Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Complaint against Rt Hon
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports on my inquiry into allegations
that, when he was the Member for South Dorset, the Rt Hon Jim
Knight (now the Rt Hon Lord Knight of Weymouth) used a risograph,[32]
the purchase of which had been funded by parliamentary resources,
to subsidise the production of party political material, contrary
to the rules of the House.
The Allegations
2. On 4 March 2010, Mr Ian Bruce, of Weymouth, wrote
to me to make a complaint against the Rt Hon Jim Knight.[33]
Mr Bruce alleged, amongst other matters, that Mr Knight had purchased
a two colour printer on 21 December 2007, using his Communications
Allowance, which he said had also been used, along with a large
quantity of printing consumables, to print newsletters and literature
for Labour Party candidates in the 2008 Weymouth and Portland
Borough Council elections, the 2008 Purbeck District Council elections
and the 2009 Dorset County Council elections. Mr Bruce
included with his letter a copy of the by-election expenses return
for the Labour candidate in the December 2009 Weymouth and Portland
Borough Council Wyke Regis by-election, which listed notional
expenditure by the South Dorset Labour Party on behalf of the
candidate. [34]
Mr Bruce enclosed originals of some of the documents listed on
the return where the expense was described as having been incurred
by the Party as notional expenditure.[35]
These were an eve of poll card circulated on behalf of the Labour
candidate, a leaflet distributed on the day of the poll, and two
personalised letters sent to electors.[36]
Mr Bruce alleged that the South Dorset Labour Party had never
purchased any printing equipment, and also had no computers, folding
machines, or addressing equipment for targeting addressed letters.
3. Mr Bruce said that Mr Knight had previously leased
a similar printer and claimed the cost against his Incidental
Expenses Provision. He alleged that in March 2005 Mr Knight had
purchased a colour drum unit for a leased printer so that the
Labour Party leaflets could have a red colour banner on them,
and that Mr Knight had purchased a folding machine, which Mr Bruce
said would have only been used for mass produced literature rather
than constituents' correspondence. He also said that expenses,
including red and black printing ink and printing masters which
were exclusively for campaigning purposes had regularly been shown
in expense claims and in particular in the months before local
elections.
4. Mr Bruce told me that the Electoral Commission
had undertaken an investigation following a letter from him into
allegations of non disclosure of any donation of the equipment
used by the South Dorset Labour Party, and had concluded that
there was not sufficient evidence that Mr Knight had purchased
the equipment in question for the party and not for himself and
his staff. Mr Bruce commented, "In other words Mr Knight
has told the Electoral Commission the Labour Party is using his
equipment paid for out of both the Communications Allowance and
the IEP and as he has not donated it no offence has been committed
by the South Dorset Labour Party under electoral law."
5. Mr Bruce said that the copy which he had previously
sent me of the election expenses of one of the South Dorset Labour
Party County Council Election candidates[37]
showed the amount being claimed by that candidate as assistance
in kind being given by the South Dorset Labour Party. He said
that there had been 11 candidates who would have received benefits
paid from Mr Knight's expenses of around £4,000 during the
2009 county council elections and £5,000 would have been
spent during the 2008 local elections. Mr Bruce had also
previously sent me examples of election literature from the May
2009 county council elections and the December 2009 by-election
for the Wyke Regis ward of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council
which Mr Bruce alleged had been produced on Mr Knight's printer.[38]
Referring to the originals of leaflets Mr Bruce produced for the
Labour candidate in the by-election, which he had enclosed,[39]
he commented, "By supplying you with these originals you
have better evidence that all the documents are produced on the
same machine".
Relevant Rules of the House
6. Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct for Members
provides as follows:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
7. The overarching rules in relation to this complaint
are set out in the 2006 edition of the Green Book. In his introduction,
Mr Speaker Martin wrote as follows:
"Members themselves are responsible for ensuring
that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek
advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care. In
cases of doubt or difficulty about any aspect of the allowances
or how they can be used, please contact the Department of Finance
and Administration. The Members Estimate Committee, which I chair,
has recently restated the Department's authority to interpret
and enforce these rules."
8. The rules relevant to the purchase of printing
equipment are set out in the booklet published in April 2007 entitled
"The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery".
The scope and purpose of the Communications Allowance is set out
in paragraph 6.1.1 of Appendix One to this booklet as follows:
"The Communications Allowance (CA) is available
to meet the cost of Members engaging proactively with their constituents
through a variety of media. It can be used for the production
of unsolicited communications within the parameters set out in
this Section.
The CA may only be used to help Members inform
their constituents about what they have been doing and to consult
them on issues of importance to them locally. It cannot be used
to meet personal costs or the costs of party political activities
or campaigning. The main areas of expenditure available from the
CA are outlined below. It is each Member's responsibility
to ensure that all expenditure funded by the CA is wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred on their Parliamentary duties.
9. Paragraph 6.3.1 summarises in the following terms
the expenditure which may be met from the Communications Allowance:
Sections 6.14.1 and 6.15.1 give detailed examples
of expenditure which is allowable, provided that it is incurred
wholly, exclusively and necessarily on Parliamentary duties. The
allowable expenditure includes:
...
Some capital purchases."
10. Paragraph 6.11.1 sets out the rules on capital
purchases as follows:
"You may purchase or lease capital equipment
from the CA if it is to be used for the purpose of proactive communications
such as producing newsletters/annual reports and designing or
maintaining websites. Equipment that mostly has other office purposes
should be purchased or leased using the IEP. So, for example,
a photocopier may not be purchased out of this allowance as it
may be used for other purposes, but a risograph may as its purpose
is the mass production of published material."
11. The examples of expenditure allowable under the
Communications Allowance given in paragraph 6.14.1 include:
"Regular Reports or Newsletters
...
Costs associated with the publishing, printing
or distribution of the above, including bought-in contractor time
Purchase (or leasing) of equipment for the
specific purpose of producing the above items."
12. Paragraph 6.15.1 gives examples of expenditure
not allowable under the Communications Allowance. These include
"party political activities".
13. Paragraph 1.3 of the March 2009 Green Book sets
out a number of fundamental principles underpinning the allowance
regime, and to which Members must adhere when making claims against
parliamentary allowances. One of these is:
"Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose
of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims
cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must
any claim provide a benefit to a party political organisation."
14. A number of restrictions were imposed on the
use of Communications Expenditure (as the Communications Allowance
had been re-named) with effect from 1 January 2010. These restrictions
were set out by the Department of Resources in a letter of 15
December 2009 to all Members. The letter said:
"You cannot therefore use the Communications
Expenditure or utilise resources acquired from the Communications
Expenditure from 1 January 2010 for:
the production and distribution of newsletters,
parliamentary reports, targeted letters, petitions and surveys:
the production and distribution of surgery leaflets
and flyers (in other words a ban on anything that can be put through
the letterbox)."
My Inquiries
15. I wrote to Mr Knight about the complaint on 25
March.[40] I said that,
in essence, the complaint against him which I had accepted for
inquiry was that he had used a risograph, the purchase of which
had been funded by parliamentary resources, to produce party political
material. I also said that I had not accepted the other aspects
of Mr Bruce's complaint.[41]
I asked Mr Knight in particular to confirm the cost of the risograph,
and why he had decided to purchase one in December 2007, and to
claim the purchase cost from the Communications Allowance. I also
asked him what use he had made of the risograph since its purchase;
whether it has been used exclusively for parliamentary purposes
and, if not, the nature and extent of its use for other purposes,
including party political purposes.
16. I asked Mr Knight whether the risograph had been
used to print any of the six items of election literature which
the complainant had forwarded,[42]
or to print any item listed in the Candidate Election Expenditure
returns which he had also forwarded and, if the equipment had
been so used, how the production of these documents had been funded,
and how the staff time involved in their production had been funded,
bearing in mind that each of the documents forwarded bore an imprint
giving the name of someone who allegedly was, or had at the time
been, one of his employees. I also asked Mr Knight what reimbursement
he had received (if any) towards the costs of purchasing and maintaining
the risograph and its paper and ink. I also asked Mr Knight, in
the event that his risograph had not been used to print any of
the six items of election literature forwarded by the complainant,
for details of the printing arrangements, assuming he had the
information, and why they had the appearance of having been printed
on the same equipment as his 2009 Annual Report.
