3 Inquiries Into Members' Conduct
Overview
3.1 In the year beginning 1 April 2011 I received
109 formal complaints or allegations against 93 Members and former
Members.[7] This was slightly
fewer than in the previous year. While most of these complaints
fell outside my remit, and others could not have constituted a
breach of the rules, I accepted eight complaints for inquiry.
[8]
3.2 In the course of the reporting year, I concluded
work on 12 complaints or allegations including six carried forward
from the previous year. The twelve complaints included two inquiries
which, with the agreement of the Committee, I closed following
the conclusion of court proceedings and one which I closed on
medical grounds. None of these three Members was still a Member
of the House and each of the inquiries had been subject to a considerable
period of suspension. I reached conclusions, therefore, on nine
inquiries. At the end of the year I carried forward to 2012-13
two inquiries which were active, and two which remained suspended.[9]
Complaints received and considered
in 2011-12
3.3 I carefully considered each of the 109 complaints
I received in 2011-12 to see whether they came within my remit
and if so if the complainant had provided sufficient evidence
to justify me initiating an inquiry. Each complainant received
a response from me or my office and almost all of these responses
were issued within five working days of receipt of the complaint.
3.4 Under the procedures agreed by the Committee
on Standards and Privileges, I do not accept complaints unless
they are signed and in hard copy. In addition to these formal
complaints which I record in my statistics, my office receives
each year a number of complaints by fax or e-mail. In the last
year this amounted to just over a hundred. Each received a substantive
response, usually within five working days of receipt. When the
subject matter of these complaints appears to come within my remit,
my office invites the complainant to submit their complaint formally
in writing with their evidence so that I can consider them further.
Those which were so submitted are recorded among the 109 formal
complaints I received.
3.5 Table 1 sets out on a quarterly basis the number
of complaints accepted during the year and the number not accepted
for inquiry, with reasons. As in previous years, the largest category
of those I was unable to accept were where the complaint fell
outside my remit. Under the provisions agreed by the House, my
remit does not include a Member's handling of or decision about
an individual case (whether or not the individual is a constituent
of the Member), the expression of a Member's views or opinions,
or policy matters. Complaints on these matters formed a substantial
proportion, almost 75%, of the formal complaints I received.
TABLE 1: COMPLAINTS CONSIDERED IN
2011-2012
| Quarter 1
Apr-June 2011
| Quarter 2
Jul-Sept 2011
| Quarter 3
Oct-Dec 2011
| Quarter 4
Jan-Mar 2012
| Total
|
| 1.Formal complaints received
| 23 |
16 | 36
| 34 |
109 |
| 2. Complaints subject of inquiry:
|
| (a) Complaints under inquiry and brought forward from 2010-11
| - |
- | -
| - |
4 |
| (b) New complaints accepted for inquiry
| 0 |
0 | 6
| 2 |
8 |
| (c) Inquiries suspended at quarter end
| 31
| 3 |
2 | 2
| |
| 3. Complaints not inquired into:
|
| (a) because complaint fell outside remit
| 18 |
15 | 14
| 342
| 81 |
| (b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules
| 4 |
1 | 10
| 0 |
15 |
| (c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided
| 0 |
0 | 2
| 0 |
2 |
| (d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted
| 1 |
0 | 1
| 0 |
2 |
| (e) because inquiry not justified following self-referral
| 0 |
0 | 1
| 0 |
1 |
| Total complaints not inquired into
| 23 |
16 | 28
| 34 |
101 |
Note 1: One further suspended inquiry was brought
forward from 2010-11 and closed in the first quarter
Note 2: Two of these complaints were received
in Quarter 3.
Self referrals
3.6 One Member referred himself to me for inquiry
in 2011-12. Under the procedures agreed by the House, I may only
accept a self-referral in exceptional circumstances and with the
agreement of the Committee. I did not consider that the matter
referred to me by the Member, involving a late registration, met
that threshold. I did, however, subsequently receive a complaint
about the same matter which I was able to accept and resolve.
One of the four cases I brought forward from 2010-11, and concluded
in 2011-12, was a self-referral.
