Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
Complaint against Rt
Hon Denis MacShane MP
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports on my investigation
into a complaint that the Rt Hon Denis MacShane, the Member for
Rotherham, claimed costs against the incidental expenses provision
(IEP) from 2004-05 to 2007-08 for certain research and translation
services and for computer equipment, contrary to the rules of
the House.
The Complaint
2. Mr Michael Barnbrook wrote to me on 29 June
2009 to make a formal complaint against Mr MacShane.[62]
He signed his letter as the Spokesman on Law and Order, British
National Party.[63] He
said that his complaint related to an article, a copy of which
he enclosed, which had appeared in the Mail on Sunday on
28 June.[64] He said
that, if the allegations in the article were true, "Mr
MacShane appears to be in breach of parliamentary rules".
He noted that the Code of Conduct stated that "holders
of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the
public interest" and that "They should not do
so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves,
their families and their friends". Mr Barnbrook went
on to say, "I have not submitted any evidence with my
complaint as it is already in the public domain and I am not aware
that Mr MacShane is denying any of the allegations made against
him by the Mail on Sunday."
3. The article in the Mail on Sunday said
that Mr MacShane was "facing further questions over his
expenses after it was revealed that he claimed for eight laptop
computers in just three years."[65]
It said that Mr MacShane had "used his office expenses
to claim more than £5,900 for the machines between March
2005 and January last year", and that these machines
were "in addition to technical equipment provided to MPs
by Parliamentary authorities." The article said that
four laptops had been claimed in 2007-08, and included "what
appears to be a duplicate claim in successive months for a computer
of the same value, £498.95". It said that Mr MacShane
had also claimed for a Palm Pilot and three digital cameras. The
article said that Mr MacShane, in a statement released to his
local paper, had "claimed that the nature of his duties
and the march of technological change necessitated the purchases".
4. The article also said that, the previous week,
the Mail on Sunday had revealed "how Mr MacShane
submitted more than a dozen invoices to the Commons bearing the
heading of the European Policy Institute". It said that
each bill "was justified by one line—'research
and translation'—followed by a demand for fees ranging
between £550 and £950", and that the European
Policy Institute was controlled by Mr MacShane's brother. Finally
it said that the paper had "revealed last month how Mr
MacShane claimed nearly £20,000 a year in expenses for an
office based in the garage of his South Yorkshire home. The claim,
totalling £125,000 over the past seven years, covered the
costs of running his official constituency base from the [...]
garage at his [...] home in Rotherham."
5. I replied to Mr Barnbrook on 2 July 2009.[66]
I reminded him that I was required to consider whether the complainant
had provided me with sufficient evidence to justify at least a
preliminary inquiry into whether the Member had breached the rules,
and told him that, if he would like me to consider instituting
an inquiry into his complaint against Mr MacShane, he should let
me have the evidence on which he wished to rely and an explanation
of how he believed Mr MacShane had breached the rules of the House.
6. Mr Barnbrook responded on 7 July.[67]
He identified evidence published on the parliamentary website
which he believed substantiated his complaint. In relation to
his complaint about Mr MacShane's claims for computer purchases,
Mr Barnbrook provided a list of nine claims: one in 2004-05, three
in 2005-06, one in 2006-07 and four in 2007-08. These totalled
£6,467.76, and ranged in individual value from £498.95
to £1,276.59. In relation to his complaint about Mr MacShane's
claims for what he described as consultancy and translation services,
Mr Barnbrook provided a list of 19 claims for payments to the
European Policy Institute, six in 2004-05, four in 2005-06, six
in 2006-07, and three in 2007-08. These totalled £12,900,
and ranged in individual value from £450 to £950.
7. I replied to Mr Barnbrook on 15 July.[68]
I said that I had accepted the elements of his complaint relating
to Mr MacShane's purchase of computer equipment and to his payments
to the European Policy Institute. I said that I had not accepted
his complaint about Mr MacShane's constituency office because
he had not submitted any evidence to suggest that Mr MacShane
had broken the rules of the House.
Relevant Rules of the House
8. 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."
9. This provision was superseded by paragraph
14 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House on 13 July 2005,
which provided that:
"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."
10. 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 Code of Conduct approved by the House on 12 March
2012 contained an almost identical provision in paragraph 19.
11. The rules relating to the incidental expenses
provision at the time the claims were made were set out in the
Green Books published in July 2004, April 2005 and July 2006.
In his introduction to all three editions, 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."
12. The rules in relation to the incidental expenses
provision are set out in Section 5 of the July 2004 Green Book,
and the relevant references are almost identical in the April
2005 and July 2006 editions. Paragraph 5.1.1 set out the scope
of the IEP as follows:
"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."[69]
13. Paragraph 5.3.1 gave a list of allowable
expenditure under IEP and included:
- "Equipment and supplies for the office or
surgery
- Work commissioned and other services
- Certain travel and communications."
14. Paragraph 5.3.2 provided:
"Even if an item is listed in the category of
allowable expenditure, it is only allowable if the spend is wholly,
exclusively and necessarily incurred on Parliamentary duties."
15. 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".
16. 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."
17. The examples of allowable expenditure relating
to communications and travel included:
- "Accommodation during trips funded by extended
travel[70]
- Subscriptions eg to newspapers or periodicals
- Recruitment and recruitment advertising costs."
18. The examples of expenditure not allowable
under this heading included:
- "Communications or travel on personal or
party political matters
- Travel and/or accommodation for anyone who is
not a Member or their employee ...
- Hospitality and entertainment."
19. 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."
20. 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 (C1) asked Members to ensure that
"any claims for petty cash do not exceed £250 per month".
