2 Mr MacShane's claims
The relevant rules of the House
6. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
approved by the House on 14 May 2002 provided that:
No improper use shall be made of any payment or allowance
made to Members for public purposes and the administrative rules
which apply to such payments and allowances must be strictly observed.
The Code of Conduct approved by the House on 13 July
2005 restated this provision still more strongly:
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 claims under investigation were made under
the incidental expenses provision (IEP) and the rules at the time
were set out in the Green Books published in July 2004, April
2005 and July 2006:
The incidental expenses provision (IEP) is available
to meet costs incurred on Members' Parliamentary duties. It cannot
be used to meet personal costs, or the costs of party political
activities or campaigning. The paragraphs which follow outline
the main areas of expenditure which we recognise as incurred in
supporting these duties, but it is each Member's responsibility
to ensure that all expenditure funded by the IEP is wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred on Parliamentary duties.
Allowable expenditure under IEP included:
- Equipment and supplies for the office or surgery
- Work commissioned and other services
- Certain travel and communications.
8. The Green Book gave examples of allowable
expenditure relating to work commissioned and bought-in services.
These included:
- Interpreting and translation services ...
- Research and media scanning services ...
- Recruitment services.
9. The examples of allowable expenditure relating
to equipment and supplies for the office and/or surgery included:
purchase or lease of photocopiers, faxes, scanners, phones and
other office equipment, including computers [...] Purchase of
hardware and software."
10. The examples of expenditure which was not
allowable under IEP included:
- Communications or travel on personal or party
political matters
- Hospitality and entertainment.
11. Section 12 of the Green Book stated, in relation
to computers and other IT equipment provided for Members and their
offices:
This equipment is free of charge, on loan to Members
for Parliamentary use only. [...]
Members can also use their IEP to buy additional
items, providing they are used solely for Parliamentary purposes.[7]
12. The European travel entitlement allowed Members
to claim for travel on parliamentary duties to EU institutions
and agencies and to the national parliaments of EU member states,
EFTA member states, EU candidate countries and EU applicant countries.[8]
Members were required to seek prior authorisation from the Department
of Finance and Administration. Members could claim for three return
visits each year, subject to an annual cost ceiling, and for two
nights' subsistence per visit.
13. Paragraph 5.10.1 of the Green Book provided
that "Evidence in the form of invoices or receipts must be
provided for all items of expenditure of £250 or more."
The Members' Reimbursement form asked Members to ensure that "any
claims for petty cash do not exceed £250 per month".
14. The Commissioner investigated two matters
in which these rules might have been breached: a) Mr MacShane's
claims for computer equipment and b) claims for research and translation
services supported by invoices from the European Policy Institute.
We take each in turn.
Claims for computer equipment
15. Mr MacShane was loaned three laptops and
three PCs free of charge by the Parliamentary ICT service.[9]
In addition to this, in the period 2004/05 to 2007/08 Mr MacShane
made nine claims for eight further computers (one claim was submitted
twice in error). It was not practice at the time for staff processing
claims for such equipment to query whether the equipment was necessary
for a Member to carry out his or her parliamentary duties.[10]
The claims were as follows:
| Date of purchase
| Description from receipt
| Cost (£)
| Allowance year charged
|
| 11 March 2005 | Notebook travel computer
| 1,050 | 04-05
|
| 2 November 2005 | Toshiba Tecra
| 834.23 | 05-06
|
| 28 December 2005 | Siemens portable computer
| 554.96 | 05-06
|
| 11 February 2006 | Packard computer
| 563.97 | 05-06
|
| 5 December 2006 | Sony portable computer
| 1276.59 | 06-07
|
| 22 June 2007 | Toshiba T5300 laptop
| 611.12 | 06-07
|
| 17 September 2007 | Toshiba laptop
| 578.99 | 07-08
|
| 31 December 2007 | Toshiba laptop
| 498.95 | 07-08
|
Source: Appendix 1, paragraph 75; see also WE
47
16. Mr MacShane told that the Commissioner that
he believed the rules of the House allowed him to purchase the
equipment he considered he needed, provided he kept within the
incidental expenses provision (IEP) limit. The computers were
brought for his own use, or for the use of his staff in order
to carry out his parliamentary duties. Some computers had been
