July 2000.
13. I wrote to Mrs Spelman on 17 June to invite her
comments on the allegation.[41]
In particular, I asked her to let me know the circumstances in
which she came to offer her children's nanny the post of secretarial
assistant; the dates of her assistant's appointment; the hours
she was contracted to work and the financial and other remuneration
she received, together with the place or places where she worked;
similar information in respect of the employment of the same person
as her children's nanny; the nature and volume of the secretarial
work she required of her; this person's qualifications for undertaking
this work; how this dual appointment worked in practice; the circumstances
in which Mrs Spelman came to terminate the arrangement and the
arrangements she put in its place; what other staff she employed;
and whether she had at any time consulted the House authorities
about her staffing arrangements.
14. I recognised that, because of the passage of
time, it was likely to be difficult to provide much in the way
of documentary evidence, so I asked if Mrs Spelman could identify
any witnesses who might be able to help me in establishing the
arrangements which she made.
15. Mrs Spelman responded on 3 July.[42]
She annexed to her letter a letter from the then President of
the Meriden Conservative Association;[43]
the Minutes of the Meriden Conservative Association's Finance
and General Purposes Committee Meeting on 22 July 1997;[44]
a Memorandum of Sale to Mrs Spelman and her husband for a property
in Solihull, dated 24 October 1997;[45]
a statement from Linda McDougall, an author and journalist;
[46] a copy of
a deductions working sheet showing National Insurance contributions
for Mrs Spelman's nanny in 1999;[47]
a copy of a working sheet showing some Income Tax information,
also for 1999; [48]
two invoices dated June and July 2000 showing salary costs for
her then constituency secretary; [49]
a statement from the then Head Teacher of Knowle CE Primary School;[50]
a statement from the current Head Teacher;[51]
a statement from Mrs Paula Yates (formerly Monkhouse) dated 20
June 2008;[52] a statement
from the then Conservative Women's Chairman for the West Midlands
region;[53] a statement
from a constituent;[54]
a statement from a councillor who attended surgeries with Mrs
Spelman;[55] a statement
from Mr Nigel Waterson (the Member for Eastbourne, Willingdon
and East Dean);[56] a
statement from a volunteer who worked in Mrs Spelman's office
in 1998;[57] a statement
from her parliamentary researcher who worked for her from 1998
to 2001;[58] a statement
from the gardener who worked for her in 1998,[59]
and a statement from the vicar of Mrs Spelman's parish church
in Knowle.[60]
16. Mrs Spelman stated at the outset of her letter
that she strenuously denied the allegations being made against
her and any wrongdoing on her part. She did not during the period
1997 to 1999 (or thereafter) subsidise the cost of nannying services
out of parliamentary allowances. Her nanny at that time did carry
out administrative duties to the extent for which she was paid.
17. Mrs Spelman said that the events took place during
an extremely demanding period. She was taking over after the sudden
death of the previous Member for Meriden, dealing on her arrival
with the resulting backlog of work, adjusting to the House as
a new Member with no previous experience of parliamentary life
and dealing with the upheaval of moving from her family home in
Kent with three young children to the midlands. The Conservative
party was unable to provide much by way of induction to the House
rules, or guidance for women Members with dependent children.
18. Mrs Spelman said that her employment of Mrs Tina
Haynes (née Rawlins) to provide both administrative support
and childcare gave her what she considered to be a workable solution
at that time within the rules of the House. She was entirely open
about this arrangement with her party, fellow Members and the
House officials. As far as she was aware, there was no prohibition
against an individual undertaking a dual role (that was both childcare
and administrative/secretarial functions). Provided she was able
to distinguish the work which was being done and paid for as parliamentary
work, she saw no reason why she should not employ someone to perform
a dual function. The dual arrangement was a very common practice
among male Members of Parliament at that time, and she noted that
it had continued to be, with wives and partners looking after
their children while also being paid to perform administrative/secretarial
work.
19. The circumstances of Mrs Haynes' appointment
were that Mrs Spelman put herself forward for selection as a Conservative
candidate for the Meriden constituency following the death in
January 1997 of the sitting MP, Mr Iain Mills. The selection process
took place during February 1997. At the time she and her family
were living in Kent. She had undertaken that, were she to be selected,
she would move to Meriden and would educate her children in the
local schools. She was selected as the prospective Conservative
candidate on 5 February 1997. Mrs Spelman said that under normal
circumstances she would have had 12 months or more from selection
to prepare for the next election, but she had 11 weeks. The election
was called for 1 May 1997. This was an extremely busy period for
campaigning. Mrs Spelman moved to Meriden immediately, while her
children remained in Kent and were looked after by her au pair
until the end of the school summer term in July 1997.
20. Mrs Spelman had noted that she was going to be
schooling her children in Meriden, some 120 miles away from where
she was working (in Westminster) from Monday to Thursday. She
therefore needed to find a local nanny to take sole charge of
her three children, including overnight during the week. She also
needed to maintain "a clear anchor in the constituency".
This would be somebody who could quickly assess and redirect correspondence
so that her constituents received the best possible service from
the outset.
21. Since her children were to be in full time education,
it was clear that the person employed to look after her children
would have six clear hours at their disposal each day. She believed
that, given her needs in the constituency, it would be most sensible
if this person could devote part of this time to address the administrative
tasks of a secretarial assistant based in the constituency. Mrs
Spelman asked around the area for names of people who might fit
the bill and was given the name of Mrs Haynes (née
Rawlins). It was clear from her references that Mrs Haynes had
previously worked in quite demanding roles. She had effectively
taken responsibility for running the household in her previous
job, and had therefore demonstrated her capacity to carry out
duties of an administrative nature and make responsible decisions
in the absence of the parents.
22. Mrs Spelman gave three further reasons why she
believed it was sensible at the time to have her nanny undertake
administrative functions. The first was that the local party Association
secretary was not able to provide much support to her at that
time. She believed that this was confirmed by the minutes of the
local Conservative Association's meeting of 22 July 1997 attached
to her letter.[61] The
Association was also unable to provide any office space. The local
Association office was in any case not in her constituency, but
in the Solihull constituency. Mrs Spelman considered it important
to have a "proper base in my own constituency".
She had insufficient funding to open an independent constituency
office and so it seemed the most appropriate, if not the only,
solution to use her rented home as her constituency office.
23. The second reason was that the Office Costs Allowance
did not stretch to employing two full time secretaries - one in
the House and one in the constituency. She chose to employ an
experienced House of Commons secretary in London and opt for more
junior administrative support in her constituency.
24. Thirdly, she hoped that by employing a person
in a dual capacity her young children would adjust to a consistent
presence within the household. Limited space in their initial
house in the constituency was also a factor.
25. Turning to Mrs Haynes' employment, Mrs Spelman
had been unable to locate a copy of Mrs Haynes' contract. She
believed that she must have taken up her post around 1 June 1997.
She could not recall her precise job title. She had a recollection
that Mrs Haynes was required to undertake 18 hours of administrative
work for her per week. She did not expect a rigid number of hours
per day because the nature of the tasks she undertook would vary.
In the recess, which for the most part coincided with school holidays,
she was able to share the childcare with her nanny (Mrs Haynes)
who could continue to work flexibly to undertake the same administrative
functions that she did in term time. As far as she could recall,
Mrs Haynes received the statutory four weeks' holiday a year.
26. Mrs Spelman could not recall the amount that
Mrs Haynes received for this role. There were no guidelines in
force at the time. Mr Alan Marskell, Head of the Fees Office in
1997, had confirmed to her that the Fees Office would refuse to
pay any salary which they felt was unreasonable, and no such issues
were raised in respect of Mrs Haynes' salary or her capacity to
undertake the work required of her.
27. Mrs Haynes was based in Meriden, performing her
administrative functions. She worked from Mrs Spelman's home there,
which was also her constituency office. Mrs Haynes was not based
in Kent, although during Mrs Spelman's first four weeks as a Member
of Parliament, she travelled to and from Kent with Mrs Spelman
to assist in transferring her office and to familiarise herself
with the children.
28. Mrs Haynes ceased any administrative work on
the parliamentary payroll by 1 June 1999, although the arrangement
may have concluded earlier in the previous month. When the arrangement
changed, Mrs Spelman began paying the local constituency Association
secretary (Mrs Paula Yates, formerly Monkhouse) for the time she
devoted wholly and exclusively to parliamentary activity, reflecting
the transfer of administrative work from Mrs Haynes at that time.
By January 2000, Mrs Spelman was paying the Association £10
an hour[62] for 14 hours
each week for the time and costs of the help Mrs Yates gave Mrs
Spelman with constituency administration.
29. Mrs Haynes' employment as her children's nanny
began on the same date as her administrative functions (sometime
in June 1997). She lived at Mrs Spelman's home from Monday through
to Thursday night each week. The children moved to the constituency
during the summer holidays of 1997. They were all in full time
education there from the beginning of the autumn term 1997. From
this point, Meriden was the children's full time home. Mrs Spelman
noted that the evidence from the then Head Teacher at their school
stated that Mrs Haynes undertook both childcare and administrative
functions for Mrs Spelman at that time.[63]
30. For her role as a nanny, Mrs Spelman said that
Mrs Haynes was provided with free board and accommodation, the
use of a car and all expenses. Mrs Haynes worked through the school
holidays, except for two weeks in August, a week at Christmas
and a week at Easter. She continued to work as Mrs Spelman's children's
nanny until September 2002.
31. Turning to the nature of Mrs Haynes' work, Mrs
Spelman noted that the duties were more administrative than secretarial.
Mrs Haynes did not type letters. Any constituent could visit or
telephone her home at any time of day. Mrs Haynes' role was to
be around during the day to deal with this: to answer the door
and telephone when required. She was responsible for dealing with
incoming calls, answer-machine messages, opening post and transferring
paperwork. Mrs Haynes helped open and sort the initial backlog
of constituency post when Mrs Spelman started as the Member for
Meriden. Mrs Haynes' local knowledge helped Mrs Spelman plan where
she had to be to attend local functions and meetings, providing
travel directions. She would act as a driver and chaperone for
staff and others visiting from London on parliamentary business.
She judged the degree of urgency of messages/letters and passed
these on to Mrs Spelman directly. She used her judgement as to
when messages left for Mrs Spelman needed urgent action by local
councillors, the local party Association or the Member of the
European Parliament. She acted as the message liaison with the
Association office and Mrs Spelman's London based Commons secretary
as necessary.
32. There were two deliveries of post a day. Mrs
Haynes' job was to open the post and sort it. If a letter was
so urgent that it needed to be faxed, she would do this on her
own initiative. Mrs Haynes would collect post from, as well as
deliver it where appropriate to the Association office. In support
of this, Mrs Spelman drew attention to the statements from the
then Association secretary and the wife of their Member of the
European Parliament.[64]
33. The Association secretary, Mrs Paula Yates, arranged
regular Friday evening and Saturday morning surgeries for constituents.
However Mrs Spelman took the surgery notes home with her and went
through them with Mrs Haynes. Constituents would often drop off
documents they did not wish to risk in the post and would hand
these over to Mrs Haynes in person. Councillors who attended the
surgeries would report back to Mrs Spelman the outcome of their
actions, usually through Mrs Haynes, as shown in the letter from
a councillor.[65] Delivering
and collecting post and messages between the constituency office
and the local Association office required a drive between Meriden
and Solihull of approximately a ten mile round trip.
34. In addition, a number of local organisations
preferred to ring Mrs Spelman's home number rather than make a
call to London.
35. Mrs Haynes was not qualified as a secretary,
but her references had made it clear that she had the practical
and intellectual capacity to undertake administrative support
tasks over and above childcare. Neither her constituents nor the
local Association officials ever raised a complaint against Mrs
Haynes' role or the way she carried it out. The letter from one
of Mrs Spelman's constituents confirmed his dealings with Mrs
Haynes. [66]
36. Mrs Spelman said that in practice, Mrs Haynes
would drop the children off at school and then would use the time
during school hours to perform basic administrative tasks. These
varied on a day to day basis. They included staffing the home
(constituency) telephone, opening and sorting post, performing
administrative errands and liaising between constituents, the
local Association office, her parliamentary secretary and herself.
Mrs Haynes would carry out some of these duties after the children
had gone to bed.
37. The arrangement worked extremely well during
Mrs Spelman's first two years as a Member of Parliament. It was
a practical solution to the problem that there were insufficient
funds for two full time secretaries in the allowances at the time.
38. In April 1999, the then Opposition Chief Whip,
the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, spoke to Mrs Spelman about the dual
arrangement. He said it had come to his attention via a member
of staff that, while this arrangement did not break the rules,
and he was aware of other MPs who had similar arrangements, it
was open to misrepresentation. He advised Mrs Spelman to split
the childcare and administrative roles. Mrs Spelman decided to
act on this straightaway. She approached the Association to take
on the additional parliamentary work, which they were now able
to do. She paid Mrs Haynes separately for her nannying role. The
Association's secretary agreed to give Mrs Spelman the extra time
each week to take over the casework and correspondence received
at the constituency. This was possible because the secretary's
child had just entered nursery. Mrs Haynes continued as a nanny
only, but in reality she still answered the phone and opened the
post, although this was now remunerated by Mrs Spelman and not
by Parliament.