Suspended inquiries
3.7 I brought forward from 2010-11 four suspended
inquiries. During 2011-12 I closed two of these. I carried into
2012-13 two cases which had been suspended: one on account of
criminal proceedings; and the other on account of possible criminal
proceedings.
Complaints inquired into and
resolved in 2011-12
3.8 Table 2 sets out on a quarterly basis the numbers
of complaints which I concluded during the year and how they were
resolved. Of the nine complaints on which I concluded inquiries,
in all but one I upheld the complaint in whole or in part, or
identified and resolved a related breach. I did not uphold the
remaining complaint.
TABLE 2: COMPLAINTS RESOLVED IN
2011-12
| Quarter 1
Apr-June 2011
| Quarter 2
Jul-Sept 2011
| Quarter 3
Oct-Dec 2011
| Quarter 4
Jan-Mar 2012
| Total
|
| 1. Complaints upheld:
|
| (a) resolved through the rectification procedure
| 0 | 11
| 1 | 2
| 4 |
| (b) subject of a memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges5
| 1 | 1
| 0 | 2
| 4 |
| Total complaints upheld
| 1 | 2
| 1 | 4
| 8 |
| 2. Complaints not upheld:
|
| (a) without a formal report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
| 1 |
| (b) subject of a memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges5
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
| Total complaints not upheld
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
| 1 |
| 3. Other complaints submitted to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
|
| (a) Consideration of memorandum postponed because of possible criminal proceedings2
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 0
| 0 |
| (b) Inquiry closed |
23 | 0
| 14 | 0
| 3 |
| | |
| | |
| Total complaints inquired into and resolved
| 3 | 2
| 2 | 5
| 12 |
Note 1: In this case the complaint was not upheld
but other matters were rectified.
Note 2: Consideration of one memorandum submitted
to the Committee in 2010-11 remains postponed.
Note 3: Following the conclusion of court proceedings—both
had been subject to a period of suspension, one from 2009-10 to
2011-12 and the other from 2009-10 to 2010-11
Note 4: Following suspension on medical grounds.
Note 5: Where complaints are submitted to the
Committee, these are recorded as concluded on the date when the
Committee publishes its report on the case.
Complaints not inquired into
3.9 It is in the nature of most complaints systems
that a large number of the complaints received raise matters which
cannot be proceeded with. That has been the position with complaints
sent to the Commissioner since this office was established, and
this year has been no exception. Of the 109 complaints I received
in 2011-12, 81 fell outside my remit, for example because they
concerned such matters as the time taken by a Member to respond
to constituents' letters, or the way the Member had handled their
case. Other complaints concerned the views or opinions expressed
by a Member or the actions of Government Ministers, all of which
are outside my remit.
3.10 It is understandable that many complainants
are not familiar with the rules of the House. I therefore receive
a significant number of complaints where the allegations, if substantiated,
would not constitute a breach of the rules. There were 15 such
complaints last year. Some of these involved misunderstandings
about the provisions in the Green Book on Members' allowances
from previous Parliaments, or about the requirements of the House
in relation to apparent conflicts of interest. The House does
not prevent Members undertaking paid employment outside the House,
but it does require them to register and when relevant declare
those interests openly.
3.11 In just two cases complainants wrote making
allegations that Members had breached the rules of the House,
without providing sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.
My office replied reminding the complainant that my remit is to
consider complaints where the complainant has provided sufficient
evidence to justify an inquiry into whether a particular Member
has breached the rules of the House. In two further cases complainants
wrote to me to make a complaint against a Member against whom
a similar complaint had already been accepted. Finally, in one
case where a Member referred himself to me for inquiry, I did
not consider that the self-referral exceptionally justified an
inquiry and did not, therefore, initiate an inquiry into it.[10]
Frivolous or vexatious complaints
3.12 If I receive a complaint which appears to be
frivolous or vexatious I will draw this to the attention of the
Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am pleased to say that
in this reporting year, as with each of the last seven years when
this has been separately reported, I have not needed to report
any such complaints to the Committee. In my review of the Guide
to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members I have consulted
on whether this special provision for frivolous or vexatious complaints
should continue.
Analysis of complaints resolved
during the year
3.13 Chart 1 shows the principal subject matter of
the twelve complaints I resolved in 2011-12 including the three
which were closed following court proceedings or on medical grounds.
