Appendix 2: Response to the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards' Memorandum from Rt hon Lord Knight
of Weymouth, 14 November 2010
I am grateful to the Clerk to the Committee for supplying
a copy of the memorandum on a confidential basis, and for giving
me the opportunity to submit evidence to the committee.
I am also grateful to the Commissioner for Standards
for sharing with me a copy of the factual elements of his report
before submitting his memorandum. That allowed me to agree the
vast majority of the content of the report. My comments are therefore
on the Conclusions (p34-39).
First, with reference to para 82, I unreservedly
repeat my apology for the breach of the rules in respect of the
use of Communications Expenditure at the turn of the year. This
was inadvertent and, as the Director of Resources comments in
his letter to the Commissioner, was due to an understandable misreading
of the Department's letter. I am also confident that it did not
result in any political advantage.
The more substantive questions addressed by the Commissioner
are whether there was a subsidy to the Labour Party.
In respect of supplies for the machine, it is clear
that I should have required a more careful monitoring of the Labour
Party's purchase of supplies so that as I approved claims for
my use that I knew they were being matched by Labour Party expenditure.
I have to take responsibility for that and apologise for the
carelessness in not securing agreement from the Department for
Resources and then not monitoring the agreement I had reached.
The total of supplies met from Parliamentary resources
from January 2008 to the end of 2009 was £1,665. The Labour
Party paid for £106 worth of supplies. The total cost of
supplies used is therefore £1,771.
I maintain my view that Parliamentary use of the
machine was greater than Labour Party use since I started producing
Annual Reports using the printer. This is reflected in the surge
of use of consumables in the autumn of 2009. Nevertheless I remain
committed to ensuring that Parliament is reimbursed with whatever
proportion of this total the committee sees fit. If they agree
with the Commissioner that 50:50 is a fair split then the repayment
would be £779 (£1771 x 50% less the £106 already
paid).
Let me then address the questions as to whether a
subsidy was gained by the Labour Party from the arrangements for
the purchase and room rent of the machine.
I disagree with the Commissioner that this was a
bad deal (para 87). The arrangement that the Director of Resources
says "would probably have been regarded as acceptable"
is the deal that should be judged.
The machine was purchased for £7279 for my communication
with constituents. I personally paid around £1500 tax on
the purchase but viewed it is a good investment because of the
savings I could make in the use of commercial printers and the
ability for me to communicate more regularly with constituents.
I gave the example of the saving of £1,254 in using the
machine for my annual report in 2009 over the 2008 cost. My estimate
is an annual saving of £1500-£2000 per year, with the
cost being recouped over four years.
However this saving would have been reduced if I
had to incur the extra cost of renting space to house the machine.
This would have been at least £800 on a square footage basis,
but would in reality be more because the offices available did
not include an office of exactly the right size. The annual
saving would then have reduced to £700-£1200 per year,
resulting in a payback period of around 8 years and my deciding
not to proceed.
The deal with the Labour Party meant the machine
was affordable and then reduced pressure on my communications
allowance, as demonstrated by the total claimed from that allowance
reducing from £10,007 in 2008/9 to £3,340.43 in 2009/10.
By incurring £800 worth of additional cost the
Labour Party would have effectively paid for 50% of the cost,
ignoring any depreciation, after four and a half years. Again,
I remain of the view that this was reasonable and a good attempt
to provide value for money to the taxpayer for the use of the
Communications Allowance.
I am grateful for the Commissioner's conclusion in
para 96 that "all the evidence points to it being acts of
carelessness". I repeat my apology for this carelessness
in respect of these arrangements and my offer to ensure that Parliament
is reimbursed as appropriate.
| 