39. Turning to her other staff, Mrs Spelman said
that she had been aware that the OCA would not accommodate two
full time secretaries. She considered it was a wise course to
have a full time secretary based in the House of Commons who understood
Westminster rules and procedures. She therefore employed a full
time secretary based at the House from May 1997 to approximately
March 1999. She could not now recall her salary. She then employed
another Commons secretary in April 1999. This secretary went initially
to another Member to complain about the arrangement with Mrs Haynes
very soon after starting to work for Mrs Spelman, without giving
any significant time to assess the practicality of the arrangement.
40. To Mrs Spelman's recollection, neither Commons
secretary visited the constituency more than once. They did not
undertake any constituency located work and were not able to assess
how much work Mrs Haynes did there.
41. In addition, in September 1997, Mrs Spelman had
an intern paid for by Christian Action Research and Education
(CARE) for whom she provided free accommodation until the end
of her internship in July 1998. From February 1998 to the end
of September 1998 she had pro bono help from a trainee
barrister. He was paid for the one month he worked full time,
and saw the work that Mrs Haynes did in the constituency.[67]
His evidence stated that he had made several visits to Meriden.
He was normally collected from Birmingham International station
by Mrs Haynes, who would drive him around the constituency and
would frequently accompany him to the meetings as she knew some
of the people concerned. The day would often end at Mrs Spelman's
house, where Mrs Spelman would make supper for the children after
school as Mrs Haynes and he updated Mrs Spelman about the meetings
that they had had that day.
42. In September 1998, Mrs Spelman had another intern
paid for by CARE to whom she also provided free London accommodation.
This intern (Mr Tim Collins) was also her nephew. In his evidence
he noted a "strained relationship" between Mrs
Spelman and her first House of Commons secretary.[68]
He understood that this was caused, in part, by that secretary's
reluctance to use an answer machine, voicemail or a new computer
provided by Mrs Spelman. He was aware that Mrs Haynes carried
out parliamentary work at Mrs Spelman's home. Mrs Haynes frequently
sent him parcels of local newspapers.
43. Turning to her consultations with the House authorities,
Mrs Spelman said that she recalled meeting the then Head of the
Fees Office to discuss her staffing arrangements in detail in
her first six weeks as a Member of Parliament. She explained that
she had opted for a full time secretary in the Commons but needed
part time administrative support in the constituency. She recalled
explaining that she was addressing this issue by employing one
person to assist with childcare and administration. She was not
told that the dual role breached the rules and as far as she was
aware the Fees Office authorised Mrs Haynes' contract.
44. Mrs Spelman said that these recollections were
supported by the then Head of the Fees Office, Mr Alan Marskell.
In a telephone conversation with Mrs Spelman following the news
reports in June 2008, Mr Marskell had confirmed to her that the
Fees Office would have scrutinised Mrs Haynes' contract of employment
and checked the hours to be worked, the location of the work and
the nature of the role. Mrs Spelman reported that he had confirmed
that there was no rule preventing MPs from having one employee
who performed two roles. Mrs Spelman recalled explaining to the
Fees Office that Mrs Haynes would have 30 clear hours each week
when the children were in school and, in her view, asking Mrs
Haynes to provide administrative work for her in 18 of those hours
each week was reasonable. Mrs Spelman said that the Fees Office
had agreed and the contract was signed off by them. Mrs Spelman
noted that Mr Marskell had said that the definition which the
Fees Office used in 1997 was:
"If it was party political or personal/private
then it could not be parliamentary, but if they are asking for
reimbursement it would be acceptable as long as it did not come
under one of those four Ps."
Mr Marskell had confirmed to her that, if the Fees
Office had agreed the contract of employment, they would have
been satisfied that the nature of the role was not one of those
four Ps and therefore perfectly permissible.
45. Following on from her letter of 3 July, Mrs Spelman
sent me a testimonial from the then Chairman of the Solihull Healthcare
NHS Trust and Chairman of the Solihull Bench dated 12 July.[69]
It stated that she would trust absolutely the honesty, transparency
and integrity of Mrs Spelman in whatever situation she happened
to be.
46. Having carefully considered Mrs Spelman's response
and the evidence she provided, I decided I needed some more information
from some of Mrs Spelman's witnesses and from some of the people
referred to in her letter. Accordingly I wrote on 9 July to Mrs
Paula Yates (formerly Mrs Monkhouse),[70]
to Mrs Sally Hammond,[71]
to the Chairman of the Meriden Conservative Association[72]
and on 16 July to Mrs Georgina Perry,[73]
having informed Mr Tim Collins that I would be showing his letter
to her. I wrote also on 9 July to the Acting Director of Operations
in the Department of Resources to show him a copy of Mrs Spelman's
evidence and to invite any further help he could give me on the
employment arrangements for staff in 1997.[74]
47. Mrs Paula Yates responded with her letter of
11 July.[75] She enclosed
with her letter the statement she prepared on 20 June 2008[76]
and her job description in 1997.[77]
She confirmed that she was not able to provide support for Mrs
Spelman upon her election. At that time her hours of work as part
time organising secretary with the Meriden Conservative Association
were 9am to 1pm. She did not want to commit more hours while her
daughter was still very young. The job description which she enclosed
with her letter made no mention of working for a Member of Parliament.
The workload from the branches within the Association already
exceeded her capacity in the hours available. There was also no
office space available to house a constituency office for Mrs
Spelman.
48. Mrs Yates said she had contact with Mrs Haynes
every week (typically on a Monday and Friday) to exchange correspondence
and the advice surgery schedules. Post would come both to Mrs
Spelman's home and to the office. It would be collected by Mrs
Haynes and in exchange she would bring in work from Mrs Spelman.
Following a weekend surgery, Mrs Haynes would bring in paperwork
from some of the local councillors. Sometimes Mrs Haynes would
take the work to the councillors directly as she was familiar
with the locality and the individuals involved. The volume of
work would fluctuate. In the early days there was a backlog inherited
from the previous Member, but Mrs Spelman's workload steadily
increased as she became better known. Mrs Haynes would also bring
in articles for local newsletters and parliamentary reports. Mrs
Yates did not open the post for Mrs Spelman. She did not know
how many hours Mrs Haynes spent on administrative work, but from
her own experience of working with Mrs Spelman from 1999, she
imagined it would consume a significant part of her day. Telephone
calls to her office would be referred to Mrs Haynes if Mrs Yates
needed Mrs Haynes to come in. Mrs Yates said that Mrs Spelman
inherited a heavy surgery schedule which cost about £250
a month to administer.
49. In 1999, Mrs Yates was asked if she could work
more hours to take on the constituency casework arising from the
advice surgery. Mrs Spelman explained that she needed to end the
dual role performed by Mrs Haynes. The new arrangement was that
Mrs Spelman would be invoiced for the time Mrs Yates spent dealing
with casework on her behalf. Over a week, this was calculated
to be approximately two full days, although Mrs Yates said that
she regularly took work home to ensure tasks were completed. So
from 1999, Mrs Yates not only booked the advice surgeries and
appointments, but also dealt with all correspondence arising from
the local advice surgeries, which involved typing letters to various
agencies and to constituents, while continuing to carry on with
her permanent position as organising secretary for the Association.
50. Mrs Yates said that the work she took on was
relatively straightforward. All the constituency files held at
Mrs Spelman's home were gradually brought to the Association office.
She still saw Mrs Haynes on a regular basis as paperwork still
needed to be passed back and forth to Mrs Spelman. The handover
from Mrs Haynes was gradual.
51. Following receipt of this letter, I wrote to
Mrs Yates on 15 July asking for some further clarification of
what she had told me.[78]
I asked what the task described in the job description as "To
work closely with the Conservative Member of Parliament"
entailed; whether she had a copy of her job description as it
had changed in 1999; some details about Mrs Spelman's surgeries;
her references to telephone calls and the administration costs;
subsequent contacts with Mrs Haynes; the tasks she had inherited
from Mrs Haynes; and whether it was necessary to make any changes
to the office accommodation in 1999 to reflect the new arrangements.
52. Mrs Yates responded on 6 August.[79]
She said that the reference in her previous letter to working
closely with the Member of Parliament was nothing to do with Mrs
Spelman's parliamentary duties, but with the political side of
her work—working towards the re-election of a Conservative
MP. Mrs Yates said that her job description remained the same
since the additional work and hours she had agreed to carry out
for Mrs Spelman in respect of her parliamentary duties were negotiated
verbally. The terms, conditions and salary remained with the Conservative
Association, as they thought the work for Mrs Spelman was going
to be a temporary arrangement since she wished to find a full
time constituency secretary. She believed local councillors began
to attend Mrs Spelman's surgeries in 1999 when she had had an
incident with a constituent and from this time onwards councillors
were there to provide assistance. The heaviest surgeries were
in Chelmsley Wood and Castle Bromwich. Mrs Yates would refer telephone
calls not requiring surgery appointments to the parliamentary
secretary in London. She would telephone Mrs Haynes if she needed
her to call in to her office to collect post or other documents
or to pass messages on to Mrs Spelman. The costs for the surgeries
were made up of costs incurred by the Association for such matters
as room hire, advertising, telephone/fax costs and administration
costs.
53. Mrs Yates said that Mrs Spelman first spoke to
her about taking on extra work in April 1999. A handover of work
and files occurred gradually after this. She could not recall
the exact timing, but she still had contact with Mrs Haynes after
June 1999 because there was ongoing political work and Mrs Haynes
would also bring to her any correspondence from Mrs Spelman's
home. The additional work she took on was the opening and sorting
of the post arriving in the constituency and dealing with any
follow up actions. This included faxing urgent letters to London.
She took on casework arising from the surgeries. There was also
a significant amount of parliamentary work which was dealt with
locally rather than going through London. Once the correspondence
and casework was dealt with, she filed the documents away. She
also had more driving around the constituency and would regularly
drop off work for Mrs Spelman at her home.
54. Mrs Yates said there was no room for Mrs Spelman
to have an office at the Association. They had to find a lot of
extra space for the files, including having to store some of them
in the loft space. Two filing cabinets of live files were housed
in the Chairman's office. Mrs Spelman had asked if she could take
over the Chairman's office, but this was refused because it was
needed for the Association. No other changes were made to the
accommodation.
55. The Chairman of the Meriden Conservative Association
responded to my letter on 14 July.[80]
He noted that in 1997 he was the Association's treasurer. Mrs
Paula Yates had become the organising secretary after the 1997
general election, but was only able to work mornings. The Association
continued the arrangement with the previous Member of Parliament,
paying for advice bureau surgeries and advertising them in the
local press and libraries. This work was carried out by Mrs Yates.
She could not give Mrs Spelman any further help. The Association
received £250 a month from the parliamentary allowances for
this work.
56. Mrs Spelman had been faced with a large backlog
of work from the previous Member. She employed Mrs Haynes in the
dual role of secretary/nanny to help her in following up the correspondence
and to deal with the new work resulting from her own surgeries.
Mrs Spelman's workload was "incredible but she managed
it extremely well".
57. The Chairman had little contact with Mrs Haynes
when he was treasurer. But he knew that she had visited the office
a couple of times a week to pick up and leave the post connected
with her secretarial duties involving constituents. Mrs Spelman
allowed her home telephone number to be known by the public. Judging
by the number of calls the Association still got for Mrs Spelman,
he could imagine Mrs Haynes found little time to attend to her
duties as the nanny.
58. The Chairman concluded that residents of the
constituency, and not just Conservative supporters, were horrified
with the inquiry which "we find quite absurd".
He noted that Mrs Spelman had proved to be a straightforward,
honest and hardworking public servant and had done much to restore
faith in the whole parliamentary democratic process.
59. I received a response from Mrs Sally Hammond,
also dated 14 July.[81]
Mrs Hammond said that she was extremely upset that this matter
had been raised by the media. Neither she nor her husband had
ever spoken to Mr Crick of Newsnight. She thought this
matter had been resolved nine years ago.
60. Mrs Hammond said that she believed she started
working for Mrs Spelman at the beginning of April 1999. Mrs Spelman
had told her that her then full time House of Commons secretarial
arrangements were unsatisfactory and that she felt that she could
manage with somebody part time. Mrs Hammond believed that she
was paid for the equivalent of three days a week spread over four
days. She left Mrs Spelman's employment around the end of August
1999.
61. When Mrs Hammond started work for Mrs Spelman,
the only other person in Mrs Spelman's House of Commons office
was her full time research assistant. She was not aware of any
other staff doing constituency work and Mrs Spelman had not informed
her that anyone else was also employed by her to assist in constituency
work. All Mrs Spelman's mail came to the House of Commons and
was opened by her or the research assistant. She typed the correspondence
and it was filed at Westminster. She believed that the constituency
office (i.e. the local Conservative office) took the surgery bookings
and these were faxed through to Westminster. Mrs Hammond did not
have regular contact with Mrs Haynes, whom she knew as Mrs Spelman's
nanny. She occasionally spoke to Mrs Haynes to ask her to give
Mrs Spelman a message and on one occasion Mrs Haynes posted some
papers back to Westminster from Mrs Spelman's home.
62. When Mrs Hammond started work for Mrs Spelman
in early April 1999, Mrs Spelman mentioned on several occasions
that she did not have any money left in her staffing allowance
in the last financial year. Mrs Hammond had assumed that Mrs Spelman's
research assistant must have been on a very good salary, but one
day the research assistant had mentioned that he was on a very
low salary as he received free board and lodging from Mrs Spelman.