21. The Eighth Report of Session 2007-08 from
the Committee on Standards and Privileges considered the relationship
between the complaints system and the criminal law.[71]
The Appendix to that report contained a statement agreed between
the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Commissioner
of Police of the Metropolis. The statement included the following
agreed procedure to be followed in cases where the Commissioner
considered that an inquiry raised questions of possible criminal
liability:
"The Parliamentary Commissioner confirmed that
he had regard, where appropriate, to the possibility of criminal
behaviour when investigating complaints he received against Members
of Parliament. He would continue the practice in specific cases
of liaising with the Metropolitan Police or other relevant force
whenever he considered it appropriate to do so, initiating the
process at the earliest opportunity. All parties welcomed this.
If at any point in his investigation of a complaint, the Parliamentary
Commissioner considers that there are sufficient grounds to justify
reporting the matter to the police for them to consider a criminal
inquiry, he confirmed that he would submit a recommendation to
that effect to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, who
would decide whether such a report should be made. Where this
was done, the Chairman confirmed that the Committee would normally
expect the Parliamentary Commissioner to suspend his inquiries
until the question of possible criminal proceedings had been resolved..."
My Inquiries
22. I wrote to Mr MacShane on 15 July 2009[72]
and enclosed copies of the complainant's letters of 29 June and
7 July.[73] I told him
that the essence of the complaint I had accepted was that the
costs he had claimed against the incidental expenses provision
for his constituency office and certain office services and equipment
had not been wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on his
parliamentary duties, contrary to the rules of the House. Having
summarised the relevant rules, I asked Mr MacShane about the claims
he had made. In relation to his purchases of computers, I asked
Mr MacShane what computers provided free of charge by Parliament
he had used for his parliamentary duties since 2004-05 and why
he had needed to buy each of the nine additional computers which,
according to the complainant, he had purchased from his IEP over
the four financial years beginning in 2004-05; what had happened
to each of these nine computers, and where they were. I also asked
whether the two separate claims in January 2008 for £498.95
had been for different computers or whether they referred to the
same machine. In relation to the European Policy Institute (EPI),
I asked Mr MacShane what services the Institute had provided to
him in each financial year since 2004-05; why he had selected
this organisation to provide these services; and what role if
any his brother had had at the Institute and in the provision
of the services to him. I also asked Mr MacShane whether he had
consulted the then Department of Resources (formerly the Department
of Finance and Administration) or parliamentary IT managers about
any aspect of these arrangements.
23. Mr MacShane replied the following day, 16
July.[74] He enclosed
a copy of an e-mail which he had sent to the Rotherham Advertiser
"which is on their website and which I hope answers all [the
complainant's] points".[75]
Mr MacShane told me that after he had left office as Minister
for Europe in 2005 he had remained "as active as ever"
on European political affairs. He had served as a UK delegate
on the Council of Europe and NATO Parliamentary Assemblies. He
said that the then Prime Minister had asked him "to keep
working as his unofficial political envoy in Europe".
Mr MacShane commented, "It is no secret that as an MP
I am known for my interest and knowledge in European affairs based
on extensive travel, meetings and taking part in events with politicians
on the continent." He continued, "That meant
that since 2005 I have had a good number of paid and unpaid researchers
and interns working in my office from the UK, USA and different
European countries to help me with Parliamentary work on European
(EU and wider Europe) and international policy matters."
Mr MacShane said that he had always sought to provide such staff
with equipment including computers and "took for granted
that the IEP could be used to make those purchases. I have also
made sure that my homes were equipped." Some of his purchases
had been replacement computers for computers that had broken down
in some way. He said that two of the computers he had bought were
now "malfunctioning", and a third had broken
down completely. Mr MacShane said that in his office in the House,
in addition to the two malfunctioning computers, there were "two
laptops in addition to the desktop I am writing on and the Sony
P lightweight notebook I have in my bag". He said that
he would "check on the point about the two computers purchased
in 2008." He thought that he had been "upgrading computers
in Rotherham". Mr MacShane did not think he could
have submitted the same invoice twice, if that was what was alleged,
and noted that "the Fees Office normally did check and pick
up any discrepancy".
24. Mr MacShane said that he had "also
had to organise research and translation work in different corners
of Europe." To this end, on leaving ministerial office in
2005, Mr MacShane had "reactivated" the European Policy
Institute (EPI). The EPI, he said, "was founded as
a network of policy intellectuals in the 1990s and has published
books, organised conferences and commissioned research".
He commented that his brother was "on an old letterhead
as administrator but receives no payment or monies and never has.
He has had no direct involvement for some time". Mr MacShane
also said that "All of this money claimed from under the
IEP heading which in the previous and new Green Book permitted
research and translation work was to carry on with my high level
of European political work as a UK parliamentarian and for which,
as you know, there is no payment or support of any kind."
He added that, "To my certain knowledge the Fees Office
has never queried any receipt I have submitted and of course I
have always abided by their rulings."
25. In the statement that Mr MacShane had released
to the Rotherham Advertiser on 25 June 2009,[76]
he explained that, to do his job as a Member of Parliament, he
needed to run offices in both Rotherham and Westminster. He said
that he saw his prime responsibility as an MP as being "to
meet and serve the needs of my Rotherham constituents—individually
and collectively; play my full role at Government at a national
level; undertake those responsibilities asked of me by the Government
at an international level" and, in all these roles, to
do his best "to implement the policies and politics for
which people elected me as their MP." He commented, "I
did not come into politics to manage budgets, supplies, staffing
etc and I am the first to acknowledge that this has not had the
important and detailed attention which with hindsight I now realise
I should have provided". He continued, "I spend
a lot of time travelling and am on the road a lot, so like others
in similar roles, computers, mobile phones and Blackberries are
an absolute necessity and are in constant use seven days a week.