17. I asked Mr Knight to let me know the conclusions
of the Electoral Commission's inquiry into the use he had made
of his printing equipment and, asked, if he had a copy of the
letter from the Electoral Commission quoted by the complainant,
to let me see it.[43]
I also asked Mr Knight whether he had had any discussions with
the Department of Resources about the purchase and use of this
equipment, and if so what had been the substance of those discussions.
Finally, I told Mr Knight that I appreciated that Dissolution
was now very close, it was therefore unlikely that I would be
able to resolve this complaint before then, and that if this proved
to be the case, I would need to return to it once Parliament had
resumed.
18. Parliament was dissolved on 12 April, and the
new Parliament assembled on 18 May. Mr Knight stood at the election
but was not re-elected. His elevation to the House of Lords was
announced in the Dissolution Honours, and he was introduced there
on 23 June.
19. I received Mr Knight's reply on 20 May.[44]
He said that the cost of the risograph printer had been £7,279.11,
and the purchase had been funded from the Communications Allowance.
He had decided to purchase the risograph printer from the Communications
Allowance to print communications with his constituents.
Mr Knight said that this had been primarily through the production
of Annual Reports, localised newsletters or information sheets
and notice of public meetings. He commented, "The
use of the risograph has enabled me to reduce my use of commercial
printers and seemed a reasonable investment". Mr Knight
gave examples of his use of the risograph "for parliamentary
purposes". The first was his 2009 Annual Report, copies
of which he enclosed.[45]
He also said that he had produced updates for his constituents
concerning his work in their area, and had recently produced a
newsletter to all residents in the Park District of Weymouth announcing
a public meeting to deal with an increase in anti-social behaviour.
20. Mr Knight enclosed a copy of the Park District
newsletter.[46] This
reported the outcome of a public meeting in Park District in October
2009 which Mr Knight had held, and announced a further meeting
in January 2010. It also included a number of options for dealing
with problems arising from private rented accommodation (one of
the problems identified by the previous meeting having been difficulties
over some houses in multiple accommodation), and a survey about
residents' concerns. Mr Knight provided a Freepost address for
the return of the completed survey forms.
21. Mr Knight said that he had also allowed the South
Dorset Labour Party to use the risograph. He explained that the
risograph was too large to fit into his constituency office. Rather
than incur additional cost to the public purse of renting more
space, he had located it in the adjacent Labour Party office.
In exchange, he allowed the Labour Party to use the risograph
in lieu of rent. Mr Knight said that the additional production
costs of any Labour Party literature produced on the risograph,
including all ink and paper, was funded entirely by the South
Dorset Labour Party. He enclosed two invoices from the risograph
supplier, addressed to the Party. The invoices enclosed were both
dated 28 February 2010, and related to purchases of document masters,
and of red and black ink. The total cost was £760.[47]
Mr Knight commented that the arrangement seemed "a reasonable
exchange". He said that he had not discussed it with
the Department of Resources.
22. Mr Knight said that the risograph had been used
to print what he described as "the three campaign letters
in question".[48]
He also said that the member of staff who produced this literature
had done so in his capacity as a part-time employee of the South
Dorset Labour Party, for whom he worked for part of the week.
23. Mr Knight also enclosed a copy of an e-mail exchange
between the Compliance Manager of the Labour Party and the Electoral
Commission. This related to what he described as "a very
similar complaint made by the same complainant on the same issue".
Mr Knight commented, "In this case the Electoral Commission
ruled that there was no case to answer."
24. The e-mail from the Labour Party Compliance Manager
to the Electoral Commission was sent on 8 February.[49]
It explained amongst other matters that Mr Knight had replaced
a leased printing machine with a purchased device, using the Communications
Allowance, for bulk printing of material for constituents.
The e-mail said that these communications were from Mr Knight
in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, responding to issues
raised by constituents, and that supplies for the machine had
been purchased out of the Communications Allowance. The e-mail
continued, "These IT purchases are therefore entirely
consistent with his requirements as an MP. I hope this is sufficient
information to allow you to close this case." The response
from the Electoral Commission said that the Commission had "concluded
that further enquiries would be neither proportionate nor in the
public interest. The Commission therefore considers the matter
now closed."[50]
25. I replied to Mr Knight on 20 May.[51]
I asked him if he could give me an estimate of the proportionate
use of the risograph by himself for parliamentary purposes and
by the South Dorset Labour Party from the date of its purchase
in December 2007 to the end of April 2010. I said that if he had
such information by financial year that would be particularly
helpful. I asked Mr Knight if he had any formal sharing agreement
for the risograph between himself and the South Dorset Labour
Party and, if so, to let me see a copy. I also asked for copies
of any further invoices for ink and paper used since December
2007 which the South Dorset Labour Party might have, or other
financial records showing these payments. I asked Mr Knight for
an estimate of the space taken up by the risograph, and whether,
for example, it was it located in its own small room. Finally,
I asked Mr Knight how in practice he had ensured that the production
costs were separated out; whether he had a stationery cupboard
for the paper used for his parliamentary productions which was
separate from that used for party political purposes; and if he
had changed the ink cartridges for the separate production runs.
26. Mr Knight replied on 4 June.[52]
He began by clarifying the date of purchase of the risograph as
22 January 2008. He then set out estimates of its respective use
for parliamentary and party use that had been formulated "based
on our recollection of the work produced using the risograph printer".
Mr Knight said that, in 2008, 40% of the use had been for parliamentary
purposes with 60% having been used by the South Dorset Labour
Party. In 2009, 70% of the use had been for parliamentary purposes.
In respect of 2010, Mr Knight said that, leading up to the election,
the share of printing had been approximately 50/50 split between
parliamentary and Labour Party use. He continued, "However,
during the election period, rent is being paid by South Dorset
Labour Party to the fees office to cover the cost of its use during
this period as it was used solely for Party political purposes."
27. Mr Knight illustrated the savings made by printing
Parliamentary communications in-house on the risograph by comparing
the cost of printing his 2009 Annual Report (printed in-house)
with that of the 2007 Annual Report, which had been printed externally
at a cost of £2,550. Mr Knight said that in 2009 the paper
had cost £1,200 and ink £96, giving a total cost of
£1,296. This, he said, was a saving of £1,254 compared
to 2007.
28. Mr Knight enclosed with his letter the formal
sharing agreement for the risograph between himself and the South
Dorset Labour Party.[53]
The signatures of both Mr Knight and the person signing on behalf
of the Party were dated 22 January 2008. Under the agreement,
South Dorset Constituency Labour Party acknowledged that the risograph
belonged to Mr Knight and agreed to accommodate it in the Party's
offices. The agreement provided for the Party to have use of the
printer for as long as it was situated in their offices; for the
Party to permit Mr Knight to use the printer in its offices as
and when required by him; and for the Party to cover "all
maintenance costs and all liabilities in relation to their use
of the printer, including ink and paper". Mr Knight commented,
"By the Labour Party accommodating the printer it has
saved rent costs that I would have otherwise have had to meet.
As long as the usage by the Labour Party is proportionate, I am
confident that this is good value for money. I am also mindful
that all maintenance was also carried out by the Labour Party.
Therefore the public purse did not suffer for the wear and tear
of the machine."
29. Mr Knight said that the South Dorset Labour Party
had invoices for ink and paper since January 2009. He enclosed
a number of invoices and other documents.[54]
The ten documents covered the period from October 2007 to May
2010. Nine of them related to purchases of paper and envelopes,
card, and ink. The tenth was an invoice dated 15 April 2010 addressed
to Mr Knight for the rent of his constituency office in May 2010,
and other charges relating to its use in March and April 2010.
The one invoice for the purchase of ink was dated November 2007
and thus predated the purchase of the risograph, and was from
a different supplier. Only one invoice, for card in December 2009,
belonged to the years between the purchase of the risograph in
January 2008 and the end of 2009. Mr Knight also said that "All
variable costs and maintenance were also paid for by Labour Party
as evidenced." He continued, "Upon reviewing
the invoices it appears that there are no receipts for ink cartridges
from the South Dorset Labour Party for 2008. For avoidance of
doubt I will therefore ensure that the Department of Resources
is reimbursed for 60% of the value of ink purchased by me during
that year."
30. Mr Knight said that the dimensions of the risograph
were 180cm x 125cm, and that it took up 33% of the Labour Party
office. He said that the cost to the South Dorset Labour Party
of its office was £2,921 a year. He commented, "The
cost to the Labour Party of accommodating the machine is therefore
£973.67." Mr Knight also said that the stationery
for use in the risograph was clearly separated, with all stationery,
ink and paper for parliamentary purposes being kept in the separate
constituency office, and all stationery for the Labour Party kept
in the Labour Party office. Mr Knight said that ink cartridges
"were removed from the risograph for separate print jobs."