She could not understand, therefore, why Mrs Spelman did not have
any money left in her allowance. She contacted the Fees Office
at the House of Commons, explained who she was and asked them
to tell her who was being paid by Mrs Spelman. The Fees Office
gave her the names of three employees and Mrs Hammond identified
the third as Mrs Haynes. The Fees Office told her how much Mrs
Haynes was being paid. Mrs Hammond recalled that it was in the
region of £12,000 or £13,000 a year. She found out this
information in late May/early June 1999.[82]
She felt that, after working for Mrs Spelman for two months, she
would have been aware of anyone else doing her work.
63. Mrs Hammond went to another Member of Parliament,
Mr Peter Ainsworth, the Member for East Surrey, for advice. He
said that he would mention this to the then Opposition Chief Whip.
She had no knowledge of what transpired after that.
64. When I received this letter, I wrote to Mrs Hammond
to see if she could recall the date of her meeting with the Member
of Parliament in 1999, and what were the nature of the concerns
she had raised with him.[83]
I also wrote to the Acting Director of Operations to ask for his
comments on Mrs Hammond's reported discussions with the Fees Office.[84]
65. Mrs Hammond replied on 18 July.[85]
She believed her meeting with Mr Peter Ainsworth was probably
in late May or early June 1999.[86]
She had discussed with Mr Ainsworth her concerns that Mrs Spelman
appeared to be paying her nanny out of her staffing allowance
when it was not evident to Mrs Hammond that any parliamentary
work was being carried out by her.
66. I received on 21 July a response from Mrs Georgina
Perry.[87] She enclosed
with her letter a copy of a letter to her from Mrs Spelman written
on or about 25 February 1999 explaining why she was bringing Mrs
Perry's employment to an end, together with a copy of Mrs Spelman's
reference for Mrs Perry.[88]
Mrs Perry noted that she had worked for Mrs Spelman from May 1997
until 31 March 1999. She worked 40 hours a week. Her duties were
full secretarial—opening the post, compiling correspondence,
the diary, arranging meetings, liaising with government departments
and local authorities, answering telephone queries and filing.
As far as she was aware, Mrs Spelman employed herself (Mrs Perry),
a researcher (Mr Collins) and Mrs Paula Yates, who worked in the
Association/constituency office. She understood that Mrs Haynes
was employed by Mrs Spelman as the nanny for her three children.
Mrs Perry did not have regular contact with Mrs Haynes nor did
she see any work generated by her. To her knowledge, all the constituency
post came direct to the House of Commons.
67. Mrs Perry said that Mrs Spelman had told her
on 25 February 1999 that she did not require a full time secretary
in London, and felt that she could manage with a part time secretary.
She wanted to employ Mrs Yates for more hours in the constituency
office. She did not recollect Mrs Spelman and herself having a
"strained relationship" as described by Mrs Spelman's
researcher, Mr Tim Collins. There was no reluctance on her part
to use the new computer, although it had significant problems
in the early stages. She did not remember Mrs Spelman mentioning
the use of an answering machine. She was surprised at the researcher's
comments given the calibre of the Members she had worked for in
the House.
68. I wrote to Mrs Perry on 22 July asking for some
further clarification.[89]
I asked her to let me know at what point she became aware (if
at all) that Mrs Haynes was employed by Mrs Spelman as her assistant;
what was the nature of any contact she had with Mrs Haynes and
what was the nature of her contact with Mrs Yates.
69. Mrs Perry responded on 7 August.[90]
She said that she did not know that Mrs Haynes worked as Mrs Spelman's
assistant. She recalled seeing a House of Commons contract between
Mrs Spelman and Mrs Haynes, but she could not recall when she
saw it or what its contents were. She could not remember having
any contact with Mrs Haynes, although it would be surprising if
she had not bearing in mind that Mrs Haynes lived in Mrs Spelman's
household. But she did not recall having any contact with her
in connection with work-related matters. She did have telephone
contact from time to time with Mrs Paula Yates and met her on
one or two occasions when she visited the constituency. Contacts
were with regard to constituency matters. She believed Mrs Yates
organised Mrs Spelman's constituency surgeries. She believed that
Mrs Spelman was employing Mrs Yates because, in the letter Mrs
Spelman had sent her, she had stated: "I would like to
employ Paula for more hours in the constituency office".
70. The Acting Director of Operations in the Department
of Resources wrote to me on 22 July in response to my letter to
him.[91] He noted that
the processes in place between 1997 and October 2001, when the
Personnel Advice Service was set up, were less rigorous than they
are now. The Department did not generally give specific advice
on the level of salaries and employment law issues. The contract
of employment provided by the Department in 1997 was a standard
one: it was, however, up to Members to decide the salary level,
working hours and holiday entitlements.
71. The Acting Director said that a further search
of their archive storage files had uncovered one file for Mrs
Sally Hammond which showed that Mrs Hammond was employed by Mrs
Spelman from 12 April 1999 to 10 September 1999 as a secretary
at the rate of £15,000 a year. No records for other staff
were available. There were no job titles designated by the then
Fees Office at the time. Administrative Assistant appeared to
be a reasonable job title given the tasks summarised by Mrs Spelman
as undertaken by Mrs Haynes.
72. There were no pay scales in place at the time:
these were not introduced until after the Senior Salaries Review
Body review in 2001. No guidance was given by the Department on
salary levels. It was a matter for the Member and their staff,
based on how much money they had available in the Office Costs
Allowance. In 1997, this was £47,568, which had to fund all
office and staffing expenses.
73. The Acting Director said that it was difficult
to give figures on the salaries of staff employed in similar duties.
There were 77 staff remaining on the payroll who were newly employed
in May 1997. The Department had looked at the contracts of 10%
of these staff and found an annual salary range between £5,400
and £19,224 for a range of jobs including research assistants,
personal assistants and secretaries. There were no administrative
assistants.
74. As was the practice at the time, senior managers
in the Fees Office interviewed new Members of Parliament following
the 1997 general election. There was no documentation about this
induction and no records were kept about what was discussed. Staff
in the Department of Resources who worked in the secretarial salaries
section at that time had confirmed that employing someone in a
dual role would not have breached any rules in place, although
they would not have known about a dual role unless they had been
told about it. The relevant Green Book said nothing about such
matters.
75. The Acting Director said that the National Audit
Office would not have checked the individual content of a contract
in 1997 (contrary to what Mrs Spelman reported was Mr Marskell's
understanding in his conversation with her in June 2008). They
would have expected Members to have provided a contract of employment
which incorporated a job description. The job description, if
attached, would have been looked at to ensure that the duties
described were acceptable. Mr Marskell's definition of "not
party political or personal/private" would have been
broadly the line taken by staff at that time.
76. Referring to the comments made by Mrs Hammond
in her letter of 14 July[92],
the Acting Director said that there were at least two male members
of staff in the then secretarial salaries section during 1999.
But it had never been the practice of the Department to disclose
information about the salaries of staff to other members of staff
without the explicit permission of a Member to do so. There was
no password system in place in 1999 to allow Members to nominate
a member of their staff to use the password for the purposes of
gaining personal information, but the Acting Director would be
surprised if such information was divulged to anyone other than
the Member in question, although he could not rule out the possibility
that this could have happened.
77. Having reviewed the evidence provided by Mrs
Spelman and the Acting Director of Operations, I decided I needed
the help of Mr Alan Marskell, who was Head of the Fees Office
in 1997, in recalling further his discussions with Mrs Spelman
about her arrangements. Accordingly, I wrote to him on 29 July.[93]
78. Mr Marskell gave his evidence orally to a member
of my staff on 20 August and an agreed note of his evidence was
produced.[94] Mr Marskell
said that, as part of the induction process, senior people from
the Fees Office would go through the Green Book with each new
Member. He had seen Mrs Spelman, as part of her induction, on
14 May 1997. He recalled that Mrs Spelman had referred at this
meeting to some administrative help which was combined with home
assistance. He made the analogy with a Member's wife who would
stay in the constituency and deal with such things as the diary
and phone calls. If such a Member had money left in his allowances
at the end of the year and wanted to pay his wife a small sum
for this work, then £3,000-£5,000 was the figure that
the Fees Office might allow. If, on the other hand, a salary was
to be paid, it would be dependent on hours and what the person
actually did. An employment contract had to be drawn up, accompanied
by a job description.
79. Mr Marskell confirmed from his diary that he
had also met Mrs Spelman on 21 July and 30 July 1998. It could
not have been in 1999 as he had left the House by then. He had
no record or recollection of what had been discussed at these
meetings. Neither could he recollect the salary paid to Mrs Haynes.
He did not know about the release of information to a secretary
(Mrs Hammond) in 1999 as he had left the House by then. He could
not remember any detail of Mrs Haynes' working hours, but he thought
that 18 hours might at that time have had some significance in
employment law.
80. Mr Marskell said that he had met the Rt Hon James
Arbuthnot (the Member for North East Hampshire who was then Opposition
Chief Whip) on 16 October 1997. This was a general meeting and
he had no record that Mrs Spelman's arrangements were discussed.
Having checked his diaries, he could find no record of other meetings
with Mrs Spelman in 1997 and 1998, or with Mr Arbuthnot before
he (Mr Marskell) left the service of the House on 31 October 1998.
81. In the light of all the evidence I had received,
I decided that I needed to take evidence from the Member of Parliament
to whom Mrs Hammond had spoken in 1999, Mr Peter Ainsworth, the
Member for East Surrey. Accordingly I wrote to him on 23 July.[95]
He responded on 12 August.[96]
He said that he recalled he had had a conversation with Mrs Hammond
in the spring of 1999 in the course of which she had expressed
some concern about Parliamentary monies being paid by Mrs Spelman
to her nanny. He advised her that he would inform the then Opposition
Chief Whip of her concerns, which he did.
82. I wrote to Mr Ainsworth on 13 August to ask whether
he could recollect a little more fully the concerns which he recalled
Mrs Hammond expressed to him.[97]
Mr Ainsworth responded on 22 August.[98]
While he appreciated that I would welcome a fuller recollection
of the concerns which were expressed by Mrs Hammond at the time,
he hoped that I would understand that it was simply not possible
to conjure up such a thing. While it was not possible for him
to attempt to reconstruct what happened at the time, he could
speculate that he did not seek details of the concerns expressed
by Mrs Hammond because it was not his business to obtain them
or to investigate them. He did recall mentioning the fact that
the issue had been raised with him to the Opposition Chief Whip.
As far as he knew, that was the end of the matter. He did not
recall any further discussions about the issue with either the
Opposition Chief Whip or with Mrs Hammond. He concluded that he
had come to know Mrs Spelman as a person of the utmost integrity
and he was inclined to accept reports that, if any misunderstanding
had occurred at the time, it was corrected at the earliest opportunity.
83. I wrote on 13 August to the Opposition Chief
Whip at the time, the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, the Member for North
East Hampshire, to ask for his recollections of the discussion
with Mr Ainsworth, his discussion with Mrs Spelman and whether
he had discussions with others about this matter at or about the
same time.[99]
84. Mr Arbuthnot responded on 15 August.[100]
He said that when the story first hit the headlines earlier in
2008, he "did very vaguely remember that I had had a conversation
with Caroline Spelman about something like this". He
did not remember any details. He did not, for example, remember
that it had been Mr Ainsworth who had passed on comments from
Mrs Hammond, nor that he had advised Mrs Spelman to change her
arrangements. He had no reason to question Mrs Spelman's account
of what happened. He would be inclined from what he knew of her
personally to accept it as being true unless he had very strong
reason to doubt it, which he did not. It seemed likely to him
that this matter was not one that he had regarded as serious.
He was not left with any impression that Mrs Spelman was the sort
of person who would be in any way at all dishonest or likely to
try to cheat the allowance system or the public purse, in fact
quite the reverse. "Of all colleagues, Caroline Spelman
errs on the side of rectitude."
85. Mrs Spelman wrote to me on 4 September to let
me have a full list of the surgeries she held on Thursdays, Fridays
and Saturdays in July 2008 and on 6 September 2008.[101]
She said this showed that roughly half of her surgery cases were
really Council issues. Mrs Spelman said that she hoped this would
demonstrate the extent to which her surgery paperwork related
to Council matters, and therefore the degree to which she would
rely on Mrs Haynes to shuttle the documentation between her home
and councillor colleagues after she had worked on it over the
weekend. Mrs Yates did not have the time to drive to her home
and collect the paperwork before delivering it to councillors
and she relied on Mrs Haynes to give her administrative support
of that nature.
86. Mrs Spelman wrote to me again on 17 September
to set out the position on funding available to MPs in 1997 for
running their offices as best she could recollect it.[102]
She said that in 1997, there was a fixed sum of £47,568 to
set up and run her office. She could not recall the exact salary
that her Parliamentary secretary was paid, but it seemed to her
that appointing a secretary of her seniority and experience she
would have had to pay something in the region of £30,000
a year. She believed she would have been likely to have wanted
to hold back at least £5,000 for costs such as stationery
and incidental office expenses. The outcome was that she would
have been left with about £12,000 for any further staff or
office arrangements she needed. Setting up a constituency office
would have cost in the region of £10,000 a year. That would
have left her in the position of not then being able to afford
anyone to staff the office. She therefore needed to base her constituency
office in her home. Given that she had to base her office in her
home, where her children were living, asking Mrs Haynes to undertake
some administrative help for her when the children were at school
"simply seemed like the best, workable solution within
the circumstances".