In both my offices I employ permanent and part-time staff [...]
I also have interns and short-term researchers working in my offices
and most of the equipment purchased has been for their use and
to ensure I have fully functioning offices. Camera, computer and
phone technology are ever changing and I have sought to use the
annual office costs allowance to maximise the technological opportunities
for me and my staff to deal with a very demanding workload."
Mr MacShane noted that the expenses of all MPs were to be checked
by "an independent body".[77]
He said that if this independent scrutiny identified any errors,
he would "of course make the necessary repayments, including
[...] the cost of research and translation work undertaken by
the European Policy Institute in connection with my European political
activities."
26. I replied to Mr MacShane on 20 July 2009.[78]
I asked if he could give me further information in respect of
a number of the points I had raised in my letter of 15 July.[79]
I asked him what computers he had used since 2004-05 that had
been provided free of charge by Parliament, and for a statement
of the reasons for purchasing each of the computers identified
in the complainant's list and what had happened to them. I said
that I appreciated that he might not have kept detailed records,
but that it would be helpful to have as accurate a recollection
as possible. I also asked Mr MacShane for fuller details of each
of the 19 claims identified by the complainant for the work of
the EPI from 2004-05 to 2007-08 and why he had selected this organisation
to provide these services to him. I said that it would be particularly
helpful to know what was bought or supplied by the EPI for each
of the claims made, and to see examples of the research and translation
work which was covered by any of these claims.
27. Mr MacShane responded on 10 October 2009.[80]
He began by apologising "most sincerely" for
the time it had taken him to do so. He said that he had set out
"as fully as I can my justification for using the European
Policy Institute to claim back moneys I spent working on European
affairs which I consider to be part and parcel of my Parliamentary
work". He also said that his brother "has had
nothing to do with the EPI since some time and is not involved
in any way with claims in the period under review". He
added that he would "reply later on the computers questions"
but that, as he had told the press, "these were bought to
have a fully equipped facility for computer communication in two
homes, as well as lightweight travel computers, two of which broke
down and needed replacement as well as providing computers for
the flow of interns or one-off research assistants I have in my
office".
28. Mr MacShane said that the EPI was "created
in the early 1990s in Geneva as an informal network of writers
and political activists interested in European affairs".
He said that it had published books, reports and bulletins, and
"was used by different people as a vehicle for payments
and for publishing or conference organising activities".
Mr MacShane said that the EPI had no full-time staff, and that
it had paid for "travel, research, translation, purchase
of reports and books connected to European political activities
on an informal basis". Mr MacShane said that he had used
it over a number of years to cover costs relating to his parliamentary
work, "for example as Chair of the All-Party Committee
of Enquiry into Anti-Semitism (2005-2008) where no other source
of parliamentary funding was available or when travelling to prepare
for the many debates on European affairs including the debates
on the Lisbon Treaty".[81]
29. Mr MacShane said that, in the final months
of 2004, he "was exploring the impact on British politics
of the new Zapatero government in Spain". This had "involved
a trip to Madrid and a hotel stay plus purchase of books and meetings
with policy specialists and Spanish parliamentarians".
Mr MacShane said that the costs had been met from the EPI. He
also said that "as former chair of the British-Swiss Parliamentary
Group and as someone who lived and worked in Geneva for a number
of years before becoming an MP in 1994" he had always taken
"a keen interest in Swiss political and economic affairs
and made a point of travelling regularly to Berne, Geneva and
Zurich to meet MPs and officials there." In January 2005
he had made such a trip, using the EPI for reimbursement, and
had "commissioned a report from a Geneva based consultant,
[name], for which I paid (from memory) CHF 500[82]
in cash". Mr MacShane said that this had been followed
by a visit to Warsaw ahead of Polish accession to the European
Union. He had been "a main go-between for western trade
unions and the Solidarity trade union in 1980-1981" and,
since becoming a Member, had "taken a sustained interest
in Polish links". As he did not have the language, he
had "used the EPI to pay informally for research and translation
as well as to cover flight and hotel costs as in the spring of
2005".
30. Mr MacShane said that the payments he had
claimed in the spring of 2005 related to "an intense period
of activity prior to and connected with the presumed general election
that year." He had asked his "network of correspondents
to prepare reports on how Britain was seen from the point of view
of various European countries in order to prepare debating points
and arguments for use in parliament and in media and Commons debates
with the Conservative opposition." The EPI had produced "an
analysis in different languages" as well as a report in Mr
MacShane's name on "the position of Labour's sister parties
in the EU".
31. Mr MacShane said that in the summer of 2005,
the key issue in Europe had been the referendums in France
and the Netherlands on the constitutional Treaty. He commented:
"The issue was a hot subject in the Commons and in order
to brief myself as fully as possible I travelled to France and
the Netherlands [to] investigate on the ground what the arguments
were. I bought a considerable number of newspapers, magazines
and books over this period which I used EPI payments to cover.
I had research undertaken in different capitals on how they would
react to the No from the French and the Dutch. These informed
my interventions in the House and in British public debate on
the issue in which I took a leading part in this period."
32. Mr MacShane said that in the autumn of 2005
the Prime Minister had asked him "to be his envoy to European
political parties and personalities meeting people informally
and reporting back to No 10 [...] I met the PM at Downing Street
to report on my impressions and to help him keep informed from
other than formal diplomatic sources on development in Europe."