31. I replied to Mr Knight on 23 June.[55]
I asked him for estimates, ideally for each financial year, of
the maintenance costs for the risograph which had been borne by
the South Dorset Labour Party, and of total actual usage by himself
and the Party, respectively. I also asked him for the basis on
which he had provided the proportionate estimates for the use
of the risograph. As the copy of the letter and survey which Mr
Knight had sent to constituents in the Park District area of Weymouth
did not bear any House of Commons imprint, I asked him to let
me know if my assumption that it had not been funded from parliamentary
resources was wrong. I also asked him for a fuller list, with
other examples, of his use of the risograph for parliamentary
purposes.
32. I pointed out to Mr Knight that, although he
had said in his letter that the South Dorset Labour Party had
invoices for ink and paper since January 2009, the only one of
the invoices he had forwarded which fell within that period was
for card, and the only invoice for ink predated the purchase of
the risograph. I asked Mr Knight to identify any evidence there
was of the Party having bought ink cartridges or paper for use
in the risograph in any of the years covered by the complaint,
or to let me know the basis on which he or the Party considered
that it had indeed made such purchases. Given what Mr Knight had
said about his own and the Party's offices, I asked him how the
premises were split, the approximate size of his constituency
office, what occupied the remaining two thirds of the party office
where the risograph was located, and how he reconciled the annual
rent for the party office of £2,921 with the monthly rent
of £456 for the suites referred to in the invoice which he
had sent me.[56]
33. I pointed out that the complainant had forwarded
five examples of what he alleged were election communications
from a local authority candidate that had been printed on the
risograph, and had alleged that 11 local authority candidates
had benefited from the material printed on this risograph.[57]
I asked Mr Knight if he could confirm this and, if so, how many
communications had been printed, and what the print run had been
for each. As to the agreement for sharing the use of the risograph,
I asked Mr Knight whether, when he had made the agreement with
the South Dorset Labour Party, he had taken into account the likely
date of the General Election, and the possibility that he might
not be re-elected. I also noted that on the copy of the agreement
which he had sent me, his signature and the date were imprinted
on the handwritten sheet below the agreement which he had sent
me, and which covered invoices from the Labour Party relating
to 2009 and 2010. I asked Mr Knight to explain how this sharing
agreement, which appeared to be signed and dated January 2008,
could have had at least one of these signatures imprinted on a
sheet submitted to me in June 2010 covering invoices from 2009
and 2010. I also asked him where the risograph now was.
34. Mr Knight (now Lord Knight of Weymouth)[58]
replied on 9 July.[59]
As to his signature on the sharing agreement, Lord Knight commented,
"When I found the file copy last month I discovered that
I had not signed it. I unwisely chose to sign it and back date
it, hence the imprint on the invoices. Clearly this could be misleading
and I apologise unreservedly. I hope this doesn't detract from
the fact that both South Dorset Labour Party and I were conscious
of the potential complications of storing parliamentary equipment
on party property. It was for this reason the agreement was made
and it is the principles in this agreement that have guided the
use of the risograph by my office and the South Dorset Labour
Party."
35. Lord Knight said that, in attempting to provide
the most comprehensive evidence possible for my investigations,
he had now been through his records again and had been trying
to acquire what records he could from the South Dorset Labour
Party. He explained that this had been difficult since
the Party had no audit requirement until last year and records
had not always been retained. In seeking copies of his own communications
he had also come against the problem of his Parliamentary computers
having now been wiped—destroying copies of his publications.
He said that it had therefore not been possible to provide me
with the detail that I needed in some cases. Lord Knight commented,
"I understand that this makes it difficult for you to
satisfactorily complete your investigations, but I am afraid I
may need to ask you to reach a judgement on some partial knowledge.
Again, as far I can be held responsible, I apologise."
36. Lord Knight sent me print-outs from the supplier
of the risograph of all his orders from them since the machine
was purchased to May 2010.[60]
An e-mail from the supplier which Lord Knight had included with
one of the print-outs[61]
said that the supplier held two different accounts for Lord Knight.
The first of these dated from the purchase of the machine in January
2008, and the second from March 2009. Lord Knight had annotated
each payment in manuscript as to whether he believed it had been
made by him and claimed from his allowances, or by the South Dorset
Labour Party. The table below summarises the eleven purchases
shown on the print-outs, with the exception of the initial purchase
of the machine, and identifies the attributions made by Lord Knight,
with one subsequent amendment.
| Date of purchase |
Nature of purchase |
Attribution of cost by Lord Knight
| Comment |
| | Allowances (£)
| Party (£) |
|
| 22 January 2008 | Ink
| 157 | |
|
| 3 March 2008 | Ink
| | 318 |
Lord Knight subsequently re-attributed this payment to his allowances[62]
|
| 5 December 2008 | Ink
| 301 | |
|
| 30 March 2009 | Duplicator masters
| | 106 |
|
| 17 September 2009 | Maintenance
| 341 | |
Lord Knight's annotation of print-out states that this was claimed "in error".[63]
|
| 23 October 2009 | Ink
| 107 | |
|
| 30 October 2009 | Duplicator masters
| 107 | |
|
| 6 November 2009 | Ink
| 216 | |
|
| 20 November 2009 | Ink
| 118 | |
|
| 28 February 2010 | Ink; duplicator masters
| | 601 |
|
| 31 May 2010 | Ink
| | 99 |
|
37. Lord Knight said that he had discovered that there was one
claim made for maintenance on 24 September 2009 for £341
from the Communications Allowance. He commented, "This
was an oversight for which I again apologise. I am happy to repay
this and any other claim you feel appropriate in order to give
confidence that allowances have not been used inappropriately."
He said that the total of ink and masters purchased and claimed
for by him had been £665.[64]
Other purchases had totalled £1,124, which he said would
have been paid by South Dorset Labour Party.[65]
Lord Knight commented, "It is also clear that few supplies
were needed through most of the period for any use, reflecting
the good value of the machine. There was intense use for the Annual
Report in 2009 and then by the Labour Party in the first quarter
of this year."
38. Turning to the specific points in my letter of
23 June,[66] Lord Knight
said that his estimate for the maintenance costs borne by the
South Dorset Labour Party had been "based on the removal
and upkeep of the risograph based on receipts supplied previously
and the maintenance work shown on the [supplier's] print
out". He also said that the estimates for the
use of the risograph for parliamentary purposes had been "done
on the basis of discussions with staff who used the machine and
our computer records available at the time". Lord Knight
said that the machine was not metered, and it was therefore not
possible to produce an estimate of the number of pages printed.
39. Turning to my question about the letter sent
to constituents in the Park District announcing the meeting in
January 2010 and including a survey, Lord Knight said that this
did not promote any political party, did not seek any opinion
which could be used for party political purposes, and was a vital
piece of communications to engage constituents in the debate he
was leading as their Member of Parliament. He commented, "I
conducted surgeries and public meetings in the area as MP and
used this leaflet as a means to communicate the on-going issue
to constituents." Lord Knight continued, "As
well as the Annual Report the risograph was used by me to communicate
on neighbourhood matters in a similar way to the Park District
example. I also produced fact sheets on areas of policy interest
to constituents such as climate change legislation, housing policy
and schools reorganisation processes affecting the constituency.
Unfortunately the records of this activity have been destroyed
as my office has now been closed down."
40. Lord Knight said that, when the sharing agreement
had been made, it had been done on the basis that he would continue
to serve the people of South Dorset as their Member of Parliament.
He commented, "I never felt it reasonable to constrain
my activity or change my use of resources because of the marginality
of my seat." He said that he was now a Member of the
House of Lords and shared an office with the South Dorset Labour
Party, which was where the risograph was now. Lord Knight concluded
by saying that the agreement between the South Dorset Labour Party
and himself was "one that seeks to minimise cost to the
taxpayer. By allowing South Dorset Labour Party use of the risograph
I was removing the need for the taxpayer to foot a rent bill for
housing the machine. I was clear that South Dorset Labour Party
should pay for ink and paper to stock the machine and have produced
evidence where possible to show this. 1 understand that there
are gaps in evidence and regret that this doesn't reflect well,
but I would like to restate my intentions at all times were to
communicate effectively as MP with my constituents and to minimise
expense for the taxpayer."