87. Mrs Spelman concluded that she hoped this provided
some further explanation as to why the budget she was accorded
in 1997 limited the options that were available to her in terms
of setting up offices and appointing staff.
88. I sent to the Director of Operations in the Department
of Resources on 11 September and 23 September respectively Mr
Marskell's evidence to me and Mrs Spelman's letter of 17 September
about the Office Costs Allowance for any comments he was able
to make.
89. The Director of Operations responded on 10 October.[103]
He noted that some of what had been described as office practice
some ten years ago was very far from what they did now. It was
therefore difficult to comment on it. For example, he was puzzled
by Mr Marskell's reference to "home assistance"
and how this was equated with parliamentary duties for which pay
could be received. Another example of different practices was
that in 1997 it was apparently not uncommon for Members to pay
individuals a lump sum amount at the end of each year for ad
hoc work done during the year. The Director noted that, following
Mr Marskell's reference, I had asked whether there was any relevance
to Mrs Haynes being employed for 18 hours a week. The Department's
Personnel Advice Service knew of no employment reason why this
would have been significant. Qualifying employees, however, could
at that time have claimed Family Credit if they worked for 16
hours or more a week, which may have been relevant.
90. The Director of Operations confirmed that the
Office Costs Allowance in 1997 was £47,568, as stated by
Mrs Spelman in her letter of 17 September. The allowance for 1998
was £49,232 and in 1999 £50,264. In the majority of
cases, Members would have used a large percentage of their allowance
on staffing costs. However this would also have depended on whether
a Member ran a free-standing constituency office (i.e. one not
located in party related premises or at home). Since Mrs Spelman
did not have a constituency office at that time and therefore
worked from home, her costs would have been relatively low, leaving
her more resources for staff salaries. He noted that Mrs Spelman
suggested that she would have paid in the region of £30,000
a year for her senior secretary in 1997, to which would have been
added the employer National Insurance costs of around £3,000.
While no House guidance existed at the time and salary levels
were at the Member's discretion, this seemed to the Director somewhat
high in 1997, even for a very experienced secretary, given that
a Member's salary at that time was £43,680. The guidance
issued in 2001 provided that the annual rate of salary for a senior
secretary in London was between £17,500 and £23,500,
and for an executive secretary between £22,400 and £31,000.
91. Having reviewed the evidence I had so far received
from those who had worked for Mrs Spelman at the time, I decided
that it would be helpful to receive evidence from another of her
employees. I was able to make contact with Ms Sarah Murton, who
I understood was an intern in Mrs Spelman's office from September
1997 to July 1998. I wrote to her on 11 September.[104]
I asked whether she could let me know what she saw and knew of
the secretarial work which Mrs Haynes undertook for Mrs Spelman.
92. Ms Murton replied on 1 October.[105]
She confirmed that she had worked as an intern in Mrs Spelman's
office in an unpaid capacity through CARE as part of a graduate
training year. She believed she was there between October 1997
and July 1998. While Ms Murton was unsalaried by Mrs Spelman (she
received a small stipend from CARE), Mrs Spelman generously provided
accommodation for her in a basement flat of her house in London.
Because of her focus on national politics, Ms Murton had very
little contact with the constituency. She recalled visiting the
constituency about three times. She was certain that there was
a constituency office separate from Mrs Spelman's house which
she recalled visiting. She could not remember who worked there.
She did not recall the details of who she dealt with on the few
occasions she had to make a telephone call, although she remembered
speaking to someone who was definitely not Mrs Haynes.
93. As far as she could recall, Mrs Haynes was employed
by Mr and Mrs Spelman as their children's nanny, working at their
home. She did not recall having any face-to-face contact with
Mrs Haynes, other than meeting her on at least one visit to the
constituency and spending time with her on a Lords and Commons
ski trip in January 1998 (when Ms Murton had participated as a
temporary nanny). She remembered making a few telephone calls
to Mrs Haynes from the London office at Mrs Spelman's request,
but could not recall their date or nature. She apologised for
the vagueness of her response, but it was some time ago and constituency
matters were not part of her daily work.
94. I decided that I needed Mrs Tina Haynes' help
with this inquiry. Accordingly I wrote to her on 30 September.[106]
I asked her to let me know how she came to be employed by Mrs
Spelman as her secretarial assistant and her children's nanny
and if she could confirm the dates of her employment, the hours
she worked and her remuneration for the two roles. I said that
I understood that she was not paid for her childcare duties from
1997 to 1999, but received board and lodging, the use of a car
and all expenses. I asked if she could give me details of the
time she spent in Mrs Spelman's house in Kent and for details
of the work she undertook for Mrs Spelman from 1997 to 1999, and
the circumstances in which she came to stop working for Mrs Spelman
as her assistant.
95. Mrs Haynes responded on 20 October.[107]
She said she had done her best to recall what she could to answer
my questions as fully as possible, but I would appreciate that
she could not remember every detail.
96. To the best of her recollection, Mrs Haynes said
that she was employed by Mrs Spelman as a nanny through a friend
of Mr and Mrs Spelman's family. When she was at the interview,
Mrs Spelman asked if she would do secretarial duties while the
children were at school/nursery, to which she agreed. She confirmed
that to the best of her recollection the dates of her employment
as Mrs Spelman's assistant were from 1 June 1997 until no later
than 1 June 1999. She ceased to be employed by Mrs Spelman as
a nanny in August 2002. The hours she worked providing secretarial
assistance were around 18 hours a week. She could not remember
what she was paid.
97. The time she spent in Kent was from around the
beginning of June 1997 to early July 1997 when the children finished
school. "We then moved up to Knowle." Whilst
in Kent she did a combination of childcare and secretarial duties,
the latter when she had free time during school/nursery hours.
The early months when Mrs Spelman had become a Member of Parliament
were very busy. Her recollection was that she stayed at the Kent
home in the week and spent the weekends elsewhere: "As
far as the duration of secretarial duties in this phase it was
up to 18 hours a week."
98. The work she undertook for Mrs Spelman doing
secretarial duties in the constituency was posting letters, answering
telephone calls, telephoning Mrs Spelman, sending and receiving
faxes, filing information and transporting people associated with
parliamentary business when required. She undertook the majority
of secretarial duties during school/nursery hours, although faxes
and telephone calls were still received into the early evenings.
She believed she fulfilled and performed these duties well.
99. She could not remember the details of her remuneration,
but she could remember having board and accommodation and the
use of a car. She could not confirm the payment she received in
1999/2000 for her nanny duties.
100. Mrs Haynes said that she recollected that, around
June 1999, Mrs Spelman explained that as she had now employed
a full time secretary in the constituency, Mrs Haynes would no
longer be paid for secretarial duties from Parliament and would
be paid from Mrs Spelman's personal account for the nanny duties
only. After June 1999, Mrs Haynes would refer any telephone calls,
faxes or post coming to the house relating to constituency matters
to the constituency office. Occasionally, she would transport
people associated with parliamentary business to and from places
at Mrs Spelman's request.
101. Having considered Mrs Haynes' evidence, I decided
that it would help my inquiry if I met her to discuss her recollections
more fully.
102. Accordingly I wrote to Mrs Haynes on 21 October
to arrange a meeting with her and to let her know the main areas
I needed to discuss. I met Mrs Haynes on 12 November.[108]
Mrs Haynes was accompanied by a friend. A member of my staff took
the note, which was subsequently agreed with Mrs Haynes.
103. Mrs Haynes said that, from what she could remember,
she went to Mrs Spelman's midlands residence for an interview
for the duties of a nanny. While she was at the interview, Mrs
Spelman said that she had recently been elected as the Member
of Parliament, but she had no secretary or office. She asked whether
Mrs Haynes, for the initial few months, would be prepared, "aside
of nanny duties", to answer telephone calls, open the
post, and deal with faxes and post coming in. Mrs Haynes recalled
a first interview and she believed she had then been called back.
The interview was the first time she had heard of the dual role.
I asked her whether the job offer was dependent on her agreeing
to do both jobs, and she said that she thought "it probably
was".
104. Mrs Haynes said that she had an NNEB qualification
awarded in 1991. In 1997 she had had six years experience and
had done about three jobs. She also had an RSA Computer Literacy
qualification from 1990 and a Pitman Typing Certificate from 1988.
Office or administrative work was often part and parcel of her
nanny jobs—she opened the post, faxed documents and took
telephone calls. But she had never done any clerical work in an
office. Mrs Haynes could not remember what she had been paid as
a secretarial assistant. For her nannying duties, she had her
own room, her own bathroom, the use of a car and an expenses card
for food and the children. Generally as a nanny she got paid,
but "these circumstances were totally different from my
previous jobs". Her hours of nannying were three to four
hours a day so "the pay would have been minimal."
And she pointed out that "all expenses were covered".
She was living in, so "the need for a higher wage
wasn't there".
105. Turning to her time in Kent, Mrs Haynes remembered
that there was an au pair in Kent, but she herself did
"the odd bit of childcare". Overall her work
as a secretarial assistant was about 18 hours a week, although
the time she spent on it varied each day and depended on the telephone
calls, faxes and post received. She did not know how people knew
to send things to Kent, but it did happen. She could not remember
the exact amount of post. She recalled travelling with Mrs Spelman
to her constituency, but could not remember the reasons for doing
so. She could not remember whether the children had moved at the
same time as she did to Knowle in July 1997, but they had arrived
"a little while before school started in September".
They finished school for the summer and then came. Mrs Haynes
confirmed that after that, she was the sole nanny or carer in
charge.
106. On a typical day, Mrs Haynes said that she would
take the children to school, she thought for about 9am. Occasionally
Mrs Spelman or her husband would do this. While the children were
at school, she would do the duties asked of her—dealing
with faxes, post and telephone calls. School finished at about
3.15pm or 3.30pm. She would then have sole charge of the children
because Mrs Spelman was usually in London from Monday to Thursday.
She was available for secretarial work, therefore, between 9.30am
and 3.00pm. The work was spread over five days. She was available
for 18 hours.
107. Turning to the volume of work, Mrs Haynes said
that: "As for the post, I wouldn't say it was daily. The
telephone calls might be several one day and the next day one
or two." From what she could remember, five or ten letters
could come in in a day; telephone calls were more regular, although
they were not more than eight or nine calls a day; there could
be five or six faxes a day. Generally, the people telephoning
her were constituents of Mrs Spelman's, but sometimes it would
be other Members of Parliament. She filed papers according to
what was coming in, including copies of faxes which she sent out.
108. Mrs Haynes could not remember exactly how many
visitors she escorted—"it was a regular part of
the job, but I couldn't say how frequent". Visitors to
the door might be people from the constituency Association. She
would also take material directly to councillors at their home
addresses. And she would take material to the local Member of
the European Parliament. She would report actions taken by councillors
to Mrs Spelman.
109. Mrs Haynes remembered also taking material to
Mrs Paula Yates in the Association office. To go there and back,
including the time taken while there, took about one to one and
a half hours. She thought she probably went about twice a week,
but she could not "honestly remember".
110. Overall, Mrs Haynes said that there was a steady
flow of work, with some days a lot more and some a lot less. She
would balance the work out, so she would be doing something on
a daily basis.
111. Mrs Haynes said that she organised her day so
that she had around three hours in the morning when she would
do the secretarial work. She would do duties in the early evenings
since she was living in. She could do some tasks while the children
were present. During the holidays, she could do the constituency
work while the children were at clubs, and Mrs Spelman was around
more.
112. The children would go to bed at about 7.30pm.
Mrs Haynes could get a break when the children were at school
or in bed in the evening. She was technically on duty, but she
had time in the evenings to relax. There was no constituency work
on Saturday or Sunday, although she might do babysitting then
and get paid or receive time off in lieu.
113. Turning to the office equipment Mrs Spelman
had, Mrs Haynes said there was one telephone line for both fax
and telephone. There was an office upstairs which Mrs Spelman
used with a telephone and filing cabinet. The fax was downstairs.
She did not remember using a computer. She had access to office
supplies, but she could not remember whether it was her responsibility
to look after the store cupboard.
114. Referring to the ending of her employment as
a secretarial assistant in 1999, Mrs Haynes said that Mrs Spelman
saw her and explained that she had now found a suitable candidate
to fulfil the secretarial duties. Mrs Haynes thought it was Mrs
Paula Yates, who did a lot more than she did, including typing.
She remembered Mrs Spelman saying that the Whips' Office were
saying that there was a better way of doing things. But she believed
the main reason was that Mrs Spelman had found a suitable candidate
to fulfil the whole constituency role. Mrs Haynes recalled a discussion
with Mrs Spelman after her first six months as a secretarial assistant
when she had sat down with Mrs Spelman and Mrs Spelman had said
that the six months had come up and the duties would need to carry
on for a while as she had not been able to find a suitable person.
She could not recall whether this discussion happened again.
115. Mrs Haynes said that in April 1999 she came
to an agreement with Mrs Spelman that she would be paid for her
nanny duties. She took on more of a role during the day: not doing
the cleaning, but making sure the cleaner was paid, and she had
more duties associated with the children. They spent less time
at clubs in the holidays. During the week, she would pick up dry
cleaning, and undertake tasks outside normal duties: "extra
bits and pieces". She spaced the jobs out. During the
holidays, she spent more time with the children and took them
to London to see Mrs Spelman.