Four cases (33%) related to the registration or declaration of
the Member's financial interests. Four cases (33%) were about
the Member's use of the Additional Costs Allowance relating to
the cost of their overnight accommodation in previous Parliaments.[11]
I resolved two cases (17%) which were about the Member's use of
House of Commons stationery and pre-paid envelopes or the misuse
of House communications facilities. And I resolved two cases (17%)
concerning the use of the Incidental Expenses Provision—relating
to a Member's office costs.[12]
CHART 1: PRINCIPAL SUBJECT MATTER
OF INQUIRIES RESOLVED IN 2011-12
Note 1: On 1 April 2009 the categories for claims
in the last Parliament were renamed as follows:
¾ Incidental
Expenses Provision (to meet the cost of: accommodation for office
or surgery use; equipment and supplies for office or surgery;
work commissioned or other services; and certain travel and communications)
became Administrative and Office Expenditure; and
¾ Additional
Costs Allowance (to reimburse Members for necessary costs incurred
when staying overnight away from their main home for the purpose
of performing parliamentary duties) became Personal Additional
Accommodation Expenditure.
3.14 Seven allegations resolved this year related
to conduct in previous Parliaments. Five other allegations were
about the Member's actions in the current Parliament.
Reports to the Committee
3.15 During the year I submitted to the Committee
four memoranda on a total of three complaints and one self-referral.
I upheld allegations in each of these cases. In all the memoranda
I submit I identify the allegation of a breach of the rules which
I have received, the relevant rules relating to that allegation,
the inquiries I conducted, with all the relevant evidence submitted
to me as a result, my findings of fact (which I aim to agree with
the Member who is the subject of the inquiry) and my conclusions
on whether the Member has been in breach of the rules and, if
so, how serious I consider that breach to have been. It is for
the Committee to decide whether to accept my conclusions and,
if so, what action, if any, to recommend to the House. The Committee
accepted my overall findings in each of the four cases they considered
before deciding what action to take or to recommend.
3.16 Two memoranda related to Members' claims for
overnight costs in previous Parliaments. One of these memoranda
also related to the use of parliamentary office facilities. One
further memorandum related to a Member's use of pre-paid envelopes
and House stationery. And one memorandum was about the registration
and declaration of a financial interest.
3.17 The first memorandum which I submitted to the
Committee concerned a self-referral by the Member requesting an
inquiry into his arrangements for renting parliamentary funded
accommodation from his partner until 2009.[13]
I initiated the inquiry on 3 June 2010, soon after the general
election. Since I am required to seek the agreement of the Committee
before inquiring into a self referral, or a matter going back
more than seven years, I sought and obtained the new Committee's
approval as soon as it was appointed.
3.18 The rules of the House had been changed in 2006
explicitly to prohibit claiming for the costs of renting from
partners and family members and at the conclusion of my inquiry
I found that the Member was in breach of those rules in the claims
he had made from July 2006 to July 2009. I concluded that, although
there was no specific prohibition in place earlier, the Member's
claims prior to that date had not been above reproach because
the lodging agreements which he had submitted to the House authorities
gave a false impression of his arrangements.
3.19 I also considered other aspects of the Member's
arrangements which had not been part of the self-referral but
which were drawn to my attention by the Member's evidence during
the inquiry. I found that the Member's designation of his main
home in 2001 was correct, but that over time, the Member had come
to spend more nights in his parliamentary funded accommodation
and was, therefore, in breach of the rules from April 2005 in
continuing to identify his constituency property as his main home.
I found also that the Member had claimed for a higher rent than
was justified, that he had wrongly claimed some £2,000 for
building works which should have been covered by the rent charged
and that the costs of the telephone line in his main home and
of his mobile telephone should not have been claimed against the
Additional Costs Allowance. I considered that these breaches were
serious but noted that I had no evidence that the Member made
the claims with the intention of benefiting himself or his partner.
Finally, I concluded that there was a clear public interest in
Members reporting their living arrangements fully and accurately
to the House when those arrangements were relevant to their claims
against public resources. The Member had a conflict between his
private interest in secrecy about his life and the public interest
in his being open and honest about his expenses claims. I considered
that in accordance with the Code he should have resolved this
conflict straightaway and in favour of the public interest.