41. I replied to Lord Knight on 14 July.[67]
I asked him if he could confirm that the document which he had
sent me was the sharing agreement which he had concluded with
the South Dorset Labour Party on 22 January 2008, because he had
sent me what looked like a top copy with original signatures by
both him and the representative of the party. I asked Lord Knight
who had signed this copy on behalf of the South Dorset Labour
Party, whether this signature was appended on 22 January 2008
or more recently, and whether he still had on his files the original
which had not been signed by him. If so, I asked him to let me
have a photocopy of that document, either from his own files or
from those of the Party. I also noted that Lord Knight appeared
to have recently signed the sharing agreement with the intention
of allowing me to believe that he had signed it at the time. I
told Lord Knight that I would need to record this in my conclusions
to this inquiry, and offered him the opportunity to give any further
explanation of the reasons for his actions.
42. I asked Lord Knight to confirm that there were
no maintenance charges made for the risograph other than for the
call out in September 2009. I asked when his survey letter sent
to constituents in the Park District had been distributed and,
if this was after 1 January 2010, whether he had met any of the
costs, including the costs of dispatch, from his Communications
Expenditure. I included in my letter an excerpt from a letter
sent by the Department of Resources to all Members in December
2009 setting out the relevant restrictions applying from that
date.[68] I also asked
him about any other material which had been printed on the risograph
and sent out in the same way after 1 January 2010. I reminded
Lord Knight that I had asked in my letter of 23 June[69]
about what the rest of the Labour Party office was used for, for
an indication of the size of his constituency office, why an annual
rent of £2,921 appeared to be charged for the Party office,
and whether all eleven local authority candidates mentioned by
the complainant had produced material using the risograph. I asked
Lord Knight how many (if any) of the Labour party candidates in
the 2009 elections had benefited from material printed using the
shared risograph, whether, to the best of his knowledge, the examples
forwarded by the complainant had all been printed on it, and whether
his estimate of the proportionate use of the risograph in 2008-09
had enabled all the South Dorset Labour Party candidates for the
2008 local authority elections to have their election material
printed on it. Finally, I asked Lord Knight to confirm that the
risograph remained in what was the Labour party's part of the
office suite, and whether he was now making any claims from parliamentary
resources for the office or the risograph.
43. Lord Knight replied on 29 July.[70]
In relation to the sharing agreement, Lord Knight said that, in
his last letter, he had apologised for his "serious error
of judgement in relation to the sharing agreement". He
said that this agreement was "a true record of the agreement
between myself and South Dorset Labour Party regarding the use
of the risograph, but since I did not sign it at the time I think
it is fair for you to disregard it as a document. Naturally I
am not suggesting you disregard my actions in then signing it
subsequently, but all it can now remain is a description of the
agreement as it was supposed to operate between the two parties.
I can only add to my apology by way of explanation of my intention.
It was not my intention to mislead. I signed it merely for the
sake of completeness. It was an embarrassing error of judgement."
44. In relation to the payment he had made from his
Communications Allowance in respect of maintenance of the risograph,
Lord Knight said that he had checked again with the South Dorset
Labour Party, and it appeared that this had been the only maintenance
cost paid. He reiterated that this should not have been paid from
Parliamentary funds.
45. With regards to the survey of constituents distributed
in the Park District in January 2010, Lord Knight said that "in
so far as it was printed on the risograph, and the risograph had
been paid for out of Communications Allowance expenditure, I was
in breach of the letter sent on December 15 [2009]".
Lord Knight said that he had incurred no additional cost as the
document had been distributed by hand by his parliamentary staff
in their lunch hour. Lord Knight also said that this document
did not make any political point and he described it as "simply
finishing off a piece of work for constituents in that part of
Weymouth". He said that he was "not aware of
any other similar communication this year using the printing machine".
He continued, "This use of the machine was an oversight
by me and my team in not appreciating the significance of the
phrase in the letter of 15 December that read '... or utilise
resources acquired from the Communications Expenditure...' My
reading had been that we couldn't acquire resources or use the
allowance from 1st January 2010."
46. Lord Knight said that his constituency office
consisted of two rented rooms at a cost of £565 per calendar
month, the combined area of which amounted to 370 square feet.
The Party rented the adjacent room, the area of which was 120
square feet, for £217 per calendar month. He added that May
(2010) had been "an unusual month" as it had
included a part of the election period when he had reduced the
amount of office space that he had rented "because the
Labour Party used a substantial part of the office space."
Lord Knight said that the Party now occupied a different room.
He paid a fee to the Party for office space and administrative
support. He said that he understood the risograph to be his property
as he had "paid a considerable amount of tax on it".
It was stored in the Party office.
47. Lord Knight said that the election material supplied
by the complainant was, as far as he knew, produced on
the risograph. He commented, "Different candidates fought
different campaigns in terms of the amount of literature produced
and I cannot be more precise I am afraid." He also said
that the nature of the agreement between himself and the South
Dorset Labour Party had allowed for them to use it for the 2008
local authority elections.
48. I replied to Lord Knight on 2 August.[71]
As regards the sharing agreement, I asked him whether what he
had sent me was the file copy of a formal written sharing agreement
drawn up (but not signed by him) in January 2008, or whether it
had been drafted by him earlier in 2010 to reflect, as he had
said in his letter of 29 July,[72]
his own understanding of the agreement as it was supposed to operate
between the two parties. I also asked him who else had signed
the agreement, and when they had done so.
49. As regards the survey letter which he had sent
out to constituents in the Park District, I asked Lord Knight
broadly how many copies of this letter had been printed using
the risograph, and whether the costs of the paper and Freepost
had come from his Communications Expenditure. As regards the arrangements
for accommodating the risograph, I pointed out that Lord Knight
had said in his letter of 4 June[73]
that the South Dorset Labour Party had accommodated the printer
and saved rent costs that he would have otherwise had to have
met, and that the risograph took up one third of the floor space
in the Labour Party's office. I asked him to clarify, in the light
of his statement that the Party's office had a floor area of 120
square feet, how the risograph could have extended for 40 square
feet.
50. Lord Knight replied on 9 August.[74]
As to the sharing agreement, Lord Knight said that he had "signed
a file copy of the written sharing agreement drawn up in January
2008 and signed by the Chair of South Dorset Constituency Labour
Party at the time." As to the survey letter, Lord Knight
said that around 200 copies had been printed on the risograph
and he reiterated that they had been distributed by his parliamentary
staff in their lunch break. Lord Knight said that the costs of
paper and Freepost had not been met from the Communications
Allowance, and that no claim had been made by him from that allowance
in this calendar year. He added, "It is worth pointing
out that using the risograph for reproduction was cheaper than
using other computer printers supplied by Parliament that need
expensive toner." As to the space occupied by the risograph
in the Party office, Lord Knight said that he had made a calculation
based on the published specification for the machine and reasonable
working space around the machine. Based on its dimensions
when in use, which Lord Knight said were a width of 1605mm, a
depth of 725mm, and a height of 730mm, he calculated that the
area used by the machine alone amounted to 12.72 square feet.
Lord Knight said that adding 18 inches at each end and three feet
in front for moving around, maintaining and feeding the machine
"the total is 40.92 square feet."
51. Having reviewed Lord Knight's evidence, I decided
I needed to seek advice from the Department of Resources. Accordingly,
I wrote on 10 August to the Director of Strategic Projects.[75]
I asked whether the Department had had any contact with Lord Knight
in relation to the purchase and deployment of his risograph. I
asked the Director for unredacted copies of Lord Knight's claims
in relation to the purchase of the risograph, the purchase of
the paper and ink for the machine, and the claim of 24 September
2009 for its maintenance. I asked whether the Department had received
a copy of the sharing agreement made in January 2008, and for
a copy if it had done so. I invited the Department's comments
on the maintenance claim which Lord Knight had accepted should
not have been made, and on the use of the risograph to produce
200 copies of Lord Knight's survey letter sent to constituents
in the Park District which had invited constituents to a public
meeting in January 2010. I invited the Department's comments on
the evidence as to the frequency of purchases by the Labour party
of ink, paper and masters for the party political use of the risograph
before 2009-10, and asked for the invoices provided by Lord Knight
showing purchases of ink and masters from the suppliers of the
risograph to be checked against Lord Knight's parliamentary claims
for these items. Finally, I asked the Director if the Department
was aware of any precedent for the sort of sharing agreement between
the Member and his party whereby Parliament met the full purchase
cost of the risograph and allowed use by the Party in return for
it being located in the party offices and the Party carrying the
responsibility for maintenance.