116. Mrs Haynes said that she could not remember
how Mrs Spelman had explained to her the offer of a salary for
being a nanny. "She might have said that the circumstances
had changed and this was how it would be". Mrs Haynes
said that Mrs Spelman was a very good employer—"Mrs
Spelman did not expect anyone to work for nothing".
117. After Mrs Paula Yates had taken over the work,
there was still a cross-over period since Mrs Haynes still received
letters sent to Mrs Spelman's home address. She would take post
to the constituency office. She would also take faxes or fax them
on. She would still drive visitors around in term time but not
in the holidays when she had the children.
118. Mrs Haynes said that she could not say that
her pay had dropped when Mrs Spelman started to pay her as a nanny
in 1999. It might have stayed the same or gone up: she could not
remember.
119. Having reviewed all the evidence, I decided
that I should have a discussion with Mrs Spelman. Accordingly,
I wrote to her on 25 November. I copied to her all the evidence
I had received during the course of my inquiry and outlined the
main areas I wished to cover at interview.[109]
120. Mrs Spelman wrote to me on 3 December in advance
of our meeting to respond to a number of points in the evidence
of the other witnesses which I had sent her.[110]
Her comments on the evidence received from particular witnesses
may be summarized as follows:
- Mrs Georgina Perry - Mrs Spelman
said that Mrs Perry was not correct to say in her letter of 21
July[111] that during
the period May 1997 to March 1999 Mrs Paula Yates was one of Mrs
Spelman's employees. Mrs Spelman said that Mrs Yates was not on
the parliamentary payroll during this time. Nor was it correct,
as asserted by Mrs Perry, that all the constituency post came
direct to the House of Commons. That was not true, as others had
confirmed. Indeed, up to the present time, post addressed to Mrs
Spelman was sent to her home address (which, at that time, was
also her constituency office) as well as to the local Association
office and the parliamentary office;
- Mrs Sally Hammond - Mrs Spelman said she would
like to make clear that her permission to disclose information
about the salaries of her staff was neither sought nor given either
to Mrs Hammond or to the Fees Office at that time (nor since).
While she could not recall the specific salary levels of her staff
from such a long time ago, she did not agree with the figures
stated by Mrs Hammond [Mrs Hammond recalled that Mrs Haynes' salary
was in the region of £12,000 - £13,000 a year].[112]
Mrs Hammond's assertion that all Mrs Spelman's mail came to the
House of Commons was not correct.
- Ms Sarah Murton—Mrs Spelman noted that
Ms Murton had said that there was "certainly a constituency
office separate from Caroline's house."[113]
Mrs Spelman said that this was not accurate. There was a local
Association office, but it was not located in her constituency
and, as the Chairman of the Conservative Association had stated
in his submission of 14 July,[114]
the Association secretary was not in a position to give Mrs Spelman
any secretarial support at that time. Mrs Spelman used her home
as a constituency office.
- Mrs Tina Haynes - Mrs Spelman noted that Mrs
Haynes had told me in our discussion on 12 November[115]
she did not know how constituents knew how to send things to Kent,
but it did happen. Mrs Spelman said she would like to explain
this. During those first few weeks, Mrs Haynes and she were extremely
busy going through the backlog of correspondence left from her
predecessor. This correspondence had been collected into large
black bin bags by the local Association office. She collected
these bags and either she or her husband transported them back
to their Kent house by car. Mrs Haynes and Mrs Spelman then tackled
their contents during the working week. They went through each
letter to work out how urgent it was and how it ought to be dealt
with. During that time, Mrs Haynes also helped Mrs Spelman set
up her office in the constituency and transfer files and paperwork
between Kent and the constituency. The au pair who was
living with them had full responsibility for the children during
that time, so Mrs Haynes was free to concentrate her time in Kent
on the administration duties.
121. I met Mrs Spelman on 10 December. She was accompanied
by her chief of staff. The Registrar attended and took a note
which was subsequently agreed with Mrs Spelman.[116]
122. I asked Mrs Spelman first about any plans she
had made before her election. Mrs Spelman said that her main focus
in the short time at her disposal had been campaigning. But she
had given an undertaking to send her children to school in the
constituency. She was aware that if elected, the result would
be a major change in the family's lifestyle. She had certainly
thought about how she would manage if she did win the seat, and
other people in the constituency had made suggestions. She had
not known her predecessor, Mr Iain Mills. She did not know what
his secretarial arrangements had been. She did not think he had
a constituency office. There was no ready made set-up that she
could have inherited.
123. Turning to the options for her constituency
arrangements, Mrs Spelman said that she had made enquiries about
renting office space locally, but it was quite expensive. The
salary of a Westminster secretary absorbed about half the allowance,
which was much less than now, and the remainder had to cover everything
else including office equipment. Her thinking at the time was
influenced by cost, but also by her need as a non-local person
to establish her local credentials immediately. She believed that
having Mrs Haynes working from her family home would achieve that.
124. Mrs Spelman said that she had hoped that the
Association secretary (Mrs Paula Yates) might have been able to
help, as was the usual model and which other Members had said
was a common solution. She had expected that this would be possible
in her case, but for perfectly good reasons it had not been. She
could not remember if Mrs Yates had said to her that when her
child was at school she might be able to help.
125. Referring to the possibility of employing someone
else to work in her home, Mrs Spelman said that the job needed
to be undertaken by someone she could trust with sensitive matters.
Such people were not easily available at short notice. The dual
role for Mrs Haynes had seemed a workable alternative, given that
the nanny work gave her time to do the work and a relationship
of trust existed. That relationship was initially based on Mrs
Hayne's references. In any event, Mrs Spelman felt that it would
be better to restrict the number of people with access to her
home and children.
126. Mrs Spelman said that she could not remember
whether she had consciously thought about all these matters: "The
run into a new job had been difficult." She had needed
an "anchorman". The constituency Association
had made clear that they could not help. It had seemed practical
to ask Mrs Haynes to do the work. She had discussed the matter
with the Fees Office and they had said that there was no problem.
She had not discussed it with the Conservative Party Whips' Office,
but had been quite open about her arrangements.
127. Mrs Spelman noted that in the case of other
Members, their families sometimes played a dual role. In her case,
it had not been possible for her husband to do this. She believed
that other female Members had the same sort of arrangement as
she had in respect of their childcare. She had needed to have
someone on the ground so that letters did not lie on the mat from
Monday to Thursday.
128. Mrs Spelman said that she had spoken of the
dual role with Mrs Haynes from the beginning. While she had not
considered it in this way, she accepted that the job offer was
dependent on Mrs Haynes doing both roles. It had seemed a practical
solution to which the Fees Office, when consulted, had not objected.
She was absolutely satisfied that Mrs Haynes had kept the roles
separate. She noted that her London staff had had difficulty seeing
what Mrs Haynes did. People in the constituency had not. This
was because the London staff did not often visit the constituency.
129. Mrs Spelman said that she had hoped at the time
that Mrs Yates would be able to take up more work. She thought
that Mrs Yates might have said that she would be more available
when her daughter started nursery. She did not recollect having
a conversation with Mrs Haynes about six months into the arrangement,
as Mrs Haynes had recalled, but it would have been good practice
to have done so. She had not been looking for anyone else to undertake
the role of her assistant. She had been waiting for Mrs Yates,
who would have been aware of her interest.
130. Mrs Spelman said that she could not recall whether
she had signed one employment contract or two at the beginning
of Mrs Haynes' employment. While she did not challenge Mrs Hammond's
account of her approach to the Fees Office in 1999, she would
have been very concerned had she known that the Fees Office had
given out information about her staff salaries to Mrs Hammond,
as Mrs Hammond had reported in her evidence.
131. Turning to Mrs Haynes' work while the family
was in Kent in June/July 1997, Mrs Spelman said that she had gone
to the constituency every weekend. Her husband took bags of constituency
correspondence from the constituency to their Kent home when he
drove back on Sunday evening. Mrs Spelman felt it important that
the letters sent to her predecessor which had not been replied
to should be properly dealt with. In Kent, Mrs Haynes would open
up the letters and arrange them sequentially looking for a series
from the same writer. This was work that her Westminster secretary
had been unwilling to take on. The volume of the correspondence
meant they continued to work on the backlog of correspondence
after they had left Kent for the constituency home. Mrs Haynes
was also with Mrs Spelman in the constituency on Thursday, Friday
and some Monday mornings. They had worked together to set up the
office there.
132. Some of the new correspondence went to the home
in the midlands which was rented in March 1997. Mrs Spelman believed
that the address was in the directories although she could find
no evidence of that now. The volume of the backlog meant that
she believed that Mrs Haynes had "easily" spent
18 hours a week on parliamentary work when she was based in Kent.
133. Mrs Spelman said that the au pair had
lived in and had continued to work for Mrs Spelman until the family
had gone on holiday in August 1997. In general, Mrs Spelman had
not needed Mrs Haynes for childcare purposes in Kent. She said
that the family had moved to Knowle almost immediately after the
school term had ended in the first week of July 1997. After the
au pair had left, Mrs Haynes had sole care of the children
in the same way as an au pair or mother's help: she had
lived in and taken responsibility overnight.
134. Turning to Mrs Haynes' work once they were established
in the constituency, Mrs Spelman confirmed that the rented home
and subsequently her own home had one phone for everything, including
faxes, an office with filing cabinets and a fax machine downstairs.
She recalled that she and Mrs Haynes had gone together to buy
second hand office equipment, such as filing cabinets. Constituents
knew her home address and phone number. The local Association
had been eager that it should be known that she was living locally
and she had not discouraged them from publishing her details in
as many documents as possible.
135. Mrs Spelman said that she and Mrs Haynes would
agree on Monday mornings what work Mrs Haynes would do during
the week. This would include taking to local councillors cases
which had come up at surgery and which would need to be dealt
with by them. This meant a lot of driving for Mrs Haynes. Mrs
Haynes would also go to the Association office to collect the
surgery schedule. She would open post, deciding whether something
was sufficiently urgent to be sent to London. She would also pass
on messages.
136. Mrs Spelman said that there was no reason to
believe that Mrs Haynes had not worked 18 hours a week on Parliamentary
business. She had the evidence in the product and others had remembered
it. Of its nature, there would be no evidence in London of such
work. She noted that Mrs Yates had found it hard to fit in all
the work when she had taken over from Mrs Haynes. Whiles Mrs Yates
was working 14 hours a week in this role and not the 18 hours
that Mrs Haynes had worked, she noted that Mrs Haynes had continued
dealing with letters and phone calls which had continued to go
to Mrs Spelman's home. Mrs Spelman had been happy to pay for this
service out of her own pocket, once the dual arrangement had ended.
137. Mrs Spelman said that Mrs Haynes had given no
indication that she was overloaded in the dual role. Her main
workload as a nanny had been after school, except for about half
an hour in the morning. The children had been young and would
have been in bed early. She noted that once the children were
at school, many mothers scaled down their nanny requirements,
but she had thought it appropriate to have someone in the house
overnight. She confirmed that she herself had helped with the
childcare during recesses and that the children attended clubs
in the holidays, which might last all day. No problem had arisen
with child sickness since, except for one day, none of her children
had been ill throughout the period in question.
138. Turning to Mrs Haynes' pay, I noted the evidence
from Mrs Hammond who believed that in 1999 Mrs Haynes' pay had
been £12,000 or £13,000; the PAYE working sheet she
had shown me which showed that Mrs Haynes had been paid around
£13,000 for her nannying duties in 1999; Mrs Spelman's letter
of 17 September which suggested that she had had about £12,000
left for constituency staff and office costs from her OCA in 1997;
and the invoices she had shown me which suggested that Mrs Yates
was paid about £8.60 an hour for 14 hours a week, the equivalent
of £6,300 a year.
139. Mrs Spelman accepted that the payment to Mrs
Haynes as her assistant must have been between £6,300 and
£13,000 a year, but she could not recall the sum. She had
decided to pay Mrs Haynes £13,000 a year after the ending
of the dual arrangement because she was a trusted employee. This
must have been more than Mrs Haynes was receiving in 1997 since
it would have been only fair to have given her an uprating to
reflect any uprating given to Members. She knew she could not
stop some Parliamentary tasks continuing. She thought it appropriate
that Mrs Haynes should not be "out of pocket as a result."
Mrs Haynes had continued to perform some administrative tasks
which had been reflected in her salary. The children were now
older and more demanding, needing more help with homework in the
evenings.
140. Mrs Spelman said that while no contract existed,
she would have paid Mrs Yates what Mrs Yates would have regarded
as a fair salary. Mrs Yates was not on a parliamentary employment
contract. The Association billed Mrs Spelman for Mrs Yates' services.
Local salaries were lower than parliamentary ones. When I noted
that Mrs Haynes also worked locally, Mrs Spelman said that she
had taken advice from the Fees Office on Mrs Haynes' salary.
141. I noted that up to 1999, Mrs Haynes had not
been paid for her nannying work. Mrs Spelman said that she had
been on the same basis as an au pair, living in and receiving
her board. A car had been bought for her use in her dual role.