3.20 The Member accepted complete and personal responsibility
for these breaches and apologised. The Committee agreed with my
findings. The Member had already repaid £56,592, the sum
of his full ACA claims for the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 July
2009. The Committee noted that this repayment included £6,770
for food costs which would have been incurred whatever the validity
of his other claims, and that the maximum overpayment for rental
claims and incorrect claims for telephone usage fell below £6,770.
It, therefore, did not recommend repayment of those sums. The
Committee concluded that the Member was guilty of a series of
serious breaches of the rules, over a considerable time, and recommended
that he be suspended from the service of the House for a period
of seven sitting days and that he apologise to the House by way
of a personal statement. In doing so, the Committee noted that
the Member's behaviour since May 2010 had been exemplary; that
he had quickly referred himself to me; had already repaid allowances
from 2006 in full; and had co-operated fully with my investigation.
His behaviour influenced their recommendation. The House agreed
to the recommended suspension and the Member made his apology.
3.21 The second memorandum which I submitted to the
Committee concerned a complaint that a Member had used House of
Commons pre-paid envelopes and House of Commons stationery to
send unsolicited letters and that the content of those letters
constituted party political activity. The Member had sent 295
common format letters to council group leaders from a different
political party to his own in advance of their spring conference.
In the letter he sought to persuade these council leaders that
the coalition Government's health policy, of which their party
was part and which their Conference was to debate, was not in
accordance with their party's policy. Under the then rules, Members
were permitted to use such envelopes to reply to individuals and
organisations about issues on which they had already contacted
the Member, but not for updates of more general concern, and only
for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary
duties. The definition of parliamentary duties in force at the
time expressly excluded activities a Member carried out for party
political purposes or for personal reasons. Upholding the complaint,
I concluded that this use of House of Commons pre-paid envelopes
was in breach of the rules of the House, both because the letters
were unsolicited and because they constituted party political
activity, and were not therefore part of the Member's parliamentary
duties. I did not
regard this breach of the rules as at the serious end of the spectrum.
But while the Member accepted that the letter was unsolicited,
he did not accept that the letter constituted
party political activity. I therefore submitted a memorandum to
the Committee. The
Committee agreed with my conclusions. It recommended that the
Member make a written apology to the House. The Member did so.
It noted that the Member had paid back the cost of the postage
and the notepaper which had been financed through the IPSA parliamentary
expenses scheme, rather than provided by the House of Commons,
and had given a commitment that in future he would not send unsolicited
letters using House provided stationery. The Committee noted in
its report that the House of Commons Commission was examining
the rules on House envelopes and stationery and that the Member
was sharing his views with them. The Committee said it hoped that
the revised rules would remove ambiguities and perceived ambiguities
in the definition of parliamentary duties.
3.22 The third memorandum I submitted to the Committee
concerned complaints that the Member had failed to register in
time payments he received in respect of his employment with a
trade union and that he also failed to declare that interest on
six occasions.[14] The
Member, who had entered the House at the 2010 general election,
had on 4 June 2010 registered his employment with the union stating
that he was leaving the position and had declined his salary in
the meantime. I found that later that month, however, the Member
decided that he would accept a monthly salary until formally leaving
this employment. No change was made to his Register entry until
in July 2011 the Member registered that he had received an ex
gratia payment of £30,000 on leaving his employment. In October
2011 he submitted a further Register entry which said that he
had received £27,867 in salary between the general election
and 30 October 2010 (when his employment ended).