52. The Director of Strategic Projects replied on
6 September.[76] He said
that Lord Knight had submitted an invoice dated 22 January 2008,
for £7,279.11 in respect of the purchase of a two colour
system risograph. The payment schedule showed that £5,000
was to be paid immediately, with the remainder due on 1 April
2008.The initial sum had been paid to the supplier on 6 February
2008 from Lord Knight's 2007-2008 Communications Allowance, and
the balance on 30 April 2008 from his 2008-2009 Communications
Allowance. The Director said that the supplier had subsequently
provided ink cartridges and repair services that had been paid
for either from Lord Knight's Administrative and Office Expenditure/Incidental
Expenditure Provision (AOE/IEP) or from his Communications Expenditure/Communications
Allowance (CE/CA). The Department provided details of these payments,
supported in each case by an unredacted copy of the relevant claim,[77]
as summarised in the following table:
| Date of claim |
Date of invoice | Description
| Amount paid (£)
| Allowance charged
|
| 25 January 2008 | 22 January 2008
| Initial payment | 5,000
| Communications Allowance 2007-08
|
| 25 January 2008 | 22 January 2008
| Ink cartridges | 157
| Incidental Expenses Provision 2007-08
|
| 3 March 2008 | 3 March 2008
| Ink cartridges | 318
| Incidental Expenses Provision 2007-08
|
| 14 April 2008 | 9 April 2008
| Final payment | 2,284
| Communications Allowance 2008-09
|
| 12 December 2008 | 5 December 2008
| Ink cartridges | 301
| Incidental Expenses Provision 2008-09
|
| 24 September 2009 | 17 September 2009
| Maintenance | 341
| Administrative and Office Expenditure 2009-10
|
| 26 October 2009 | 23 October 2009
| Ink cartridges | 107
| Communications Expenditure 2009-10
|
| 18 November 2009 | 30 October 2009
| Paper[78]
| 107 | Communications Expenditure 2009-10
|
| 18 November 2009 | 6 November 2009
| Ink cartridges | 216
| Communications Expenditure 2009-10
|
| 27 November 2009 | 20 November 2009
| Ink cartridges | 118
| Communications Expenditure 2009-10
|
53. The Director said that there was no correspondence on file
to indicate that the Department had had any contact with Lord
Knight in relation to the purchase or deployment of the risograph,
nor in particular that it or its cost was to be shared with a
third party. The Department had no record of having received a
copy of the sharing agreement for the risograph made in January
2008, nor did it have any records of any credits or refunds to
the Allowances which would show that charges were being made by
Lord Knight to the Party for its use.
54. In relation to Lord Knight's acceptance that
the maintenance claim of September 2009 should not have been made,
the Director commented, "I would have thought that in
principle a proportion of the maintenance bill, proportionate
to the extent to which the machine had been used for parliamentary
purposes, would have been an allowable charge against the allowances.
The agreement dated 22nd January 2008 provides that the Labour
Party would meet maintenance costs in respect of the Party's use
of the machine." In relation to Lord Knight's acceptance
that the risograph should not have been used, in the light of
the Department's letter of 15 December 2009 about Communications
Expenditure, to produce the survey letter sent to constituents
in the Park District inviting them to a public meeting in January
2010, the Director commented, "I agree that the machine
should not have been so used, though I can understand why Lord
Knight may have misread the Department's letter."
55. The Director said that the Department had
no information as to how frequently the Labour Party had purchased
ink, paper and masters for the party political use of the risograph
before 2009-10. The Director commented that the invoices to the
Labour Party that Lord Knight had provided with his letters of
20 May[79] and
4 June[80] showing
purchases of ink and masters from the suppliers of the risograph
"do not appear to bear any relation to his parliamentary
claims for these items."
56. On the issue of a precedent for Lord Knight's
arrangement, the Director said that it was not unusual for
items of equipment to be shared with third parties, such as other
elected representatives, or constituency associations. He commented,
"However, the Department would have expected to see either
a formal agreement showing how the costs were to be split together
with an estimate of usage; or, if the arrangement was to be of
an ad hoc nature, to see periodic refunds based on actual
usage". The Director said that it was also acceptable
for equipment to be owned by local associations and/or landlords
who charged the Member for a share of the cost or actual costs
based on usage. However, he said that the Department was not aware
of any other example of an arrangement under which the Member
met one element of the cost and a third party met another. The
Director commented, "Such an arrangement would probably
have been regarded as acceptable, provided that the Member had
been able to demonstrate that the charges to be borne by parliamentary
expenses properly represented the share of the total annual charge
incurred for that use."
57. Having received the advice of the Department
of Resources, I wrote again to Lord Knight on 9 September.[81]
I said that it seemed from the claims forwarded by the Department
that during 2008 and 2009 Lord Knight had drawn on his parliamentary
allowances to meet all the invoices for the purchase and repair
of the risograph, and for ink and masters, with one exception.
This was contrary to the annotation of the list from the suppliers
which he had sent me on 9 July.[82]
I also said that, since the beginning of 2010, Lord Knight appeared
to have made no claims on parliamentary resources for supplies
for the risograph, that the costs for that period appeared therefore
to have been met from Party or other sources, and that there was
no evidence of how much paper had been used for the printing at
any period, how much it had cost, or who had paid. I invited
him to comment on any of these matters, and asked why the payments
for the risograph had been divided between January 2008 and April
2008.
58. Lord Knight replied on 22 September.[83]
He said that when he made the decision to purchase the risograph,
it had been on the basis that it would save money from the public
purse over time as he reduced the need to pay for commercial printing.
This, he said, had begun in 2009 when he produced localised versions
of his Annual Report which had previously been generic for the
whole constituency and cost considerably more. Lord Knight said
that in the previous year this had cost £2,550, compared
to a cost of less than £1,000 the following year. [84]
He had also paid tax on the purchase of the risograph at the time.
He continued, "However siting the machine meant either
renting more space or coming to some other arrangement. At this
stage I would agree that it would have been preferable to seek
advice from the Department for Resources over an arrangement whereby
a third party were permitted to use it in lieu of rent. However
I believe that I have demonstrated to you that the machine takes
up 40 square feet of space, for it to be operated effectively,
and this cost of £800 per annum was borne by the Labour Party."[85]
Lord Knight noted the comment in the letter from the Director
of Strategic Projects[86]
that "such an arrangement would probably have been regarded
as acceptable".
59. Lord Knight also noted the Director's comment
that "if the arrangement was to be of an ad-hoc nature,
[the Department would have expected] to see periodic refunds
based on actual usage." Lord Knight said that the arrangement
had been relatively ad-hoc given the uneven pattern of usage,
making an estimate for an agreement difficult. He said
that it might have been better for him to have paid South
Dorset Labour Party £800 per year in rent and then to have
charged for all usage and materials that would have been paid
to the Department in form of refunds. However, he was unclear
whether such refunds would have appeared as credits on the allowance
limit or how the usage would have been effectively audited, but
he agreed that he should have discussed this with the Department
of Resources. Lord Knight commented, "Nevertheless
I do not believe that the basis of the arrangement was wrong or
contrary to parliamentary rules. Indeed I remain of the view that
it was good value for money for the public purse whilst allowing
me to communicate more effectively with constituents. I have already
apologised to you that I didn't sign the agreement at the time,
an error that would have been avoided if it had been cleared with
the Department for Resources."
60. As to how the agreement had worked in practice,
Lord Knight commented, "It is now clear that I needed
to be more assiduous in monitoring this. The reality was that
I signed for claims submitted to me by staff for submission to
the Department. What I failed to do was check that South Dorset
Labour Party was also purchasing supplies and paying for maintenance
according to the agreement. I knew that some supplies were purchased
in April 2009 and could see their stock of paper and trusted that
they were fulfilling their part of the agreement." Lord
Knight said that the use of paper was "particularly difficult".
He continued, "I may be able to persuade the new Treasurer
of the constituency party to try to find records of invoices for
paper. I then wouldn't be able to separate off what paper was
used in the risograph from that used in their printers, much as
I have no way of showing how much of the paper I ordered using
allowances was used on the risograph or my computer printers.
I remain personally satisfied that paper was separately purchased
and stored."
