6. Letter to the Commissioner from
Ms Alison Seabeck MP, 1 December 2010
Thank you for your letter of the 30th November inviting
my input to your investigation into the complaint by Guy Opperman
MP. I am grateful for the enclosed information and the opportunity
to respond.
I am sorry to say that Mr Opperman, who to the best
of my knowledge was not in the chamber on 19th November, has not
had the courtesy to speak to me directly about his concerns and
I first learned of his complaint when contacted by the Sunday
Times.
I feel it would be helpful if I were to set out,
to you, the nature of my relationship with Mr Raynsford. I am
not Mr Raynsford's wife, I do not have a joint bank account with
Mr Raynsford and our sole shared asset is our flat in Greenwich.
I accept that, as my partner, Mr Raynsford's outside
interests are, potentially, of interest given my role as my party's
spokeswoman for Housing. For this reason I spoke, at length, with
[the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests], in your office,
on taking up this role to clarify my responsibilities and to ensure
that I acted in compliance with the Code of Conduct.
In these verbal conversations with [the Registrar
of Members' Financial Interests], I specifically asked whether
I ought to put a note in my entry in the Members' Register of
Interest, which would draw attention to the interests registered
by Mr Raynsford. I was told that this was not necessary and that
there was also no need to direct Members to Mr Raynsford's interests
when I speak in the House. In light of Mr Opperman's complaint
I would welcome written confirmation that the advice that was
provided to me by your office was correct.
Due to my desire to be very clear about any potential
conflict, I have also sought written advice from [the Registrar
of Members' Financial Interests] on registering or declaring interests
with regard to two specific APPGs[107]
on 8th June and the 19th November and I followed the advice that
I was given by your office.
In the debate of the 19th November I made two interventions.
I was aware that the Fire Commission had not been able to secure
a meeting with the Minister. In my first intervention I listed
organisations, as you will see from Hansard, in a very general
way.
My second intervention, later in the debate, was
specific only to the Fire Commission. I was aware that to mention
the FPA at this juncture and in this context could be wrong.
As Hansard shows, and contrary to the allegations
made in the Sunday Times,
at no time did I ask the Minister whether he would meet with the
FPA.
It was my understanding that using general lists
would not constitute a conflict of interest but I would welcome
your advice on this.
I have always sought to act fully in line with the
Members' Code of Conduct and have both sought and followed advice
given to me by members of your office when fulfilling my duties
in the House.
As I have stated, I would really appreciate your
advice on this not least because I have a complex Bill to work
on soon and I need to be very clear exactly what statements I
ought to make at the start of it, in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
1 December 2010
107 All-Party Parliamentary Groups Back
| 