3.23 In upholding the complaint I concluded that
the Member had failed to register in time the payments he received
in respect of this employment from June to November 2010, his
use of a company car and company mobile telephone and the ex gratia
payment he received from the union in November 2010. I found that
the Member was also in breach of the rules for not notifying my
office within four weeks of the ending of his employment with
the union and for failing to provide all the information required
to complete his registration entry for this employment. I also
concluded that the Member had breached the rules of the House
in failing to declare this interest when making contributions
to parliamentary proceedings on two of the six occasions identified
by the complainant. I did not consider that declaration was required
on the other four occasions. I considered that the Member's failure
to register interests, including within the required time period,
were serious matters, as too were his failures to declare relevant
interests in debates. But I considered it relevant that the Member
concerned was at the time new and seeking to establish himself
in the House and in his constituency. I noted that he had cooperated
fully and openly with my inquiry and had taken the first opportunity
to acknowledge his breach of the rules and to apologise. I had
no evidence that the breaches were intentional. The Committee
agreed that the matter was serious. The Committee also acknowledged
the Member's co-operation with the inquiry, and his immediate
and repeated apology. They recommended that the Member apologise
on the floor of the House (which he did by way of a personal statement).
The Committee also recommended that he update his entry in the
Register in the terms already agreed with the Registrar. This
update appeared in bold, italic type with an appropriate footnote.
It will remain in that form for 12 months and until it has appeared
in one printed Register, if that is later.
3.24 The fourth memorandum I submitted to the Committee
concerned a complaint that a Member had in 2002-03 allowed another
person to live in accommodation, the costs of which were being
met by parliamentary resources, that he allowed that person to
use that accommodation for business purposes and that from 2003
to 2009 he allowed his parliamentary office to be used for non-parliamentary
purposes.[15] With the
Committee's agreement I included in my inquiry those aspects of
the complaint which went back more than seven years. In respect
of the use of parliamentary funded accommodation, the rules were
revised in June 2003, clarifying existing practice that the allowances
should not be used to meet the living costs of anyone other than
the Member. I concluded that the Member was in breach of the rules
in that his claims from his parliamentary allowances from October
2002 to October 2003 did not take account of the living costs
of his friend who was living there. I found no grounds for suggesting
that the friend had used the accommodation for business purposes
and therefore did not uphold that aspect of the complaint. I noted
that in weighing the seriousness of this breach it was relevant
that there was no evidence that significant extra costs were incurred
from parliamentary resources as a result of this arrangement and
that the breach occurred nearly ten years ago, when the House
was only in the early stages of starting to tighten its procedures.
3.25 In respect of the use of his office, I concluded
that the Member was in breach of the rules from September 2003
to June 2009 in permitting an outside organisation to use his
parliamentary offices. I considered that this breach was serious;
however, it was substantially mitigated by the fact that the House
authorities had failed to respond on two occasions when the Member
had reported to them the use of his office by the outside organisation.
The Committee agreed with these findings, and noting that it was
impossible to be exact about the breakdown in spending, recommended
that the Member repay £3,000 to cover half the costs for
the period in which his friend stayed in the Member's parliamentary
funded accommodation after the revised rules had put the matter
beyond doubt. They also recommended that the Member apologise
in writing for both breaches, noting that they would have proposed
a higher penalty in respect of the use of the parliamentary office
had the Member not raised the matter with the House authorities.
The Member made a written apology and the appropriate repayment.
Complaints Rectified
3.26 The rectification procedure is set out in subparagraph
3 of Standing Order No 150. This provides that no report to the
Committee shall be made by the Commissioner:
"(a) in any case where the Member concerned
has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest,
if it is the Commissioner's opinion that the interest involved
is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned
has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner
may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee
for this purpose; and
(b) in any case involving parliamentary allowances,
or the use of facilities or services, if the Commissioner has
with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter
to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing
appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such
reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers
reasonable."
3.27 I normally consider whether to institute this
procedure in circumstances where the Member accepts that there
has been a breach of the rules of the House, where there is no
clear evidence that the breach was intentional and it was at the
less serious end of the spectrum. I also consider whether the
Member has taken appropriate action to rectify the matter, including
any financial recompense, and steps to avoid a recurrence. The
Committee expects the Member to tender an apology. I then write
to the complainant explaining the actions the Member has taken.
I report the outcome to the Committee, at the same time conveying
the Member's apology. As I explained in Chapter 2, I publish on
my webpages my determination letters and the relevant evidence
which I have received.[16]
3.28 During the year I resolved four inquiries by
means of this procedure. Three of the four concerned either the
registration or declaration of Members' financial interests, including
in one case, both registration and declaration. The remaining
case concerned the Member's claims for the costs of his office.