61. Lord Knight said that he was now concerned to
ensure that any financial gain by the Labour Party, and consequent
loss to the Department, was rectified. He said that he calculated
the cost of supplies purchased by either party from the risograph
supplier as just under £1,500, and that he was very
happy to be guided by me as to what level of refund was appropriate
to the Department from the Labour Party to satisfy me that there
was no benefit to the Labour Party from the arrangement. Lord
Knight said that he had noted the comments of the Director of
Strategic Resources regarding the survey letter he had distributed
in the Park District in January 2010.[87]
He commented, "We are all agreed that the machine should
not have been used, even though in doing so I saved money."
62. Turning to the outstanding points from my letter,
Lord Knight said that until he had received the statements from
the risograph supplier it had been very difficult to be clear
who had ordered what from them. He continued, "Having
checked through my allowances claims I then assumed that all claims
that I couldn't trace were paid by South Dorset Labour Party.
Unfortunately when I originally did this I missed the claim on
the IEP on 3 March 2008 for which I apologise. I have now re-checked
and confirm that the costs up to 2010 were met from my allowances,
with the exception of the invoice of 30 March 2009 for £106.15
which was paid by South Dorset Labour Party." Lord Knight
also confirmed that he had not made any claim for 2010 for supplies
to the machine. In response to my request for clarification on
why the payment for the capital cost of the machine had been split
across two financial years, Lord Knight said that this was simply
to avoid exceeding the allowance limit.
63. In conclusion, Lord Knight commented, "I
hope that this answers all the outstanding questions and I look
forward to the resolution of this matter. I would stress that
whilst I have made some administrative errors, for which I have
apologised, at no point have [I] sought to be anything
but honest and open with you and that no aspect of this matter
has led to any personal gain."
64. I replied to Lord Knight on 27 September.[88]
I sought to confirm the basis on which he had estimated the cost
of accommodating the risograph in the Party's office at £800
per annum, and asked Lord Knight how he had arrived at the figure
of £1,500 for the total costs of supplies for the machine
from the supply company. Lord Knight replied on 12 October.[89]
He confirmed that he had calculated the cost of accommodating
the risograph on the basis that a third of the rental cost of
the room was appropriate as it occupied a third of the space.
He said that he had calculated the cost of supplies based on the
print outs from the supplier which he had previously sent me,
and included a summary of costs which included the itemised costs
of all ink, masters (including those purchased by the Party) and
maintenance.[90] Lord
Knight commented that, from the summary, "it can be seen
that up to the end of 2009 the cost of ink and masters, i.e. supplies,
is £1,434.94".[91]
As some of the information Lord Knight had given in his letter
differed from what he had previously given, I wrote to him again
on 14 October to resolve the discrepancies.[92]
I also asked Lord Knight, having checked his calculations of the
cost of ink and masters up to the end of 2009 against the information
he had already provided, if he accepted that these costs, with
the exception of the duplicator masters purchased on 30 March
2009, had been met through his claims on parliamentary resources
and that, apart from this one purchase, the costs of all the supplies
(ink and masters) which had been used up to the end of 2009 both
by himself as a Member of Parliament and by the South Dorset Labour
Party had been met from his parliamentary allowances. Lord Knight
replied on 19 October.[93]
He resolved the outstanding discrepancies, and reiterated that
the assumption was correct that up until the end of 2009 the one
invoice paid by the Labour Party would appear to be that dated
30 March 2009.
Findings of Fact
65. Lord Knight purchased a risograph in January
2008, at a cost of £7,279 in his then capacity as the Member
for South Dorset. He funded the purchase entirely from his Communications
Allowance. He paid £5,000 of the cost in January 2008 from
his 2007-08 Allowance, and the balance in April 2008 from his
2008-09 Allowance. Payment was made in two instalments to avoid
exceeding Lord Knight's allowance limit in the year of purchase.
Lord Knight's evidence is that his purpose in purchasing the risograph
was to save money by reducing the need to pay for commercial printing
of communications with his constituents.
66. Lord Knight's evidence is that the risograph
was too large to fit into the constituency office space he rented.
This amounted to 370 square feet. The South Dorset Labour Party
rented an adjacent 120 square foot office in the same building.
Rather than incur the additional cost of renting more space,
Lord Knight reached agreement with the South Dorset Labour Party
to locate the machine in their office. A written agreement between
himself and the Party was drawn up at the time.
67. Under the terms of the agreement, Lord Knight
paid no rent to the Party for siting the machine in the Party
office, but in exchange allowed them to have full use of the risograph.
The agreement provided for Lord Knight to have access to the machine
as and when required by him. It also provided for the Party to
cover all maintenance costs, and all liabilities in relation to
their use of the printer, including ink and paper. Lord Knight's
evidence is that the arrangement had been relatively ad hoc,
and the pattern of usage by the party uneven.
68. Lord Knight's evidence is that although the agreement
had been drawn up and signed by the Party Chair in January 2008,
he did not himself sign it at the time. He had in fact signed
it and backdated his signature when he found the file copy in
June 2010. His evidence is that he had signed it before sending
it to me not with any intention to mislead, but merely for the
sake of completeness. Lord Knight has apologised unreservedly
for what he accepts was a serious error of judgement.
69. Lord Knight's evidence is that the risograph
physically occupied nearly 13 square feet of floorspace in the
Party office, and when in use required about 41 square feet of
space overall, when allowance was made for reasonable working
space around the machine. On the basis that the space required
by the risograph when in use amounted to about one third of the
overall area of the Party office, Lord Knight believed that it
was reasonable to attribute the corresponding proportion of the
rent paid by the Party for that office to the cost of accommodating
his machine. On this basis, Lord Knight initially estimated the
cost to the Party of providing the space necessary for accommodating
the machine while in use as £974 per annum. He later reduced
this to £800 per annum.
70. Lord Knight has neither at the time of drawing
up the agreement nor subsequently discussed the arrangement with
the Department of Resources.
71. Lord Knight used the risograph to produce his
2009 Annual Report, for localised newsletters or information sheets,
including fact sheets on areas of policy of interest to his constituents,
and for notices of public meetings. He experienced some difficulty
in providing all the information I required as regards copies
of his own communications because he had lost his seat in the
May 2010 General Election, and the records on his parliamentary
computers had been wiped, thus destroying his records of such
documents.
72. One of the documents produced by Lord Knight
on the risograph was a newsletter he sent out to all residents
in the Park District in January 2010. Lord Knight's evidence is
that around 200 copies were printed, but the paper and distribution
costs, and the cost of the Freepost response, were not met from
his Communications Expenditure. Lord Knight accepts, however,
that it was an oversight on his part to have produced the newsletter
on the risograph, even though he believes that in doing so he
saved money, as this had involved utilising, after 1 January 2010,
resources acquired from the Communications Expenditure, contrary
to the new restrictions on the use of this Expenditure which applied
from that date. Lord Knight had done so believing that these restrictions
applied only to the acquisition of new resources or the use of
the Communications Expenditure allowance after that date.
73. Lord Knight's evidence is that, as far he knows,
all the election material supplied by the complainant had been
produced on the risograph, but he could not be more precise about
the overall amount of such literature that had been produced.
The nature of the agreement had allowed the Party to use the risograph
for the 2008 local authority elections.
74. The risograph does not have a meter that counts
the documents produced, so it is not possible to determine on
this basis the respective number of pages printed by Lord Knight
for parliamentary purposes, and by the Party. Lord Knight's estimates,
based on discussions with staff who used the machine, and computer
records available at the time, are set out in the table below.
| Year | Percentage use
|
| Parliamentary
| Party |
| 2008 | 40
| 60 |
| 2009 | 70
| 30 |
| 2010 (to date of election)
| 50 | 50
|
75. Account print-outs from the risograph supplier covering the
period from its purchase in January 2008 to June 2010 show ten
separate purchases of ink and duplicator masters, and one payment
for repairs. The nine transactions made before 31 December 2009,
after which the risograph could not be used for parliamentary
purposes, are summarised in the following table.
| Date of purchase
| Nature of purchase
| Paid from allowances (£)
| Paid by Party (£)
|
| Ink
| Duplicator masters (£)
| Repairs (£)
| | |
| 22 January 2008 | 157
| | | 157
| |
| 3 March 2008 | 318
| | | 318
| |
| 5 December 2008 | 301
| | | 301
| |
| 30 March 2009 |
| 106 | |
| 106 |
| 17 September 2009 |
| | 341 |
341 | |
| 23 October 2009 | 107
| | | 107
| |
| 30 October 2009 |
| 107 | |
107 | |
| 6 November 2009 | 216
| | | 216
| |
| 20 November 2009 | 118
| | | 118
| |
| TOTAL TO 31 DECEMBER 2009
| 1217 | 213
| 341 | 1,665
| 106 |
76. Both Lord Knight's attributions and the figures provided by
the Department of Resources show that up to the end of 2009, with
the exception of one purchase of duplicator masters made on 30
March 2009, the cost of all purchases of ink and masters for the
risograph, and of repairs, had been met from Lord Knight's parliamentary
allowances. Lord Knight has acknowledged that the claim he made
in September 2009 for repair costs of £341 was made in error,
as under the terms of his agreement with the Party it should have
met these. He has apologised for this. He has also apologised
for initially attributing to the Party the ink purchase made on
3 March 2008 and paid for from his allowances. Overall, therefore,
up to 31 December 2009, the total cost of the ink, masters and
copies for the machine was £1,771, of which the Labour Party
paid £106. The rest (£1,665) was met from Lord Knight's
parliamentary allowances.