He commented, "As is well known Whitehall has no way of
paying for this kind of work undertaken at the Prime Minister's
request which involves travel, research, contacts, hotels, purchase
of books and journals etc." Taking account of his personal
financial circumstances, he had "felt it was reasonable
to use the Commons allowances to cover costs of work that lay
at the centre of [his] Parliamentary activities". Mr
MacShane also said that, in this period, he had spoken "in
every FCO question session usually on Europe and in most foreign
policy and international debates". He had written "a
great deal", had broadcast "regularly"
on his Parliamentary work on European political affairs, and had
spoken "at events all over the country and in Europe on
European affairs". Mr MacShane said that he "could
not have undertaken this intense level of work [requiring] up-to-date
knowledge of EU developments and European political affairs (much
of it only available in languages which needed translating) without
being able to call on the modest sums claimed via the EPI."
33. Mr MacShane said that his work as a personal
envoy for the Prime Minister had continued throughout 2006. In
the first months of the year he had been to Switzerland twice
to meet with Swiss politicians, editors and diplomats. He commented,
"The issue of the Swiss negotiating an agreement with
the EU to allow free movement of people was important." He
said that, some years previously, he had "persuaded the Government
to allow Swiss citizens to enter the UK using the same channel
at airports as EU citizens. Now the Swiss were involved in tricky
negotiations, which involved Britain as an interlocutor, with
the European Commission on free movement of people and solidarity
payments by the Swiss to the EU." Mr MacShane said that
he had also gone to Paris to promote the cause of recognition
of Kosovo "which was a priority for the Government".
He had met French politicians and ambassadors of key states to
press the case. In the spring of that year he had travelled to
Pristina for meetings with Kosovan political leaders. Mr MacShane
noted that he was by that time "established as a UK delegate
to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and to
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly" and that "this was
parliamentary work outside of the Commons and being informed,
briefed and up-to-date on European political and defence/security
matters required intensive research, briefing and translation
which was covered by EPI payments."
34. Mr MacShane said that in February 2006 he
had gone to Poland and "prepared a report on Polish politics
for the PM at his request". He added that on average
over this period he had "tried to go to Poland at least twice
a year". He told me that he did not speak Polish "beyond
a few words" and that he had therefore had to "ask for
translations of material in order to be fully briefed."
In March 2006 Mr MacShane had gone to Berlin "at the PM's
request to talk to the Energy Minister, Sigmund Gabriel and the
leadership of the Social Democratic Party then in coalition with
the CDU". He said that this had been useful to his "parliamentary
interventions on EU energy policy and on the foreign policy approach
of the new German coalition government". Mr MacShane
commented that he had "met diplomats and editors there
and bought €100+[83]
worth of books on aspects of German politics." He said that
he had again "used EPI claimed for money to help cover the
costs of these trips", which he considered helped to improve
his "ability to contribute as an MP to the UK debate on German
and EU politics."
35. Mr MacShane said that by this stage he was
chairing the "All-Party Commission of Enquiry into Anti-Semitism",
which had been set up in 2005 and which had reported in September
2006.[84] He had "travelled
to Paris, Amsterdam, again to Berlin and Rome to have talks with
different Jewish organisations." He had "used EPI money
claimed in 2006 to help defray costs and to have translations
done and buy books in French and German on anti-Semitism."
Mr MacShane added that, in the autumn of 2006, he had travelled
to Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Berlin to
speak on the Commission's report on anti-Semitism. He said that
"the EPI payments recorded in September, October, and November
of 2006 helped cover these costs as well as helping with translation
into and from different European languages."
36. Turning to the claims made in 2007, Mr MacShane
said that that year had been "more or less the same as
the previous two years and two succeeding years in terms of regular
visits to different parts of Europe, the purchase of journals
and books and organising translations." He had been in
France in the spring of 2007 in connection with the French presidential
election. He said that he "was now working actively on
combating anti-Semitism at the European level, meeting politicians
and researchers on this issue and reading widely." He said
that this involved buying books which he "used money claimed
under the EPI heading to pay for." Mr MacShane said that
in April 2007 the Government had produced a Command Paper in response
to the Inquiry's report on anti-Semitism. He commented: "A
key recommendation was the need to engage in European and international
parliamentary and government work to fight and expose anti-Semitism.
This was a new area of parliamentary work—reflected in questions
and contributions to debates—in addition to my continuing
work on European politics where my contributions in the House
and public debate in 2007 are a matter of record also required
being in touch with politicians and researchers in different European
countries where anti-Semitism is a problem."
37. Mr MacShane said that he had spent time in
France after the election in May 2007 "to gauge the changes
in the way France was likely to approach issues like the problems
of immigration by asylum seekers clustered on the north French
coast who seek entry into the UK". He commented: "At
each of my fortnightly surgeries in Rotherham about half the people
who come along are asylum seekers who make no secret they arrived
via people smuggling criminal gangs who use lorries to bring asylum
seekers and economic migrants in from France. Finding out from
French politicians and officials about this problem was a contribution
to my ability to intervene usefully in this area of European politics."
Mr MacShane went on to say that he "was by now actively
researching contemporary European anti-Semitism which involved
visits to Frankfurt and Grenoble". He had also been "invited
by Jacques Delors" to join a committee, on which he still
served, to draw up a short-list for the European Book of the Year.
Mr MacShane commented, "Again, there were no funds to
cover the costs of travel and staying in Paris for these meetings
and since I used them to try and advance the case of British writers
[...] I thought it reasonable to use EPI money to cover these
costs."