3.29 In the first case, I investigated the Member's
claims for his constituency office premises in 2006-2007. The
Member had claimed £5,000 in that year, a significantly higher
sum than the preceding and following years, for what the invoice
said was the hire of rooms in the constituency office for surgeries.
In fact, I found that this had covered the cost of other services
which the Member had received, including the staff who supported
him, and that not all of these costs had been charged in other
years. I concluded that there was no evidence that the costs claimed
by the Member were other than necessarily incurred in support
of his parliamentary duties and did not, therefore, uphold the
complaint. But I found that the invoice lacked sufficient detail.
And, while not part of the complaint, I also found that a contract
for the services provided by the constituency association had
not been lodged with the House authorities, as required by the
rules, although the Member thought this had been done. The Member
fully apologised for these breaches, which I accepted were not
intentional.
3.30 In the second of these cases, I investigated
a complaint about the late registration of an overseas visit made
by the Member in 2007. The Member became aware in October 2011
that he had not registered this visit and so made a late registration
in that month. He fully accepted that he should have registered
the visit within the required 28 days of undertaking it in July
2007. He believed it was simply overlooked during a particularly
busy time. The Member apologised for his breach of the rules and
took action to avoid a recurrence. I upheld the complaint and
the Register entry was amended. The late entry in the Register
was transferred to bold, italic type with an appropriate footnote.
It will remain in that form for 12 months and until it has appeared
in one printed Register, if that is later.
3.31 The third case related to a complaint about
the Member's failure to declare during a parliamentary debate
a relevant financial interest arising from his work for a healthcare
provider. I found that the Member had intended to declare his
interest, but that in the heat and excitement of the debate he
had overlooked doing so. His speaking note for the debate had
included a reference to the Register. In the course of the inquiry
the Member identified a second occasion where the same mistake
had occurred. In addition, I found that one quarterly payment
received by the Member from the healthcare provider was not registered
within the required four weeks of it having been received. The
Member accepted and apologised for these breaches, which I accepted
were inadvertent. I upheld the complaint and the late entry in
the Register was transferred to bold, italic type with an appropriate
footnote. It will remain in that form for 12 months and until
it has appeared in one printed Register, if that is later.
3.32 The fourth case was about a Member's failure
to register within the required time period of four weeks all
of the payments he received from an outside employer. The Member
had in June 2010 registered this employment. In September 2010
the first Register of the Parliament, therefore, recorded his
employment and the band into which his annual salary
fell. Later that month the Member registered
the first and only payment he had received to date. However, despite
advice from my office to his office about the need to register
the details of each payment received by the Member, no further
registrations were made until February 2012. I found that the
Member was in breach of the rules in not registering in time 16
payments he had received from that employer since the general
election, together with the hours worked in respect of those payments.
The Member told me that his office had forgotten the advice given
by my office. He believed that a genuine misunderstanding had
grown up in the mind of his staff. The Member accepted full responsibility
for his breaches of the rules and apologised. I upheld the complaint
and the Register entry was amended. The 16 entries were transferred
to bold, italic type with an appropriate footnote. They will remain
in that form for 12 months and until they have appeared in one
printed Register, if that is later. In the course of my inquiries
I also established that while the Member had lodged with my office
as required an agreement with this employer for the provision
of services, this had since expired. The Member provided an updated
version of this agreement.
Complaints not upheld
3.33 In 2011-12 I did not uphold one complaint
which I inquired into. This was because, upon inquiry, the facts
did not substantiate the complaint made. The complaint alleged
that a parliamentary e-mail account and telephone line had been
used to support a party political campaign. The parliamentary
e-mail account and telephone
line had been identified
as contact points in a briefing pack prepared by the Member's
office for distribution to Opposition MPs. I agreed with the judgement
of the House authorities that these references were within the
spectrum of what was acceptable. I considered that this was because
the pack, intended for Members of Parliament and relating to legislation
going through Parliament, formed part of the Member's parliamentary
duties.