After 1999, the arrangement had been changed to pay her £13,000
a year as well as board, lodging and use of a car. She believed
Mrs Haynes had seen her remuneration as a total package, and Mrs
Spelman had not wanted Mrs Haynes to lose out. She had not wanted
to lose her services. Mrs Haynes had been happy with the arrangement.
As long as the taxpayer did not suffer, Mrs Spelman's childcare
arrangements were a matter between her and Mrs Haynes. There were
no parliamentary rules on the subject. Mrs Haynes had been content
to do the nannying work on the basis of board, lodging and use
of a car. Money from Parliament had not been spent on providing
Mrs Spelman with childcare. It was not the case that the salary
Mrs Spelman was paying Mrs Haynes from parliamentary allowances
enabled Mrs Haynes to work for Mrs Spelman as a nanny without
additional cash payments. She paid Mrs Haynes the rate for her
parliamentary work and she had made provision for Mrs Haynes to
do the nannying duties which were the same as she had made for
the au pair, except that Mrs Haynes also had use of a car.
142. Mrs Spelman said that she did not recall comparing
the salary she had been paying Mrs Haynes with what she paid Mrs
Yates. Mrs Haynes had had a contract drawn up by the Fees Office
for her parliamentary activities, and Mrs Yates had not, so the
comparison was not obvious.
143. Mrs Spelman said that she could not remember
precise conversations she had had with the Fees Office, but she
could not think that they would have had a view on the terms under
which she was employing Mrs Haynes as a nanny. She noted that
Mrs Haynes "had been happy with the arrangements; she
had been proud to be working for an MP, and the quality of her
service showed that she was right to be." Mrs Spelman
confirmed that, while there had been a household float, neither
the au pair nor Mrs Haynes received any money for themselves.
Mrs Haynes had accepted the same working conditions as an au
pair in respect of her nannying duties, and this had seemed
reasonable to both parties.
144. In subsequently considering the draft note of
the meeting, Mrs Spelman said that she thought it worth reiterating
that when she was employing Mrs Haynes in her administrative role,
she had paid her what was regarded as a reasonable rate following
her discussions with the Fees Office. After the dual role ceased,
she simply went on to pay Mrs Yates the amount for which the local
Association invoiced her at the time. She did not carry out any
specific analysis of the two rates or roles. It was possible that
the Association had billed her at a lower rate for Mrs Yates'
time than she had previously paid to Mrs Haynes. This may have
been because Associations tended to have very limited resources
and accordingly had relatively low wage costs. She had no reason
to think there was anything unusual or irregular about this. She
added: "I should stress that I do not believe that there
is anything significant in this in the event that there was any
discrepancy."
145. In concluding our meeting on 10 December, Mrs
Spelman said that none of the evidence hostile to her was from
people in the constituency. Mrs Haynes was the only person doing
parliamentary work for her when she was first elected and no complaints
had been made about this work. Unlike most candidates, she had
had no planned run up to the election and had had to dismantle
and relocate all her arrangements while Parliament was sitting.
The pay and conditions for Mrs Haynes for childcare were commensurate
with those previously given to her au pair and she had
in addition provided a car. The rules governing the use of parliamentary
allowances in 1997 were different from those in 2008. Mrs Hammond
must have been a very recent employee when she went to Mr Ainsworth
raising questions about the employment of Mrs Haynes.
146. Mrs Spelman added that she thought of herself
as a good employer. She was not given to sacking people and would
always try and work things out. She had just wanted a better service
for her constituents. In 1997, a senior secretary would have absorbed
about half the funds available and no additional provision was
made for office equipment. She had a large constituency with a
big caseload and was expected to live in the local community.
She had initially expected more help from Mrs Yates, which had
eventually materialised, and when the dual arrangement was terminated,
she had known that Mrs Haynes would continue to do some parliamentary
work. It had never occurred to her that there was a difference
between the pay levels of Mrs Haynes and Mrs Yates and that this
might be regarded as significant.
147. Finally, Mrs Spelman submitted a note from the
Chairman of the Central Warwickshire National Farmers Union[117].
He had noted from his diary, the dates on which he had contacted
Mrs Haynes at the constituency home. He was an example of someone
who did not make trunk calls to London.
148. Having reviewed the evidence, I concluded that
I had identified sufficient evidence to enable me to conclude
my inquiry. I therefore prepared the draft sections of my memorandum
and sent them to Mrs Spelman on 26 January. Mrs Spelman responded
on 2 February.[118]
149. Mrs Spelman said that she had some late evidence
to submit. In looking again at all the evidence which she had
submitted to me in July, Mrs Spelman had come across eight payslips
for Mrs Haynes dating from 30 June 1997 to 31 January 1998. These
were filed in a wallet entitled 2001/02 within a leaflet entitled
"Do you need a nanny?" Mrs Spelman had not previously
looked into this wallet, as she did not believe it to be relevant.
She apologised for submitting this evidence so late in the day.
150. Mrs Spelman said that the payslips "do
not, in fact, add anything substantially 'new' to the inquiry"
but they confirmed Mrs Spelman's recollection that "Tina
herself received approximately £9,000 for the work she undertook
for me as my administration assistant." They also confirmed
that "her gross salary would have been just under £13,000."
151. Mrs Spelman said that it was the net amount
which was the important figure as it reflected her take home pay
for the work she was doing. Additionally, nanny roles were discussed
as weekly net pay. While Mrs Haynes "was taking on a dual
function and this sum was to cover her administrative role",
it seemed entirely logical that "we would always have
thought in terms of take home pay".
152. Mrs Spelman noted that this late find "only
went to show how difficult it had been to try and reconstruct
events and have them analysed out of context, without full documentary
evidence and nearly twelve years after the event."
153. Mrs Spelman added two general observations.
She said that the reason she had referred herself for this inquiry
was because "I was extremely keen to demonstrate that
I had not breached any House rule that was in place at the time.
I continue to deny that I have done so. The Rules in place at
the time, so far as I was concerned, did not prohibit a dual role."
Mrs Spelman remained of the view that, provided the rules did
not prohibit the dual role, and provided that Mrs Haynes undertook
sufficient work to justify her pay, then "this notion
of 'subsidy' is, I respectfully submit, a little misleading."
154. Secondly, Mrs Spelman noted that one of the
issues that had come out during the inquiry was the amount paid
to Mrs Paula Yates when she took over as Mrs Spelman's constituency
support. Mrs Spelman noted that this amounted to around £6,300
a year, which would have been equivalent to just over £8,000
a year for an 18 hour week, which is what Mrs Haynes had been
doing. Mrs Spelman said that it was extremely important to note
that this would not be a very different figure to that which Mrs
Haynes had been receiving. For comparable hours, Mrs Haynes received
approximately £9,000. Mrs Yates would have received approximately
£8,000. The net figure for Mrs Haynes was the relevant comparator
because Mrs Spelman said that she was not responsible for paying
Mrs Yates' tax or National Insurance contributions (employer and
employee) as she did for Mrs Haynes. In respect of the "small
difference between Tina's net rate and Paula's pay",
Mrs Spelman reiterated that it was not her responsibility to decide
Mrs Yates' rate of pay: "this was for the local Association.
I simply paid the sum invoiced to me."
155. I incorporated others of Mrs Spelman's comments
in the factual sections of this memorandum.
156. Having considered the new evidence which Mrs
Spelman submitted in her letter of 2 February, and her interpretation
of the relative pay differences between Mrs Tina Haynes and Mrs
Paula Yates, I wrote to Mrs Spelman on 3 February.[119]
I noted that Mrs Spelman had referred in her letter to the payslips
confirming her recollection that Mrs Haynes received approximately
£9,000 a year for the work she undertook for her as her administration
assistant. I suggested that her evidence had been that she had
had no recollection of what Mrs Haynes was paid.
157. Turning to the comparison Mrs Spelman had made
between what she had paid Mrs Haynes and what she had paid Mrs
Yates, I noted that the invoices for Mrs Yates' pay in 1999 which
Mrs Spelman had included with her letter of 3 July 2008,[120]
showed an hourly rate which included her National Insurance Contribution
of 7%. I noted also that it must have been the case that Mrs Yates
would have had to pay tax out of her remuneration. I suggested
that the appropriate comparison would be to identify what Mrs
Yates would have been paid for 18 hours a week, reflecting her
basic hourly rate and an employee's National Insurance Rate of
10%. On this basis, I suggested that the equivalent of Mrs Yates'
salary paid to an employed person for 18 hours a week would have
been about £8,200 a year. I invited Mrs Spelman to confirm
this figure.
158. Mrs Spelman responded with her letter of 11
February.[121] Mrs
Spelman said that her statement in her letter to me of 2 February[122]
that the payslips for Mrs Tina Haynes confirmed her recollection
that Mrs Haynes had received approximately £9,000 for the
work she undertook, referred simply to her acceptance that her
pay fell within the parameters I had suggested to her during our
interview of 10 December [£6,300-£13,000]. One of her
frustrations was that she could not recall the precise salary
figure for Mrs Haynes, as she had made clear throughout the inquiry
"and answered entirely honestly". Mrs Spelman
said: "my sense was that £13,000 as take home pay
seemed a little high to me, and point one of my letter of 2 February
was meant to convey that my instinct was quite right and that
Mrs Haynes' take home pay had indeed been quite less."
159. In respect of the comparison between what Mrs
Spelman had paid Mrs Haynes and what she had paid Mrs Yates, Mrs
Spelman accepted my calculation [that the equivalent of Mrs Yates'
salary paid to an employed person for 18 hours a week would have
been about £8,200 a year]. Mrs Spelman said that she had
to admit that even at the time she would not have paid particular
attention to the specific amounts of National Insurance Contributions
which would have been paid in respect of either employee. In respect
of Mrs Yates, she noted that she "simply paid the amount
invoiced to me by the Association." She noted also that
when it came to paying Mrs Haynes, "I paid what I believed
was a fair salary for the work she undertook". Mrs Spelman
said that as she had previously explained, and the Fees Office
had confirmed, she discussed the dual role and salary with them.
The Fees Office "certainly expressed no concern to me
at the time about the arrangement or the level of salary."
160. Mrs Spelman also took the opportunity to clarify
changes in her residence in her constituency in 1997 and 1998.
She said that in autumn 1997 "we moved from a property
we rented on a shorthold tenancy […] to an identical property
three doors down[…] which had become available to buy."
It was not a larger property in any way. The family subsequently
bought a larger house, but they were not able to move to that
property until October 1998.
161. Now that Mrs Haynes' salary had been established
as £13,000 a year in 1997-98, I considered I needed also
Mrs Spelman's help in comparing it to the salary which she had
paid one of her House of Commons secretaries in 1999. I wrote
to Mrs Spelman about this on 4 February.[123]
I noted that the Acting Director of Operations had reported that
the secretary in question, Mrs Hammond, had been employed from
April to September 1999 at a rate of £15,000 a year.[124]
Mrs Hammond's evidence stated that she believed that she had been
paid for three days a week, spread over four days.[125]
I noted that, on that basis, Mrs Hammond's full time equivalent
rate in 1999 would have been £25,000. I noted that Mrs Tina
Haynes worked for Mrs Spelman from 1997 to 1999 for a salary of
£13,000 for an eighteen hour week. The full time equivalent
salary, assuming a 37½ hour working week, would have been
£27,083. I noted that, on the basis of this evidence, it
would appear that Mrs Spelman was paying Mrs Haynes as her administration
assistant working in her constituency at a rate above that which
she paid her House of Commons secretary working in London. Taking
into account the nature of the two jobs, their locations and the
experience of both employees, I asked if she could help me on
how she came to establish the two salary levels, how she would
explain the apparent differential, and whether she considered
that justified in the light of the work which Mrs Haynes undertook
as her administration assistant.
162. Mrs Spelman responded to these points in her
letter to me of 11 February.[126]
Mrs Spelman said: "I must state my firmest objection to
what I regard as a wholly unfair and artificial comparison now
being drawn between the salaries of Tina Haynes and that of Sally
Hammond." She said that she did not accept any suggestion
that the rate paid to Mrs Haynes may have been inappropriate by
virtue of the comparative amounts which she paid to her other
staff Members (Mrs Hammond and Mrs Paula Yates): "I continue
to deny that the amount paid to Tina Haynes was anything other
than fair and reasonable within the House Rules at the time for
the work she undertook."
163. Mrs Spelman said that notwithstanding this,
she would consider as best she could, at this stage, the circumstances
surrounding the employment of Mrs Haynes and Mrs Hammond. Mrs
Spelman said that, before agreeing any salary for Mrs Tina Haynes
as her administration assistant, she had sought and obtained the
advice and guidance of the Fees Office. The Fees Office had full
knowledge of the contracts in place for her staff and they did
not at any time object to the rates which she was paying these
individuals. As she understood it, the independent scrutiny of
staff salaries, which the rules required at the time, was applied
by the Fees Office. Mrs Spelman said that had the Fees Office
regarded the amount to be paid to Mrs Tina Haynes as being inappropriate,
she would have expected the Fees Office to have said so, and they
did not.
164. Mrs Spelman said that she could not now recall
how the level of salary for Mrs Haynes was decided, other than
that it would have been done in accordance with guidance received
from the Fees Office. It is most likely that they would have advised
her of an appropriate salary range, but she could not be sure
of this. Any discussion she would have had with the Fees Office
in respect of Mrs Haynes' salary would have been in terms of take
home pay. This would also have been the rate referred to in her
discussions with Mrs Haynes.