77. The evidence of the Department of Resources is
that it is not unusual for equipment to be shared with third parties,
but it would have expected to have seen either a formal agreement
showing how the costs were to be split together with an estimate
of usage or, for ad hoc arrangements, periodic refunds
based on usage. It is not aware of any other example of an arrangement
under which the Member met one element of the cost and a third
party met another, but the Department advises that such an arrangement
would probably have been regarded as acceptable by them, provided
the Member was able to demonstrate that the charges to be borne
by parliamentary expenses properly represented the share of the
total annual charge incurred for parliamentary use. The Department
has no record of having received a copy of the sharing agreement
between Lord Knight and the South Dorset Labour Party or of any
credits or refunds to the allowances which would show that charges
were being made by Lord Knight for the use of the risograph. It
considers that in principle, a proportion of the maintenance bill,
proportionate to the extent to which the risograph was used for
parliamentary purposes, would have been an allowable charge against
parliamentary allowances. It agrees that the risograph should
not have been used to produce Lord Knight's Park District newsletter
in January 2010.
78. Lord Knight's view is that, at all times, his
intentions regarding the purchase and use of the risograph were
to communicate effectively as a Member with his constituents and
to minimise expense for the taxpayer. Its use enabled him to reduce
his use of commercial printers for parliamentary purposes, and
thus the cost of such printing. He believes that the purchase
was, on these grounds, a reasonable investment. By locating the
risograph in the adjacent party office because his own constituency
offices were too small to accommodate it, he had avoided additional
rent costs. He considers that, as long as the Party use was proportionate,
the agreement represented good value for money. Lord Knight's
initial evidence was that all the production costs of Party literature
produced on the risograph, including all ink and paper, had been
funded entirely by the South Dorset Labour Party, and that the
Party had met all maintenance costs for the risograph. However,
he now accepts that up to the end of 2009 all repair costs, and
all costs for ink and duplicator masters, with the exception of
the duplicator masters purchased on 30 March 2009, had in fact
been met by him through his claims on parliamentary resources.
He is satisfied that South Dorset Labour Party provided the paper
it used in the risograph from its own resources.
79. Lord Knight has undertaken to repay any of his
claims in order to give confidence that allowances have not been
used inappropriately. Lord Knight accepts that it would have been
preferable to have sought advice from the Department over the
arrangement. He recognises that he should have been more assiduous
in monitoring how the agreement between himself and the Party
was working in practice, and accepts that he had failed to check
that South Dorset Labour Party was also purchasing supplies and
paying for maintenance according to the agreement. Lord Knight
accepts that he has made some administrative errors, for which
he has apologised, but believes that he has at no point sought
to be anything but honest and open with me, and that no aspect
of the matter has led to any personal gain. Lord Knight does not
believe that the basis of the arrangement was wrong or contrary
to Parliamentary rules, and remains of the view that the arrangement
was good value for money for the public purse while allowing him
to communicate more effectively with his constituents.
Conclusions
80. The matter I am to resolve is whether Lord Knight's
claims against parliamentary allowances for the purchase and use
of a risograph when he was the Member for South Dorset subsidised
the costs of the South Dorset Labour Party in the arrangements
made with them for the use of that machine. If there were such
a subsidy, Lord Knight would at the time have been in breach of
the rules of the House of Commons for having funded from parliamentary
allowances expenditure which was not wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred on his parliamentary duties, namely expenditure on party
political activities.
81. In resolving this matter, I have considered two
questions:
i) Was there a subsidy to the Labour Party from
the arrangements for the purchase and room rent of the machine?
ii) Was there a subsidy to the Labour Party from
the use of the supplies for the machine?
82. Before addressing these questions, there was
an ancillary issue which arose in the course of this inquiry.
This was Lord Knight's use of the risograph (but, on his evidence,
not parliamentary funded paper) to produce a letter to some 200
constituents after the prohibition on such use of the Communications
Expenditure had come into force on 1 January 2010. Lord Knight
has accepted that he was in breach of the rules in using the risograph
for this purpose. I agree.
Was there a subsidy to the Labour Party from the
arrangements for the purchase and room rent of the machine?
83. The Labour Party met none of the costs of buying
the machine, which were £7,279. But the machine was located
in the Labour Party office and Lord Knight's argument is that
the notional rental cost, which he put at £800 a year, offset
the purchase cost of the machine.
84. This was an unusual arrangement. As such, as
Lord Knight has fairly accepted, it would have been wise of him
to have checked the arrangement with the Department of Resources.
The Department's evidence suggests that, while it might have been
acceptable, they would have wanted a good deal more formality
around the way it operated.
85. There is no substantive evidence about the extent
to which the machine was used by Lord Knight as part of his parliamentary
duties, and by the Labour Party for its party political activities.
Lord Knight has given proportionate estimates for each of three
years, varying from a 60:40 split in the Party's favour to a 70:30
split with the Party in the minority. But these are no more than
judgements made by Lord Knight after what he told me were discussions
with staff and checking computer records which are no longer available.
And, since he should not have been using the risograph to communicate
with his constituents after 1 January 2010 (and his evidence is
that he did so only to send out the 200 letters referred to in
paragraph 82) the accuracy of the 50:50 split which he estimated
for 2010 up to the Dissolution of Parliament seems doubtful.
86. Nevertheless, in the light of the evidence I
have received, I think that it would be reasonable to conclude
that, at the time of purchase, the use of the risograph might
have been expected over time to have evened out at about 50:50.
So half the purchase price of the machine could reasonably have
been assigned to the Labour Party. And, if there were assumed
rental costs, half of the notional rent should have been assigned
to Lord Knight. This should then have been checked against actual
use. But on this basis, the Labour Party would, in effect, have
owed Lord Knight and his parliamentary account £3,640 for
the cost of purchasing the machine. Accepting Lord Knight's calculation
of a notional rent of £400 (a half share of the full notional
rent), that would have meant that the rental cost would have paid
off the Labour Party's share of the purchase cost in nine years.
That makes no allowance, of course, for rental increases, just
as it makes no assumption for interest on the outstanding balance
of the purchase price attributable to the Labour Party.
87. I consider this a bad deal. Even were the Labour
Party to have paid off the price in half the time, it would still
have been a questionable deal. When the risograph was purchased,
Lord Knight would have known that the General Election was, at
best, just over two years away. There was no assurance that he
would be returned to Parliament (as, in the event, he was not).
And, of course, by the risograph being in their office and not
in his, the Labour Party had the benefit of direct access to it.
88. I have made no assessment of whether the purchase
and use of the risograph represented good value for money in
Lord Knight's parliamentary communications, as this was not the
subject of the complaint. I note that Lord Knight believes that
it was, but his comparison between the cost of producing his Annual
Report on the risograph in 2009 and using a commercial printer
in 2007 takes no account, of course, of the capital cost of the
machine.
89. I conclude that the arrangements for the purchase
and location of the risograph provided bad value for money for
the public purse. And they had the effect of providing a benefit
arising from parliamentary resources to a political party. The
use of those resources was not, therefore, wholly, necessarily
and exclusively incurred for parliamentary purposes, since this
subsidised the South Dorset Labour Party's political activities.
I conclude, therefore, that Lord Knight, while a Member of the
House of Commons, was in breach of the rules of the House in the
arrangements he made with the South Dorset Labour Party for the
purchase and location of this machine.
Was there a subsidy to the Labour Party from the
use of the supplies for the machine?
90. The machine had one maintenance session costing
£341 and used supplies of ink cartridges, duplicate masters
and unspecified amounts of paper. The total cost of supplies and
maintenance from January 2008, when the machine was purchased,
to the end of December 2009, after which the Communications Expenditure
could no longer be used for Members' communications, was £1,771,
of which the South Dorset Labour Party met £106.