38. In conclusion, Mr MacShane said that he hoped
his arguments provided "some background" to why he
believed "it was reasonable to claim moneys for parliamentary
activity which could not be sourced in any other way".
He enclosed copies of work translated into different European
languages over the period concerned, some of which he said had
been covered by EPI payments.[85]
Mr MacShane added that "If told to make rectification
I will do so but with some concern as it will mean that in the
future I will not be able to be as engaged on European political
work which has informed all my Parliamentary work in recent years."
39. I replied to Mr MacShane on 14 October.[86]
I noted that in my letter of 20 July,[87]
I had asked for further details of each of the claims identified
by the complainant for the work of the European Policy Institute
for 2004-05 to 2007-08, and that Mr MacShane's letter had described
the activities he had undertaken with the support of the EPI over
those years. I sent Mr MacShane a copy of a schedule I had drawn
up, based on the information he had provided and intended to give
me as clear an idea as possible of what each of the claims had
covered.[88] I said that
I proposed to use this schedule as a basis for my inquiry, and
invited him either to confirm or amend it. I asked in particular
for information about the payments claimed on 9 December 2005,
29 November 2007 and 4 January 2008, and why there had been apparently
such a wide variation in costs for the various activities he had
described. I also asked Mr MacShane how much he had spent on translation,
research and books and how much on accommodation and travel within
each of the claims he had made, and to confirm, first, that the
30 or so articles he had sent me had all been all researched or
translated (or both) by the EPI, and second, the date when his
brother had ceased to be involved with the Institute.
40. I asked Mr MacShane also to clarify his own
involvement with the EPI. In particular, I asked him how he had
reactivated the Institute when he had left ministerial office
in 2005, whether he held any position with the Institute, and
(if possible) what proportion of the EPI income for each of the
years in question was represented by his claims (or if not how
I could get hold of that information). I also asked him whether
he had considered an alternative supplier for his translation
and research work. Finally, I said that I looked forward to receiving
a response to my question about his purchase of computers which
I had included in my letter to him of 20 July.[89]
41. Mr MacShane replied on 29 October.[90]
On the question of whether he had been "wrong to use the
IEP expenses system to claim payments made to the EPI which in
essence was a way of being reimbursed for what I sincerely considered
to be expenses connected to my parliamentary work on Europe",
Mr MacShane said that at the time his answer "would
have been No." He told me that in all his working life he
had "used systems of allowances and expenses" to help
him to do his job "without bothering too much about anything
other than getting the job in hand done." He said that he
confessed that he was "casual and careless on expenses and
if anything spend moneys without getting receipts and not claiming."
He added, however, that at a time of "public concern over
how MPs have claimed expenses" he realised that "what
was done in the past is no longer acceptable." Mr MacShane
said that he hoped I would find that his claims had been reasonable,
and again said that if I judged that rectification of all or part
of the claims about which the complaint had been made was necessary
then he would of course comply.
42. Mr MacShane included with his letter a number
of attachments in which he responded to the specific matters I
had raised.[91] On the
question of the payments claimed on 9 December 2005, Mr MacShane
said that he had been asked in November 2005 by the Prime Minister's
Chief European Adviser "to go to Paris to talk to editors
and French opinion-makers about the crisis over the EU budget".
The cost of the trip had been "around the order of £350
for a return fare, 20-30 for taxis." He had stayed either
with friends or with the British Ambassador, or else at "a
modest hotel". Mr MacShane said that he had "used
the EPI payments to cover these costs". He commented:
"I did not exactly list every cost but averaged what I
paid out so that I was not out of pocket. The civil service allowance
for travel abroad varies from country to country but I sought
to stay under it within my own framework of what was fair to charge
to undertake parliamentary and political work." Mr MacShane
said that he had "used this time to do some research for
an essay on the legacy of Francois Mitterrand" and had "referred
to this in parliamentary and political work at the time."
He also said that he had made a second trip to Paris in early
December 2005 to meet the editor of le Monde, "to
make the argument for UK interests". Mr MacShane said
that, to the best of his recollection, he had "stayed
in the UK Ambassador's residence in Paris so there were no hotel
costs". He explained that "the EPI payment referred
to above was to help defray the costs of these trips and other
general work and sums expended in connection with my European
parliamentary/political work."
43. As to the payment claimed on 29 November
2007, Mr MacShane said that this had covered two trips. The first
had been to Berlin "to keep in touch with political and
parliamentary colleagues there." Mr MacShane said that, as
he recalled, he had been on "a fairly cheap flight around
the £150 mark" but had also bought books and informed
himself on "the German approach to the Lisbon Treaty as we
were limbering up for the Lisbon Treaty debates in the Commons
in which I was one of the main and regular speakers from the Government
side." On 18 November 2007 Mr MacShane had "made
a trip to Paris to interview a set of possible replacement PA's
for my Parliamentary office". He said that he had "
always sought to have at least one of my full-time co-workers
in the Commons from an EU member state in addition to the network
of EPI collaborators." He added that he had also paid
€100[92] in cash
to an EPI collaborator "for help with a paper I used later
in debates". He continued, "I freely confess
that I did not make an exact listing of every receipt for taxis,
books, journals, meals, etc. I have attached below a list of books
bought.[93] I
could of course have asked the Library to procure them for me
but as I saw them in bookshops [on my] travels in Europe it seemed
easier and more natural to buy them and use EPI claims to cover
costs. The differences in claims simply were whether one or more
trip was involved—each averaging around £400 and whether
I had forgotten to claim for one in a previous claim."