165. As regard Mrs Hammond, she could not now recall
the particular conversations which took place about the start
of her employment. It was worth noting that Mrs Hammond did not
start work for her until almost two years after Mrs Spelman had
started to employ Mrs Haynes. The Fees Office would have been
informed of Mrs Hammond's proposed salary. There were no objections
made to Mrs Spelman that this salary was regarded as inappropriate.
The salary offered to Mrs Hammond must have been acceptable to
her as she took the position.
166. Mrs Spelman said that, aside from the difference
in the periods in which these individuals worked for her, Mrs
Hammond and Mrs Haynes were fulfilling quite different functions
in quite different locations, (one in Westminster, one in the
constituency). The factors that would have been at play in determining
the appropriate salaries for each role would not necessarily have
been comparable. Without knowing the precise circumstances, she
submitted that to compare the two could not be done meaningfully
at this late stage.
167. Mrs Spelman concluded by noting her increasing
concern that the inquiry now seemed to have shifted somewhat away
from looking at whether a dual role was permissible, and whether
the remuneration for the parliamentary payroll position was within
the House rules, to a technical question of "subsidy"
focussing on a comparative analysis of her other staff salaries.
Mrs Spelman stated that Mrs Yates was not her employee but remained
the employee of the local Association operating under terms and
conditions which were agreed between Mrs Yates and the Association
at the time she was engaged by them, thus making such a comparison
"virtually impossible." Mrs Spelman said that
she would like to confirm that "at no time did I ever
carry out such a forensic analysis and accordingly, any conclusions
that are drawn from the numbers can only be based on inference
with twelve years hindsight." Mrs Spelman added: "Most
importantly, I should also like to confirm with certainty that
there was no motivation or intention on my part to obtain any
personal material gain from my employment of Mrs Haynes in a dual
capacity." As Mrs Spelman had hoped she had made clear
throughout "this lengthy inquiry", the employment
of Mrs Tina Haynes in the dual role was what she believed to be
a practical solution, within the House rules, to the circumstances
in which she found herself at the time.
Findings of Fact
168. Mrs Caroline Spelman was first elected to represent
the Meriden Constituency in Parliament at the general election
in May 1997. She had been selected to contest the seat by the
Meriden Conservative Association in February 1997, following the
death of the sitting Member, Mr Iain Mills.
169. At the time of her election, Mrs Spelman lived
in Kent. She had three young children and was assisted in their
care by an au pair. Mrs Spelman had given a commitment
to the Meriden Conservative Association that if selected to contest
the seat, she would move to live in the constituency and that
her children would be educated there. Mrs Spelman rented a home
in the constituency in March 1997.
170. Shortly before her election, Mrs Spelman sought
a nanny to live with the family in the constituency and to look
after her children. She was recommended an experienced nanny,
Mrs Tina Haynes. When she interviewed Mrs Haynes, Mrs Spelman
suggested to her that, as well as carrying out nannying duties,
Mrs Haynes should act as her constituency administration assistant.
Mrs Haynes agreed to undertake the dual role.
171. Mrs Haynes was appointed as the live-in nanny
to Mrs Spelman's children and as her constituency administration
assistant in about June 1997. Mrs Haynes held both positions until
about June 1999. From June 1999, she continued as Mrs Spelman's
children's nanny until September 2002.
172. Mrs Haynes spent about four weeks in June/July
1997 living and working in the family home in Kent. Mrs Spelman's
evidence is that Mrs Haynes accompanied her to the constituency
on a number of occasions during this period. The principal part
of the work, which continued once she moved to the constituency,
was to open and sort the backlog of constituency correspondence
which had accumulated following Mr Mills' death, thus allowing
Mrs Spelman to deal with the issues raised by these constituents.
Mrs Spelman's evidence is that Mrs Haynes also helped Mrs Spelman
establish her constituency office in her home in Knowle. The evidence
that Mrs Spelman and Mrs Haynes have given is that Mrs Haynes
undertook her administration duties during this period for 18
hours a week. An au pair was responsible for childcare.
173. Mrs Haynes moved with the family from Kent to
their rented house in Knowle in July 1997. The family subsequently
moved in October 1997 to a house which they bought nearby, and
to a larger house in October 1998. Mrs Haynes took up responsibility
as the children's nanny when the au pair left the family
in August 1997. Mrs Haynes had sole care of the children during
the working week from that time until 2002, whenever Mrs Spelman
was absent in London on parliamentary business.
174. Mrs Haynes' evidence is that Mrs Spelman initially
asked her to undertake administration duties in the constituency
for a provisional period of about six months whilst she sought
a secretary in the constituency. Mrs Haynes' recollection is that
she had a discussion with Mrs Spelman after about six months,
when Mrs Spelman asked her to continue with her administration
duties. She has no recollection of any subsequent discussion to
review the arrangement until Mrs Spelman told her in 1999 that
she no longer needed her to undertake constituency duties as she
had found someone else to undertake this work.
175. Mrs Spelman's evidence is that she had always
intended to appoint Mrs Paula Yates (formerly Monkhouse) as her
constituency secretary, but because of her family commitments,
Mrs Yates was not available to undertake this work until April
1999. Mrs Yates was throughout this period constituency Association
secretary and operated from the Association's office in Solihull,
which was outside the Meriden constituency. Mrs Spelman appointed
Mrs Paula Yates as her part time constituency secretary from about
June 1999 in succession to Mrs Haynes.
176. There is no documentary evidence relating to
the terms and conditions of Mrs Haynes' appointment as Mrs Spelman's
constituency administration assistant. There is evidence that
Mrs Spelman had a meeting with the then Head of the House of Commons
Fees Office in May 1997 when, according to the evidence both have
given, there was some discussion of the arrangements Mrs Spelman
was making for her staff and a reference to her employing Mrs
Haynes in a dual role. The House authorities would not have checked
the details of the arrangements Mrs Spelman made in respect of
the nannying work, but would have seen the contract and job description
for the role as her assistant and, on that basis, would have authorised—and
did authorise—her request for Mrs Haynes' payment.
177. There was no guidance at the time from the House
authorities about job titles or appropriate pay levels for Members'
staff. Pay was a matter for the discretion of the Member within
the total budget allocated under the Office Costs Allowance (OCA).
The OCA available for both a Member's staff and office costs was
£47,568 in 1997-98, £49,232 in 1998-99 and £50,264
in 1999-2000.
178. There are no surviving copies of any contract
for Mrs Haynes' employment as an administration assistant (or
as a nanny). Both Mrs Haynes and Mrs Spelman have given evidence
that Mrs Haynes was employed for 18 hours a week as Mrs Spelman's
assistant throughout the period of this employment. In 1997-98
Mrs Haynes was paid £13,000 a year from parliamentary allowances
for her work as Mrs Spelman's administration assistant, the equivalent
of about £27,100 a year for a 37 ½ hour week.
179. Mrs Haynes received no pay for her nannying
duties while she worked as Mrs Spelman's administration assistant.
Her remuneration for her duties as a nanny was free board and
lodging in the family home, the use of a car and expenses. The
car was used in support of her work as well as being available
to her for her own use.
180. When Mrs Haynes ceased to work as Mrs Spelman's
administration assistant in 1999, Mrs Spelman paid Mrs Haynes
just over £13,000 in the year 1999-2000 for her nannying
duties in addition to continuing to allow her free board and lodging
in the family home, expenses and use of a car.
181. Based on the rates set by Mrs Yates' employer,
the Meriden Conservative Association, Mrs Spelman paid Mrs Paula
Yates as her constituency secretary in June 1999 just under £8.60
an hour for a 14 hour week, or around £6,300 a year. Had
she worked an 18 hour week, as did Mrs Haynes, and taking account
of differences in National Insurance contributions, the equivalent
pay would have been around £8,200 a year. Mrs Spelman was
billed by the local Conservative Association for the costs associated
with Mrs Yates' employment in this capacity and she recouped those
costs through her parliamentary allowances.
182. The evidence from Mrs Spelman and Mrs Haynes,
with some corroboration from Mrs Paula Yates and other witnesses,
is that Mrs Haynes' work as her administration assistant was to
answer the phone in Mrs Spelman's home and take messages, to receive
and send faxes, to open and sort post in her home, to fax relevant
papers to Mrs Spelman in the House of Commons, to fax or carry
relevant papers to Mrs Yates in the Association office, to local
councillors and to the local MEP, to file papers, to meet some
visitors from the railway station and drive them to their destinations
in the constituency.
183. While neither Mrs Spelman nor Mrs Haynes can
recall with any precision at this distance in time the volume
of work undertaken by Mrs Haynes, Mrs Haynes' recollection is
that, while the volume varied, she received some five to ten letters
a day relating to Mrs Spelman's parliamentary business, eight
or nine phone calls a day and up to five or six faxes. The evidence
from Mrs Yates is that Mrs Haynes visited her in the constituency
office about twice a week.
184. The evidence from Mrs Spelman's London based
staff is mixed. Some recall Mrs Haynes working as Mrs Spelman's
constituency assistant. The evidence of two of Mrs Spelman's London
based secretaries, however, is that they had very little contact
with Mrs Haynes and knew of her as Mrs Spelman's children's nanny.
Mrs Spelman's evidence is that Mrs Haynes' work was focussed in
the constituency. Witnesses there had provided corroboratory evidence.
Mrs Spelman would not have expected her London secretaries to
have had knowledge of Mrs Haynes' role in the constituency.
185. The House authorities have documentary evidence
of the pay of one of Mrs Spelman's London staff. Mrs Spelman's
House of Commons secretary was paid in 1999 £15,000 a year
for a three day week, equivalent to a full time pay of £25,000
a year.
186. Mrs Haynes' evidence is that she was available
to work as Mrs Spelman's constituency administration assistant
from about 9.30 am to 3.00 pm each day of the working week. During
this time, she undertook very little work in support of her nannying
duties. She undertook no work as Mrs Spelman's administration
assistant over the weekend. Mrs Haynes' evidence is that she ensured
that the children got ready for school each day in term time.
She usually took them to school for about 9.00 am and met them
from school at about 3.30 pm. She looked after them until their
bedtime at about 7.30 pm. She was also on call for them overnight
Monday to Thursday inclusive.
187. During the school holidays, Mrs Haynes' evidence,
confirmed by Mrs Spelman, is that she continued her work as Mrs
Spelman's administration assistant. For some of the time, Mrs
Spelman would look after the children and they would attend clubs
(as they did in term time).
188. In the spring of 1999 Mrs Spelman's then parliamentary
secretary expressed concern to Mr Peter Ainsworth, the Member
for East Surrey, about Mrs Spelman paying her nanny from parliamentary
allowances. Mr Ainsworth passed on that concern to the then Opposition
Chief Whip, Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, the Member for North East
Hampshire. While the details of the discussion are not recorded
or recollected by Mr Arbuthnot, and its date is uncertain, it
is common ground that Mrs Spelman had a discussion with him and
decided to bring the dual arrangement with Mrs Haynes to an end,
which she did without delay.
189. Mrs Yates was able to work for Mrs Spelman in
succession to Mrs Haynes in June 1999 because Mrs Yates' family
commitments were less intensive then they had been in 1997. She
had the time to take on the extra commitment. Some space was found
in the Association office in Solihull for Mrs Spelman's constituency
files and she was able to have some use of the Chairman's office.
190. Letters, phone calls and faxes continued to
come into Mrs Spelman's home after Mrs Yates had taken on the
job in 1999. They were dealt with by Mrs Haynes without any remuneration
from parliamentary resources. Over time the volume of these communications
declined. Mrs Spelman's evidence is that Mrs Haynes was also required
to take on additional childcare duties once the dual role ended
as the children were growing older and were more demanding. Mrs
Haynes' evidence is that she undertook some other household duties
as well.
191. In the course of my inquiry, a number of people
from the constituency and Members who were asked to give evidence,
expressed their confidence in the probity and integrity of Mrs
Spelman.
192. Mrs Spelman has firmly denied the allegations
that she subsidised the cost of nannying services out of parliamentary
allowances and that her administration assistant did not undertake
the administration duties for which she was paid from her parliamentary
allowances. Mrs Spelman has stated that there was no motivation
or intention on her part to obtain any personal material gain
from her employment of Mrs Haynes in a dual capacity.
Standard of Proof
193. The allegation which is at the heart of this
inquiry is serious since it calls into question Mrs Spelman's
personal integrity. The strength of the evidence is inevitably
affected by the very long passage of time since the events described
in this memorandum took place. The Committee has made clear that
in serious cases, a higher standard of proof is expected. In their
second report of Session 2000-01, the Committee said:
"The Courts have interpreted the concept
of balance of probabilities to require a higher standard of proof
in serious cases. A case such as this has serious implications
for holders of public office. Accordingly, we have concluded that
we should need to be persuaded that the allegations were significantly
more likely to be true than not to be true before we could properly
uphold them."[127]
194. I consider that a higher standard of proof is
right for this inquiry. The standard of proof that the allegations
are significantly more likely to be true than not to be true,
is the one I have adopted.