broken, others appear to have been supplied to interns, and taken
with them when they left his office.[11]
Claims relating to invoices from
the European Policy Institute
17. Between 27 January 2005 and 11 January 2008
Mr MacShane submitted 19 claim forms with invoices from the European
Policy Institute (EPI). These were variously described as being
for matters such as "Research and translation work as agreed",
"research and translation consultancy" "agreed
research and translation". The table below sets out more
details:
| Date of claim |
Date of invoice |
Amount (£) | Description on invoice of services provided
|
| 7 January 2005 | 19 December 2004
| 650 | Research and translation work as agreed
|
| 14 February 2005 | 22 January 2005
| 850 | Research and communication work as agreed
|
| 18 March 2005 | 10 March 2005
| 850 | Research and translation consultancy
|
| 31 March 2005 | 28 March 2005
| 550 | Agreed research and translation
|
| 14 June 2005 | 1 April 2005
| 750 | Research and translation as requested
|
| 18 July 2005 | 11 July 2005
| 750 | Research and translation as requested
|
| 10 August 2005 | 5 August 2005
| 500 | Research and translation as commissioned
|
| 17 October 2005 | 12 October 2005
| 450[12]
| Research and translation as agreed
|
| 12 December 2005 | 9 December 2005
| 550 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 7 February 2006 | 30 January 2006
| 550 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 17 June 2006 | 13 June 2006
| 750 | Translations and research as agreed
|
| 19 September 2006 | 15 September 2006
| 750 | Research and translation as requested
|
| 24 October 2006 | 19 October 2006
| 950 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 12 November 2006 | 8 November 2006
| 550 | Research and translation work as agreed
|
| 7 December 2006 | 29 November 2006
| 850 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 31 January 2007 | 19 January 2007
| 550 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 13 November 2007 | 30 October 2007
| 850 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| 10 December 2007 | 29 November 2007
| 550 | Agreed research and translation
|
| 11 January 2008 | 4 January 2008
| 650 | Research and translation as agreed
|
| TOTAL CLAIMED
| 12,900 |
|
Appendix I, para 84
STATUS OF THE EUROPEAN POLICY INSTITUTE
18. According to Mr MacShane, the EPI had been
set up by a group of pro-European policy writers, journalists
and activists in the 1990s, and produced reports, published books
and organised conferences. He was by far the main organiser.[13]
It published reports steadily in the 1990s and remained available
"as a mechanism to publish reports or receive money for conferences
or travel".[14]
The organisation's letterhead indicated there was a General Manager,
an Acting Director and four associate Directors. There was no
General Manager nor any other Director: in fact the EPI was a
loose network with no formal structure. The names at the bottom
of the letterhead were friends and associates of Mr MacShane dating
from the early 1990s when he was working in Geneva and the EPI
had come into existence. In his words "the titles were simply
on the letterhead to make it look more official."[15]
There was no office and nor had there ever been any salaried staff.[16]
The bank account was controlled by Mr MacShane himself.[17]
Involvement of Mr MacShane's brother
19. The initial complaint included the assertion
that the European Policy Institute was controlled by Mr MacShane's
brother. Mr MacShane told the Commissioner that his brother had
allowed the use of his name and London business address when the
EPI was launched in 1992, when Mr MacShane lived and worked in
Geneva, but never took any direct active part in its work. He
had nothing to do with the EPI for some time and had not been
involved in any way with the claims in the period under review.[18]
THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS COVERED
BY EPI INVOICES
20. Mr MacShane told the Commissioner that he
used the EPI to recoup expenses he paid out for research he carried
out in part by travelling in Europe to sustain his parliamentary
work on European issues. He could not give detailed invoices,
nor did he make any agreements or specific arrangements for hospitality.[19]
21. Although the invoices referred to research
and translation services the actual expenditure they covered can
be broken down into three broad categories: travel and subsistence
costs, payments and hospitality given to EPI collaborators for
research and translation; and the purchase of books and other
publications. The Commissioner received statements from four witnesses
asserting they had received payment or hospitality from Mr MacShane.[20]
22. The claims are not readily distinguishable,
since different types of expenditure were on many occasions covered
by a single claim ostensibly for "research and translation".