91. There are no reliable records of how much paper
was used in the risograph either by Lord Knight or by the Labour
Party. I accept Lord Knight's evidence that the risograph had
no meter, and, even if the cost of paper used by the party and
himself could be fully identified, it is not at this remove possible
to identify which pieces of paper were used in the risograph and
which elsewhere. On this basis, I think it is reasonable for me
to accept Lord Knight's assurances that each user had its own
supplies of paper and used them as required in the risograph.
92. There is better evidence, however, about who
paid for the ink, the duplicator masters, and for maintenance.
With the exception of £106 spent by the Labour Party on duplicator
masters in March 2009, the evidence suggests that the remaining
duplicator masters, all the ink and (contrary to the terms of
the sharing agreement) the maintenance bill were met in full from
parliamentary resources. The total cost thus met from parliamentary
resources from January 2008 to November 2009 was £1,665.
93. The evidence suggests, therefore, that there
was not an equitable split between Lord Knight and the South Dorset
Labour Party in funding the ink and associated costs, including
maintenance, for the machine. A 50/50 split might have been more
reasonable (including the maintenance cost, which, since it was
met from parliamentary allowances, I have not taken into account
in assessing the share of the costs of the purchase and storage
of the machine). I conclude, therefore, that Lord Knight, while
a Member of the House of Commons, was in breach of the rules of
the House because his claims for ink, maintenance and duplicator
masters for his risograph met some of the supply costs of the
Labour Party for their use of the machine. Parliamentary resources
were therefore used for costs which were not wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties, namely in support
of the South Dorset Labour Party's political activities.
Overall conclusion
94. This inquiry has unavoidably been hampered by
the paucity of evidence on both the use of the machine and on
the source of its supplies, in particular the paper it used. I
am satisfied that Lord Knight has made every effort to identify
relevant evidence and to help me with this inquiry, and I am grateful
for his efforts. Nevertheless, the lack of reliable evidence is,
I believe, symptomatic of an arrangement which allowed the South
Dorset Labour Party to have free access to a risograph purchased
solely from parliamentary resources without much more careful
arrangements, both to justify the allocation of the purchase and
storage costs, and to account for its use. Where facilities are
shared between a Member and his or her political party, very great
care needs to be taken that the way these shared resources are
used can be fully accounted for. That is not the position in this
case.
95. I agree with Lord Knight that it was also a serious
misjudgement on his part to have signed in June 2010 the January
2008 sharing agreement before sending it to me. I have accepted
his evidence that the agreement I saw was the original agreement
drawn up in January 2008 and it is difficult to see what benefit
there was to him in adding his signature to it before he sent
it to me. He has unreservedly apologized for this misjudgement.
96. I consider that it would have been a serious
matter if Lord Knight had intended to provide a significant benefit
to the South Dorset Labour Party through the use of this risograph.
While I have found that there was such a benefit, I have no evidence
to suggest that this was a calculated action on Lord Knight's
part. All the evidence points to it being acts of carelessness.
Lord Knight appears not to have recognised the importance of delineating
more clearly parliamentary and political duties. And, perhaps
as a result, he did not ensure that he could account for and fully
justify the way that those shared resources were used. It is,
I believe, to Lord Knight's credit that he had apologised for
the laxness of the arrangements and has offered to repay in full
any sums which are deemed as a result of this inquiry to have
been for costs claimed from parliamentary resources which should
more properly have fallen to the Labour Party.
97. My conclusion, therefore, is that Lord Knight
was in breach of the rules of the House in the arrangements he
made with the South Dorset Labour Party, when he was the Member
for South Dorset, for the purchase and storage of a risograph
machine, and he was in breach of the rules of the House in that
some of the supplies used by the Labour Party for that machine
were funded from parliamentary resources. He was also in breach
of the rules in sending out the invitation to 200 of his constituents
in January 2010 using equipment funded from his Communications
Expenditure. In considering this conclusion, the Committee will
wish to take account of Lord Knight's offer to repay any sums
which this inquiry has found were wrongly claimed.
8 November 2010 John Lyon CB
32 A type of digital high speed printer. Back
33
WE 1 Back
34
Not included in the written evidence. Mr Bruce had previously
sent me a copy of a similar return for a candidate in the May
2009 county council elections. Back
35
Not included in the written evidence Back
36
One of these letters was identical in content to a letter Mr Bruce
had previously sent me as an example of material alleged to have
been printed on Mr Knight's risograph. Back
37
Not included in the written evidence. See footnote 3. Back
38
Not included in the written evidence Back
39
Not included in the written evidence. See paragraph 2 above. Back
40
WE 2 Back
41
I informed Mr Bruce that this was because he had not provided
me with sufficient evidence in these cases of alleged misuse of
parliamentary resources for party political purposes. Back
42
These comprised three letters to named electors, a polling day
letter, an eve of polling day card, and a Spring 2009 Labour Party
newsletter. Back
43
See paragraph 4 above. Back
44
WE 3 Back
45
Not included in the written evidence. Mr Knight sent me four separate
versions of his 2009 Annual Report.. These were addressed to Portland,
Rural Purbeck, Swanage and Weymouth respectively, were all in
the same format, and had similar content, apart from the lead
story on the first page, which was specific to the area concerned. Back
46
Not included in the written evidence Back
47
A manuscript note on the statement said that one set of document
masters had been "sent in error" and that their
collection was awaited. The price of these was £159, which
is included in the overall cost given above. Back
48
The complainant had submitted a total of six documents. See
also paragraph 2 and footnotes 5 and 11. Back
49
WE 4 Back
50
WE 5. The copy of the reply supplied by Mr Knight was undated. Back
51
WE 6 Back
52
WE 7 Back
53
WE 8 Back
54
Not included in the written evidence. These invoices are summarised
at WE 9. Back
55
WE 10 Back
56
Not included in the written evidence. The contents are summarised
at paragraph 28 above. Back
57
The sixth document the complainant had submitted was a Labour
Party newsletter of Spring 2009. Back
58
Lord Knight was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 June 2010. Back
59
WE 11 Back
60
Not included in the written evidence. A summary of the purchases
shown on the print outs is given in WE 12. Back
61
Not included in the written evidence Back
62
See WE 20 and paragraph 62 below. Back
63
See also paragraph 37 below. Back
64
In his annotations on the print-outs, Lord Knight had attributed
to his allowances purchases of ink and masters totalling £1,006. Back
65
The figure given by Lord Knight of £1,124 includes the £318
purchase made on 3 March 2008 which he subsequently re-attributed
to allowances, and £700 of purchases made after 1 January
2010. Total purchases attributable to South Dorset Labour Party
in 2008 and 2009 amount to £106. Back
66
WE 10 Back
67
WE 13 Back
68
On 15 December 2009, the Department of Resources had sent a letter
to all Members setting out restrictions on the use of Communications
Expenditure, effective from 1 January 2010. The relevant restriction
in this case is set out at paragraph 14 above.
Back
69
WE 10 Back
70
WE 14 Back
71
WE 15 Back
72
WE 14 Back
73
WE 9 Back
74
WE 16 Back
75
WE 17 Back
76
WE 18 Back
77
Not included in the written evidence Back
78
A manuscript annotation on the invoice describes the purchase
as 'paper'. The printed invoice itself refers to 'masters'. Back
79
WE 4 Back
80
WE 7 Back
81
WE 19 Back
82
WE 12 Back
83
WE 20 Back
84
The previous year referred to was 2007. The following year referred
to was 2009. See WE 7. Back
85
Lord Knight had previously said that the cost to the Party of
accommodating the risograph, based on a cost to the Party for
the office of £2,921 per annum and the machine occupying
33% of the office, was £974 - see paragraph 30 above. On
29 July, Lord Knight said that the rent paid by the Party was
£217 per calendar month - see paragraph 46 above. On the
basis that the machine when in use occupies 40 square feet of
the 120 square foot Party office, the cost on a pro rata
basis would be £868 per annum. Lord Knight rounded
this figure to £800. Back
86
WE 18 Back
87
WE 18 Back
88
WE 21 Back
89
WE 22 Back
90
See paragraph 36 above and WE 12 Back
91
Lord Knight subsequently accepted that he had overstated one component
of this figure by £4.95. This reduces the total to £1,430. Back
92
WE 23 and 24 Back
93
WE 25 Back
| 