Conclusions
195. The questions I must address are whether Mrs
Spelman paid Mrs Haynes as her administration assistant for work
that she did not do, and whether Mrs Spelman subsidised from parliamentary
allowances the cost of Mrs Haynes' work as her children's nanny.
196. The rules and the expectations on Members in
1997 were much less developed than they are now. I have come to
my conclusions on the basis of the rules and expectations at the
time. The test at this time was whether the expenditure was "wholly,
exclusively and necessarily" incurred in connection with
the Member's parliamentary duties. The rules made explicit that
items of a personal nature were inadmissible as a charge on public
funds.
197. The expenditure of parliamentary funds for full
or partial remuneration of Mrs Spelman's children's nanny would
be inadmissible expenditure. It would be expenditure on an item
of a personal nature. And it would follow that the expenditure
was not wholly, exclusively or necessarily incurred in connection
with Mrs Spelman's parliamentary duties. Such expenditure would
be a breach of the rules of the House.
198. I have considered whether there is sufficient
evidence, against the standard of proof I am operating in this
case, to show that the allegations against Mrs Spelman are substantiated.
That evidence is inevitably degraded by the passage of time. Witnesses
have, I believe, given me the best of their recollections and
I am grateful to them: but they are often no more than recollections.
The difficulties that this inquiry has presented in collecting
substantive evidence and in applying it objectively and fairly
to events which began more than ten years ago, reinforce, in my
view, the decision agreed by the Committee that complaints should
not normally be considered if they relate to events more than
seven years in the past - and even that in my estimation is quite
a long time over which to retain a reasonable prospect of receiving
reliable and timely evidence. It has inevitably added to the time
taken to complete this inquiry. It was perhaps a symptom of the
difficulties caused by the passage of time that a key piece of
evidence (Mrs Haynes' salary) did not emerge until the very end
of the inquiry.
199. In order to help focus the issues, I have followed
the more detailed guidance on the employment of Members' staff
first published in July 2004. It would be unfair, however, to
judge Mrs Spelman's actions on the basis of this guidance since
her decisions long pre-dated these more detailed rules. But they
are helpful in identifying how far Mrs Spelman's expenditure was
wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in connection with
her parliamentary duties.
200. The 2004 criteria are that the member of staff
paid for from allowances must be:
- employed to meet a genuine
need in supporting the Member;
- able and (if necessary) qualified to do the job;
and
- actually doing the job.
201. I consider Mrs Spelman's expenditure in respect
of her employment of Mrs Haynes under each of these headings
in the following paragraphs. I then consider whether the costs
were wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred.
A GENUINE NEED
202. I am satisfied that Mrs Spelman's employment
of an administration assistant in her constituency performing
the functions undertaken by Mrs Haynes met a genuine need. Mrs
Spelman said that she needed someone in the constituency to support
her in handling communications with her constituents and others.
Such communications are a legitimate—and very important—part
of a Member's parliamentary duties. It was entirely reasonable
for Mrs Spelman to decide that she needed such support and to
use her parliamentary allowances to enable her to secure it.
ABLE TO DO THE JOB
203. I consider Mrs Haynes had the necessary ability
to do the job in terms of her personal skills. She was well qualified
as a nanny and had some administrative qualifications. She had
no experience of work in an office. But the nature of the job
that Mrs Spelman asked her to undertake required only the sort
of skills which I accept from Mrs Haynes' evidence, well qualified
nannies ought to have: efficiency, an ability to deal with people,
an ability to carry out their employers' instructions, and an
ability to handle paperwork. There is no evidence that Mrs Haynes
was not capable of fulfilling the work she was asked to do and
I am satisfied that she had the ability to do so.
DOING THE JOB
204. On the evidence I have received, I am satisfied
that Mrs Haynes did undertake the work of an administration assistant
which Mrs Spelman asked her to do. I recognise that such work
was much less visible to Mrs Spelman's London staff, in particular
to her successive secretaries in London. But the evidence from
Mrs Yates, supported by Mrs Haynes and Mrs Spelman, plus some
other witnesses in the constituency, is I believe fully sufficient
for me to draw this conclusion. Evidence to the contrary is not
sufficiently strong, particularly taking account of the standard
of proof I am operating, to substantiate an allegation that Mrs
Haynes did not undertake legitimate work as an administration
assistant to Mrs Spelman.
205. It is understandable that, at this remove, and
given the nature of the duties, it is not possible to provide
substantive evidence that Mrs Haynes worked for 18 hours a week
on these duties. I am satisfied, however, from the evidence which
she and Mrs Spelman have given me, that Mrs Haynes was available
to work for 18 hours a week. I do not believe the evidence is
sufficient for me to conclude that she did not carry out work
in support of Ms Spelman's parliamentary duties for that period
of time each week, including the initial period when Mrs Spelman
still lived in Kent.
206. I consider also that it was acceptable that
Mrs Haynes should be employed in a dual role as long as the two
roles were clearly differentiated, both in terms of the work undertaken
and of the remuneration received. I am satisfied from the evidence
I received from Mrs Haynes and Mrs Spelman that there was a reasonable
separation of the two roles in terms of the time allocated to
them. I shall consider the latter requirement, for financial separation,
more fully in the following paragraphs.
207. I conclude, therefore, that the evidence is
not sufficient to substantiate an allegation that Mrs Haynes did
not work for 18 hours a week as an administration assistant initially
in Kent and subsequently in Mrs Spelman's constituency. I therefore
dismiss this part of the allegation against Mrs Spelman.
THE COSTS
208. The key issue in respect of costs is whether
the expenditure on Mrs Haynes' employment as Mrs Spelman's administration
assistant was wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in
connection with her parliamentary duties. In my judgement, that
would not be the case if the salary Mrs Haynes received from parliamentary
allowances enabled her to work for Mrs Spelman as her children's
nanny on terms which would not have been acceptable but for the
salary funded from parliamentary allowances.
209. Mrs Haynes received no financial reward for
her work as Mrs Spelman's nanny before 1999. She received non-financial
remuneration in terms of board, lodging, use of a car and expenses.
It is not possible to say with certainty whether Mrs Haynes would
have been prepared to work for Mrs Spelman as her children's nanny
for no financial reward. It might be thought unlikely. It is difficult
to see that she was the equivalent of what is normally regarded
as an au pair. Mrs Haynes was an experienced and well qualified
professional nanny being asked to take sole charge of Mrs Spelman's
children during the working week, including overnight. She did
so without separate financial remuneration for that important
work for two years. It is difficult to see how anyone in Mrs Haynes'
position could have sustained a career on that basis.
210. But that was not the position she was in, because
she received a salary from the parliamentary allowances. I consider
it significant that Mrs Spelman told me in oral evidence that
she believed Mrs Haynes saw her remuneration as a total package.
It was understandable that she should do so. Mrs Spelman was a
good employer. As Mrs Haynes said in oral evidence, "Mrs
Spelman did not expect anyone to work for nothing".
211. I accept the evidence from Mrs Spelman and Mrs
Haynes that Mrs Haynes had some additional nannying and domestic
duties from 1999, and that she continued to undertake some work
in support of Mrs Spelman's parliamentary work (without any pay
from parliamentary allowances). But I consider it significantly
more likely to be true than not that the change in job weight
was insufficient to explain an increase in Mrs Haynes' pay as
a nanny from nothing to £13,000 a year. And despite Mrs Spelman's
explanation, it seems to me difficult to understand how an administration
assistant working in the midlands should have been paid by the
Member at a higher rate than the Member's experienced House of
Commons secretary working in London was to be paid two years later.
(In making such comparisons. I think it reasonable to compare
salaries before tax and employees' National Insurance contributions,
rather than adopt, as Mrs Spelman has suggested, the conventions
followed for the pay of nannies.)
212. Having carefully considered all the evidence
in relation to the matter, I am driven to the conclusion that
it is significantly more likely to be true than not that the salary
which Mrs Spelman paid Mrs Haynes from her parliamentary allowances
allowed Mrs Haynes to undertake her nannying duties for two years
without additional or separate financial reward which Mrs Spelman
would otherwise have had to have given her.
213. The problem was not in my judgement the dual
roles undertaken by Mrs Haynes, but the remuneration arrangements
made by Mrs Spelman for the two roles. These arrangements led
in my judgement to Mrs Haynes' work as a nanny being subsidised
by the payment for her work as an administration assistant.
214. My finding therefore is that Mrs Spelman was
in breach of the rules of the House when she incurred parliamentary
expenditure for the employment in her constituency of her administration
assistant because that expenditure was not incurred wholly or
exclusively in support of her parliamentary duties, but was also
used to support her assistant's separate work as her live-in children's
nanny.
215. It is difficult, particularly after the passage
of time, objectively to identify what might have been an appropriate
level of remuneration for a live-in nanny working in this part
of the midlands at the time; or what might have been an appropriate
pay level for an administration assistant working in the same
area. In terms of Mrs Haynes' pay as an administration assistant,
it may be relevant that the person who succeeded her in that role,
had she worked the same number of hours as Mrs Haynes, would have
been paid nearly £4,800 less than she was.
216. It would be unfair for me not to give my own
impression of how this came about. I have no evidence that it
was a calculated breach on Mrs Spelman's part. I have received
striking evidence of Mrs Spelman's personal integrity, probity
and standing in the community and among her colleagues. She must
have been under intense personal and professional pressure when
she was first elected in 1997. She had very little time to prepare.
She had to move home and her family in the space of a few short,
and what I am sure were frenzied, months. She had to manage the
pressures of a new constituency, a backlog of casework and her
family responsibilities, and to adjust to the distinctive environment
of the House of Commons which puts pressure on any new Member.
217. Mrs Spelman found an arrangement that worked
for her as a new Member of Parliament and for her family. Were
it not for the way she apportioned the remuneration between the
dual roles, it was, in my judgement, a perfectly reasonable arrangement
to have made at the time and in all the circumstances. I do not
believe that at the time, or perhaps since, Mrs Spelman considered
whether the terms on which she employed Mrs Haynes as her nanny
benefited from her employment as her administration assistant.
My belief is that, in the rush of business, Mrs Spelman did not
consider separately what would be a reasonable remuneration including
pay for nannying duties and what pay was necessary solely to support
her in her parliamentary duties. As a result, the arrangements
had the unintended, but in my view undoubted, effect of misapplying
some of Mrs Spelman's parliamentary allowances for non parliamentary
purposes.
17 February 2009 John Lyon CB
35 There was no formal title for the post. At the time
suggested job titles were not provided by the House authorities.
In places in this memorandum, Mrs Spelman's assistant is referred
to as a "secretarial assistant". Mrs Spelman considers
"administration assistant" more accurately describes
her role. Back
36
WE 1 Back
37
Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session
2002-03, HC 947 Back
38
Procedural Note 1 published in September 2003, paragraph 5. Back
39
WE 2 Back
40
WE 3 Back
41
WE 4 Back
42
WE 5 Back
43
WE 6 Back
44
WE 7 Back
45
Not included in the written evidence Back
46
WE 8 Back
47
Not included in the written evidence Back
48
Not included in the written evidence Back
49
Not included in the written evidence Back
50
WE 9 Back
51
WE 10 Back
52
WE 11 Back
53
WE 12 Back
54
WE 13 Back
55
WE 14 Back
56
WE 15 Back
57
WE 16 Back
58
WE 17 Back
59
WE 18 Back
60
WE 19 Back
61
WE 7 Back
62
This included overhead costs. Back
63
WE 9 Back
64
WE 11,12 Back
65
WE 14 Back
66
WE 13 Back
67
WE 16 Back
68
WE 17 Back
69
WE 20 Back
70
WE 21 Back
71
WE 22 Back
72
WE 23 Back
73
WE 24 Back
74
WE 25 Back
75
WE 26 Back
76
WE 11 Back
77
Not included in written evidence Back
78
WE 27 Back
79
WE 28 Back
80
WE 29 Back
81
WE 30 Back
82
,Mrs Spelman has stated that since Mrs Haynes' dual role ended
from the beginning of May 1999 it seemed very likely that any
such discussion would have taken place in April 1999, shortly
after the start of Mrs Hammond's employment. Back
83
WE 31 Back
84
WE 32 Back
85
WE 33 Back
86
For the reasons stated in FN 48 Mrs Spelman considers this must
have occurred before May 1999. Back
87
WE 34 Back
88
WE 35. The reference is not included in the written evidence Back
89
WE 36 Back
90
WE 37 Back
91
WE 38 Back
92
WE 30 Back
93
WE 39 Back
94
WE 40 Back
95
WE 41 Back
96
WE 42 Back
97
WE 43 Back
98
WE 44 Back
99
WE 45 Back
100
WE 46 Back
101
WE 47 (schedules not included in the written evidence) Back
102
WE 48 Back
103
WE 49 Back
104
WE 50 Back
105
WE 51 Back
106
WE 52 Back
107
WE 53 Back
108
WE 54 Back
109
WE 55 Back
110
WE 56 Back
111
WE 34 Back
112
WE 30 Back
113
WE 51 Back
114
WE 29 Back
115
WE 54 Back
116
WE 57 Back
117
WE 58 Back
118
WE 59 Back
119
WE 60 Back
120
These invoices are not included in the evidence. Back
121
WE 62 Back
122
WE 59 Back
123
WE 61 Back
124
WE 38 Back
125
WE 30 Back
126
WE 62 Back
127
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Second Report of Session
2000-01, HC 89 Back