The paper numbered WE33 attached to the Commissioner's memorandum
consolidates the information, which can also be found in WE 9
and WE 12. We attempt a summary here.
Travel
23. The evidence given by Mr MacShane was that
he travelled extensively in Europe to prepare for debates on European
Affairs, including debates on the Lisbon treaty. In addition to
this general interest, in autumn 2005 the Prime Minister had asked
him "to be his envoy to European political parties and personalities
meeting people informally and reporting back."[21]
Mr MacShane was also the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary
Inquiry into Anti-Semitism ("the All-Party Inquiry"),
set up in 2005 , which reported in September 2006.
24. The travel listed includes:
a) late 2004, a visit to Madrid to explore the
impact on British politics of the new Zapetero government in Spain;
b) January 2005, a visit to Switzerland to meet
officials and MPs;
c) In 2005, a visit to Warsaw before Polish accession
to the EU;
d) Summer 2005, visits to France and the Netherlands
in advance of the referendums on the EU treaty;
e) Spring 2006, two visits to Switzerland to
meet Swiss politicians, editors and diplomats;
f) A visit to Paris to promote the cause of recognition
of Kosovo;
g) A visit to Pristina to meet Kosovan political
leaders;
h) A visit to Poland to prepare a report on Polish
politics for the PM;
i) A visit to Berlin in March 2006;
j) Extensive travel to France, the Netherlands,
Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic in connection
with the work of the All-Party Inquiry;
k) A visit to France in 2007 in connection with
the French Presidential election and another in May 2007 to gauge
changes in the way in which France was likely to approach the
problems of asylum seekers seeking entry into the UK;
l) In 2007, visits to Frankfurt and Grenoble
in connection with research into anti Semitism in Europe;
m) A visit to Berlin to keep in touch with political
and parliamentary colleagues;
n) a visit to Paris on 18 November 2007 to interview
candidates for Mr MacShane's personal assistants;
o) meetings in Paris related to the European
Book of the Year award, and
p) a visit to Warsaw.
Payments to EPI collaborators
25. These include:
a) Spring 2005: reports from collaborators and
an analysis of Labour's sister parties in the EU;
b) Regular payments to a collaborator for work
on translating documents and analysing policy between 2005 and
2009;
c) Hospitality for politicians and journalists
in Spain;
d) Translation of the All-Party Inquiry Report;
e) Payment of US $950 to read and edit the All-Party
Inquiry Report;
f) Payments of 400 Swiss francs each year from
2005 to 2009 for translation and help with research on political
developments in Switzerland;
g) Payments for research and translation of German
texts.
26. Mr MacShane provided witness statements testifying
to several of the payments above, amounting in total to some £4,500.[22]
Purchase of books and other publications
27. Mr MacShane regularly claimed the cost of
books; it is impossible to be definitive about the value of these
purchases, but the Commissioner notes that Mr MacShane provided
a list of 54 books with a total costs of more than 1,000. A note
indicated a page was missing from this list, but this was not
supplied.[23]
THE WAY IN WHICH CLAIMS WERE MADE
Assessment of the amount to be claimed
28. Mr MacShane told the Commissioner:
As I was trying to explain how I carried out my European
political and parliamentary work in the period covered I explained
that I had a network of collaborators who helped with research,
translation and networking. I either paid them specific fees some
of which have been forwarded to you or bought meals and drinks
as one would with any such group of co-workers. There is no list
of restaurant or bar receipts and since I eat and live modestly
and do not frequent expensive restaurants I doubt if it comes
to very much.[24]