44. Turning to the payment claimed on 4 January
2008, Mr MacShane said that this covered a pre-Christmas trip
to Warsaw to meet two EPI collaborators and to hold meetings with
a newspaper editor. He said that he had paid one of the collaborators
€200[94] "for
help with translation" and bought the other collaborator
"a very large dinner for his continuing help with my queries
about political developments in Poland." Mr MacShane added
that Poland was a country he tracked closely, but that "without
any Polish beyond simple courtesies" he needed "help
with translation of material and with interpretation".
Mr MacShane said that he had again "sought the cheapest
possible airfare and stayed with the UK Ambassador there."
The total amount spent on the trip was "in excess of £600."
45. Mr MacShane enclosed a list of books he had
purchased; the list gave details of 54 books, which in total cost
over €1000[95].[96]
A manuscript note said that a full page of the list was missing.
Mr MacShane said that most of the articles in foreign languages
that he had sent me "were researched and some were translated
by EPI friends or researched by myself on EPI funded trips".
He explained: "I have good French and reasonable German
and Spanish but cannot write with grammatical perfection in any
European language so would ask EPI collaborators to help do initial
drafts or polish up work prior to publication. I would make modest
cash payments as and when I saw people who helped me or entertain
at my (EPI) expense as a payment in kind."
46. On the question of his brother's involvement
in the EPI, Mr MacShane said that his brother had "kindly
let me use his London address and name when the EPI was launched
in 1992 when I lived and worked in Geneva. But he never took any
direct, active part in its work other than the use of one of his
business addresses in London to receive mail etc." Mr
MacShane stressed that he alone took "all responsibility
in this matter" and that his brother had "not
been linked to the EPI in any formal sense since the middle 1990s".
He told me that he did "honestly believe that the moneys
claimed were connected with [his] parliamentary work on European
affairs."
47. As to Mr MacShane's own involvement with
the EPI, he repeated that it "was set up by a group of
pro-European policy writers, journalists and activists in the
1990s. It produced reports, published books and organised conferences."
Mr MacShane said that he "was by far the main organiser,
editor." Mr MacShane had used the EPI to carry on his European
parliamentary work "in terms of travel, translation, etc"
after he had stopped being a minister. He had also used the EPI
to "help defray costs related to my work as Chair of the
All-Party Committee of Inquiry into Anti-Semitism that began in
2005 with reference to material from continental Europe on this
issue." Mr MacShane said that "most of the income since
2005 in the EPI has been from the IEP claims" he made. He
continued, "The EPI is not an office and has never been
above the VAT threshold as all moneys going in and have been paid
out to cover costs. It was just easier to cover the costs of what
I was doing using this means." Mr MacShane commented:
"I accept fully that this arrangement was informal and
unusual but at the time it made sense in terms of my trying to
maintain a high level of involvement in European affairs which
I considered necessary for carrying out my parliamentary duties.
I accept fully ... [that] there may have been some overlap
between parliamentary and political involvement in European affairs
but since I am regularly called upon by the media to comment on
aspects of European politics as they pertain to the House of Commons
I could see no other way of funding this work save by using the
EPI as a means of securing reimbursement for moneys paid out.
I am clear in my own mind that what I claimed was to cover expenses
connected with my work as an MP but I can also understand that
others may place a different interpretation." Mr MacShane
reiterated that he was happy to rectify any payments, either in
whole or in part, if directed to do so.
48. Mr MacShane also included with his letter
an attachment giving details of his computer purchases.[97]
The dates of the claims, and the reasons for purchase given by
Mr MacShane, are summarised in the following table:
| Date of claim |
Details of computer |
Reason for purchase |
| 14 March 2005
| Sony Vaio
| Lightweight computer bought for travel use
|
| 2 November 2005
| None given
| Bought for new home
|
| 28 December 2005
| None given
| Bought for use by PA/intern doing research work in office and at home
|
| 13 February 2006
| None given
| Replacement for computer claimed for on 14 March 2005 which had broken down
|
| 7 December 2006
| None given
| Bought for study in constituency home
|
| 5 July 2007
| None given
| Bought for new researcher, often working away from office
|
| 24 September 2007
| None given
| Bought for staff member working from home to carry out parliamentary work, to replace obsolete equipment
|
| 11 January 2008
| None given
| Bought for a PA/Intern who had to work from home, at nights and over the weekend
|
| 17 January 2008
| None given
| Bought for a PA/Intern carrying out research who had to work away from the office at weekends, evenings, etc.
|
49. I replied to Mr MacShane on 10 November.[98]
I attached a revised schedule of the payments Mr MacShane had
made to the EPI, summarising the evidence he had given to me and
reflecting the fact that he had been unable to provide a full
breakdown of his expenditure or the categories under which it
had been incurred.[99]
I said that, subject to any corrections or amendments he wished
to suggest, I would take this schedule as a reasonable and accurate
summary of his evidence of the payments he had made to EPI. I
asked Mr MacShane why, instead of claiming via the EPI for research,
translation, literature and travel costs, he had not claimed these
directly from his allowances, where permissible. I also asked
him to confirm the status of the EPI. I asked if it was, for example,
a virtual organization which was used by him to make payments
direct for a range of facilities and services as described in
his evidence to me. I asked about the arrangements for this organisation—whether
it had a bank account and office holders; whether it was a company
or a partnership; who its employees were; and if I could see copies
of its accounts for the relevant years.