Trends in complaints from 2006
to 2012
3.34 Table 3 sets out statistical information about
complaints received in this office in each of the six years from
2006-07. It shows that in 2011-12 the number of complaints I received
was slightly fewer than in the previous year. It was the lowest
since 2003-04. This followed a
substantial increase in the
number of complaints during the expenses crisis. Over the last
year I resolved 9 of the 11 complaints which were under active
inquiry. I resolved two cases in less than a month, a further
four cases in less than four months, and a further two cases in
less than seven months. The one remaining case was concluded in
just under a year. Just over two thirds of these active cases
were therefore resolved within four months. (This excludes the
three cases suspended for significant periods because of criminal
proceedings or on medical grounds.)
3.35 I have compared these volumes in the early years
of the last Parliament with the same period in this Parliament.
This shows that the number of complaints and inquiries at the
start of this Parliament was lower than the numbers in the first
two years of the previous Parliament, and it has not increased
in the second year as happened in the previous Parliament. It
is too early to tell whether the current low level will continue,
or whether the trend will start to mirror previous Parliaments,
with an increase in the number of complaints received and accepted
during the latter years of the Parliament.
3.36 The fall in the last two years in the number
of complaints which did not provide sufficient supporting evidence
is likely to be a consequence of the change in the type of complaint
received following the establishment of the Independent Parliamentary
Standards Authority: a higher proportion of the complaints now
reported to the Commissioner relate to matters drawn from published
and easily available sources, such as the Registers or the Official
Report.
TABLE 3: COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM
2006-07 TO 2011-12
| 2006-07
| 2007-08
| 2008-09
| 2009-10
| 2010-11
| 2011-12
|
| 1. Formal complaints against a named Member
| 176 | 226
| 192 | 317
| 115 | 109
|
| 2. Complaints subject of inquiry
| 811 | 71
| 54 | 80
| 37 | 14
|
| 3.Complaints not inquired into
| | | |
| | |
| a) because complaint fell outside remit
| 87 | 94
| 83 | 105
| 82 | 81
|
| b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules
| - | -
| 32 | 76
| 17 | 15
|
| c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided
| - | -
| 27 | 53
| 6 | 2
|
| d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted
| - | -
| 18 | 11
| 0 | 2
|
| e) because inquiry not justified following self-referral
| - | -
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 1
|
| Total complaints not inquired into2
| 95 | 155
| 160 | 245
| 105 | 101
|
| 4. Complaints resolved
| | | |
| | |
| a) upheld by means of rectification procedure
| 10 | 7
| 16 | 14
| 14 | 4
|
| b) upheld by means of a memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges
| 38 | 15
| 17 | 20
| 10 | 4
|
| c) Complaints not upheld (where no memorandum was submitted to the Committee)
| 11 | 29
| 13 | 16
| 2 | 1
|
| d) Complaints not upheld (where a memorandum was submitted to the Committee)
| 15 | 0
| 3 | 1
| 5 | 0
|
| (e) Consideration by Committee postponed because of criminal proceedings
| | | |
| 1 | 0
|
| (f) Inquiry closed |
| | |
| 1 | 3
|
| Total complaints resolved
| 74 | 51
| 46 | 51
| 33 | 12
|
Note 1: Fifty of these related to a series of
complaints by the same two Members about dining clubs.
Note 2: Before 2008-09 the Commissioner's office
did not maintain detailed statistics on the reasons why complaints
were not inquired into.
7 In the context of this chapter, complaints include
allegations referred to me by the Member themselves ("self-referrals").
Back
8
The House has decided that the Committee's remit should not cover
policy matters, a Member's views or opinions, a Member's handling
of or decisions about cases (whether or not they were constituents),
or matters which relate wholly to the conduct of Members in their
private or personal lives. The Commissioner does not consider
complaints about expenses matters in the current Parliament (which
are for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) or
alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for Ministers. Back
9
Both of these suspended inquiries had been first suspended in
2010-11. Back
10
I did, however, subsequently inquire into this matter following
a complaint. See also paragraph 3.6 Back
11
I closed two of these, following the conclusion of court proceedings
against the former Members. Back
12
I closed one of these, involving a former Member, on medical grounds. Back
13
Fifteenth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1023 Back
14
Twenty-Second Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1766 Back
15
Twenty-Third Report of Session 2010-12, HC 1887 Back
16
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/pcfs/publications/inquiries/matters-rectifiied/
Back
| 