29. He did not keep detailed records of his expenditure.
He told the Commissioner that:
In my interpretation of what I considered to be research
on my main area of parliamentary work and for ease of administration
I submitted EPI bills which covered what I considered to be what
I had disbursed in the period concerned.[25]
The way the invoices were produced
30. Mr MacShane told the Commissioner
The invoices were pro-forma on my computer with just
the amount varying according to what I judged to have expended.[26]
The letterhead used for these invoices was that of
the EPI dating from the 1990s. As we have noted above, although
the letterhead on which the invoices were generated indicated
the EPI had a General Manager and Directors, the organisation
had never had an office nor any employed salaried staff. The invoices
purported to have been signed by the General Manager but as Mr
MacShane told the Commissioner:
My staff scrawl my name for me regularly on letters
and the reference to [name] is to a similarly scrawled nom
de plume.[27]
Cooperation with the inquiry
31. Paragraph 18 of the Code of Conduct approved
by the House on 13 July 2005 provided that:
Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any
investigation into their conduct by or under the authority of
the House.
The current Code contains a very similar provision.
During the early part of the inquiry, Mr MacShane "cooperated
fully and sincerely" with the Commissioner's inqury. The
cooperation was not continued when the inquiry resumed at the
beginning of July 2012. Mr MacShane failed to respond to repeated
letters asking whether he had further information, and proposing
to move to an interview, until 26 September 2012, when he apologised
for the delay and for his conduct, and concluded "I do not
think an interview can add anything."[28]
32. We note the subsequent exchanges between
the Commissioner and Mr MacShane on the matter of the signature
of the invoices. On 8 October Mr MacShane told the Commissioner:
[In the memorandum] you write EPI invoices were
signed "by a member of Mr MacShane's staff at his request."
That is not what I wrote to you on 22 July [WE 53]. This was investigated
by the police as you know and I would be grateful if you could
quote in full the relevant sentence in [WE 53] so that facts are
clear in your own report.[29]
The Commissioner responded:
[...] I had taken from your letter of 22 July 2009
the fact that your staff scrawled the "nom de plume"
in the same way that they scrawl your own name.[30]
But I take it from your letter of 8 October 2012 that this is
not correct. I have therefore made clear that you scrawled the
"nom de plume" yourself. If this is wrong, could you
contact me by return to let me know whether you signed the name,
your staff signed the name, or you both did on different occasions?
Otherwise, I will assume that it was you yourself.[31]
In response Mr MacShane repeated his earlier position:
Your changes are perfectly reasonable but I must
ask that you stick to the text and not make assumptions. This
matter was dealt with by the police and I do not propose to reopen
it. So please use what I wrote [in WE 53] namely:
"I and I alone take full responsibility for
all the payments and claims made by the EPI as a vehicle. My staff
scrawl my name regularly on letters and the reference to [name]
is to a similarly scrawled nom de plume."[32]
7 See Appendix 1 paragraphs 6-20 Back
8
Green Book, June 2003, updated 2004 Back
9
Appendix 1, paragraph 128 Back
10
See Appendix 1, paragraph 76 Back
11
See WE12, 18, 51 Back
12
The invoice was for £450, but the figure entered on the claim
form by Mr MacShane was £500. The Department has confirmed
that the sum paid to the EPI was £450. Back
13
WE 9, WE 12 Back
14
WE 35 Back
15
WE 51 Back
16
ibid Back
17
Appendix 1 paragraph 64, 66, WE 51 Back
18
Appendix 1, paragraph 126, 154 Back
19
WE 51 Back
20
WE 19, 20, 21, and 22 Back
21
WE 9 Back
22
Appendix 1, paragraphs 57, and 64, footnote 79, WE 19, 20, 21,
22 and 33 Back
23
WE 12 Back
24
WE 53 Back
25
WE 51 Back
26
ibid Back
27
WE 53 Back
28
WE 61 Back
29
WE 63 Back
30
WE 53 Back
31
WE 64 Back
32
WE 65 Back
| 