50. On Mr MacShane's expenditure on computers, I said that
I was having some difficulty reconciling this list with the information
he had provided in his letter to me of 16 July.[100]
I noted that he had referred to a Sony Vaio computer which had
broken down on a visit to Washington DC in November 2008. I asked
if he had been mistaken in suggesting in his letter of 16 July
that the two computers purchased in 2008 had been to upgrade computers
in Rotherham, given that it appeared from the note attached to
his letter of 29 October that they were in fact bought for two
PAs/interns. I also asked Mr MacShane if he could let me know,
as requested in my initial letter of 15 July,[101]
where each of these nine computers now was. Finally, I asked Mr
MacShane, as requested in my letters of 15 and 20 July,[102]
what computers provided free of charge by Parliament he had used
since 2004-05, and why he had needed the bought computers in addition
to the free provision.
51. Mr MacShane replied on 19 November, seeking clarification
of the precise information I was seeking.[103]
I responded to him on 23 November.[104]
I said that, in respect of his EPI claims, the information he
had so far provided had not given a full breakdown of his expenditure
or the categories under which it was incurred. If he had such
information, in whatever level of detail he had retained it, including
invoices identifying the services provided and the costs of those
services in each of his relevant claims, then it would be very
helpful to me to have it. I would then be able to revise the schedule
and provide a much clearer understanding of how each of these
claims had been built up. If, however, Mr MacShane had given me
all that he could, I asked him to confirm this, and said that
I would then take the summary as the best information he could
now provide me with. I also said that the outstanding information
I had requested related to the computers provided free of charge
by Parliament since 2004-05 and what had happened to each of the
nine computers he had bought and where they were now, which I
had asked about on 15 July;[105]
and to the claims he had made for payments to the EPI.
52. Mr MacShane sent me "a further holding letter"
on 1 December,[106]
and, following an informal meeting on 14 December to clarify the
information I had sought, he replied substantively on 11 January
2010.[107] He apologised
for the delay in responding. He attached what he described as
"further documents relevant to EPI's existence".
They included "letters from academics and others on the
continuing existence of the EPI". [108]
Mr MacShane said that section 5.13.2 of the 2005 Green Book allowed
payments for research, interpreting and translation services.
He said that he had taken this "to cover carrying out
my own research based on face-to-face contacts in addition to
translations of articles/notes you have been sent". Mr
MacShane attached statements from four people paid by the EPI
which he said "showed payments of €5,700[109]
plus US$950[110]".[111]
He continued, "Others who have helped me include government
officials and employees of NGOs who would prefer not to make formal
statements of modest EPI payments since as I understand it anything
I send to you may end up published on the record."
53. Mr MacShane reiterated that he "felt that in order
to maintain [his] Parliamentary work as one of the House's 'experts'
on Europe [he] needed to maintain a level of face-to-face contact
and dialogue with EU politicians and policy/opinion formers across
the range." He told me that he could "speak three European
languages" but needed help with translation, and explained
that "such help was paid for in cash since to go through
a formal translation/interpretation agency is costly and cumbersome."
He said that he did on occasion claim the European Travel Allowance,
which he described as "quite limited" but commented
that "this did not allow the flexibility of visits and
arrangements, often made at short notice" that he required.[112]
He observed that "the European Travel Allowance pays full
business class and hotel costs so that, for example, a trip to
any remoter European capital can cost £2,000 or more."
He also said that many of the EPI payments he had made came
under the £250 limit required for receipts.
54. Mr MacShane said that he had "never charged the
IEP for office rental" and that he had "felt it was
reasonable to use some of the permitted IEP allowance to carry
out my European research." In order to "maximise visit
possibilities" he had felt it "better to make two or
even three trips" rather than limit himself "to the
3 x per annum European Extended Travel visit."[113]
He continued: "In my judgement if the House permitted
any number of Extended Travel trips within the UK in connection
with Parliamentary work[114]
it was reasonable to seek, within the overall limits of the IEP
allowance, to make some low-costs trips to Europe as part of my
continuing interventions in the House on Europe."[115]
Mr MacShane said that he also used EPI moneys to have translated
articles which he had sent me.[116]
He added that he had no private income or external sponsors to
allow this work to be carried out. He had "felt that using
the EPI as a vehicle to cover costs and payments was reasonable"
although, "in the light of new, stringent interpretations
on what MPs can and cannot claim", he accepted that he may
have been "too relaxed in making claims."
55. Mr MacShane said that he had been "hunting through
old files to show reports and books and conferences published
and organised by the EPI". He said that the organisation
was "not a company, nor a partnership (in the sense of
lawyers or GPs)", that it had "no office, and a bank
account which has never reached VAT registrable levels so there
have been no accounts to audit or submit."
56. Mr MacShane said that in the last Parliament as he ceased
to be a Minister he "used the EPI almost entirely to cover
the costs" he had described and "to claim from the Fees
Office to cover those costs". He also said that, assuming
he was re-elected to the next Parliament, he planned to upgrade
the activities of the EPI "with a full-time researcher/organiser"
but added that "even then it will be located in our respective
computers" and he doubted whether it would "ever attain
the status of a full-scale office operation". Mr MacShane
said that the EPI was already commissioned to publish a report
on the new barriers to Turkey's future admission to the European
Union and that he would "be travelling to Istanbul to
carry out work in that regard". He commented: "I
would it [were] possible for me as an MP to exercise my
judgement on what work I need to carry out. For good or ill I
am an expert on European affairs. Other colleagues may travel
freely using Extended Travel allowances to any corner of the UK
to research matters or meet people in connection with matters
before Parliament.[117]
I have spoken more on European issues than any other subject in
the last five years and rightly or wrongly felt it reasonable
to use the EPI as a payment method for researching this work which
was to help me as an MP."
57. Mr MacShane attached to his letter statements from four
people who had assisted him and been paid by the EPI payments.[118]
The first was from a person in Switzerland, who had been paid
by Mr MacShane in cash in each of the five years from 2005 to
2009 CHF 400[119] in
addition to hospitality when he visited Geneva for translation,
research and other general advice on political developments in
Switzerland as they related to the United Kingdom. The second
was from a person in France, who wrote that "in the years
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 you [Mr MacShane] paid
me in cash when we saw each other sums averaging €500[120]
for all the bits and pieces of work—translating, analysing
French and international labour politics that you asked me to
ahead of your regular visits to France and on the French media
to discuss UK and European politics. I can also confirm that you
paid me US$950[121]
to read and edit your manuscript of the work on anti-Semitism
arising from the Commission of Inquiry into Anti-Semitism you
chaired on behalf of the UK Parliament." The person added
that Mr MacShane had "also kindly bought [him] dinners
or lunch". The third was from an individual in Germany
who had received a total of €700,[122]
including €300[123]
in both 2006 and 2007 for translation services and €100[124]
for "communicating with counterparts" in connection
with "IG Metall[125]
and the Frankfurt Book Fair". The fourth was from a person
who confirmed that Mr MacShane had "visited Madrid more
than once during the period 2006-08". That person commented,
"During these trips, in pursuance of your parliamentary
duties and the work of the European Policy Institute, you met
local politicians advisers to the Government in Spain and journalists.
I helped with some of the organisation but the costs including
meals for the guests and travel were all met by the EPI. I would
estimate these expenses to be at least €500[126]."
58. Mr MacShane also enclosed with his letter of 11 January[127]
copies of three notes which, he said, referred to invitations
which had been extended to him in connection with EPI activity
to speak at events.[128]
The first, from a United States trade union official, paid tribute
to past briefings provided by Mr MacShane there under EPI auspices,
and hoped that "the current climate" would not diminish
Mr MacShane's "ability through EPI to keep updating us on
European trade union issues." The second gave feedback
on a previous event addressed by Mr MacShane and looked forward
to his participation in an event in St Petersburg in June 2010.
The third, from an American university professor, sought to build
on "last year's very successful visit both for the European
Policy Institute and yourself" and to initiate arrangements
for a further visit.
59. Mr MacShane also enclosed with his letter of 11 January
a note about his computer purchases.[129]
Mr MacShane said that, as with other office equipment, he treated
computers as "tools to be used, discarded, bought for
co-workers" and said that, provided he was within the office
costs allowance limit, he "gave no thought to the cost of
purchase." He criticised the laptops provided by the
Commons authorities as "clunky, slow and heavy".
He said that there was "one Commons lap-top in my office.
[These] keyboards are notoriously sticky after about a year's
use and I would have replaced one of these in my work areas in
[constituency office] and [London]". Mr MacShane added
that he did not keep "any kind of file or inventory"
of his electronic equipment. He said that some of the computers
were "just lying gathering dust" in his offices or
had "been thrown away when they stopped working properly".
He said that he did not "get any inventory of computers"
and that the computers had been "bought as and when"
for himself and for his staff.
60. Mr MacShane said that he had bought three Sony Vaio laptops
for travel use, of which two had broken down and one had been
replaced by a more modern version with wi-fi. He said that he
did not use any of the Commons laptops supplied to him "though
I can see two in my office as I write". Mr MacShane said
that if he had "been told by the Fees Office not to buy
equipment" which, in his judgment, he needed for himself
and his staff, then he "would have complied", but that
in his fifteen years as a Member he had "always bought whatever
equipment I wanted provided it was within the limits of the allowance".
He had "tried to allocate different computers to different
researchers/interns" who had worked for him.
61. On 20 January, Mr MacShane sent me a copy of a note from
a fifth person he had paid using EPI money claimed for his parliamentary
work.[130] She said
that she had been paid €500.[131]
I replied to Mr MacShane on 21 January asking what services she
had provided for this sum and for the date of the payment.[132]
Mr MacShane responded on 23 January, saying that the €500
he had paid her was "for translations as claimed for via
the EPI claim against the IEP".[133]
I replied to him on 25 January, saying that I presumed he had
no further information to help on the date of the payment.[134]
62. Mr MacShane wrote to me again about the complaint in general
on 10 February.[135]
He told me that he had spent "a considerable amount of
time" reviewing the correspondence that we had exchanged
over the preceding eight months and that he wished to thank me
and my staff for the way in which we had conducted our inquiries
in relation to the complaint. He said that my conduct and that
of my staff had been "even handed and exemplary"
and "very fair" when he had had "a difficult
period". He commented that obtaining documentary evidence
for the time frame covered by the complaint had presented him
"with a number of challenges" and continued, "it
is now very clear to me that my record keeping was totally inadequate
and that the management of my financial administration was simply
inept". He added that his "failure to deal well
with my own affairs at that time" had been "undoubtedly
compounded by my personal and professional circumstances which
were particularly distressing". On reflection, he could
"now see quite clearly that with respect to my expenses
claims and the reasons for them I could have achieved some of
the same aims, in terms of acquiring information to enable me
to support my activities as a parliamentarian with considerable
expertise in relation to European affairs, if I had simply used
the administrative vehicles which were available to all Members
of Parliament at the time or discussed with the Fees Office systems
to allow me to research and travel in Europe".
63. Mr MacShane said that he had considered how his actions
could be regarded by others and that he could "well understand
that consideration of just the facts could lead to individuals
being highly critical", but he "did not intend a wrong".
He told me that, in mitigation, he could "only say that the
adequacy of [his] judgements and the paucity of [his] administration
at the time were very influenced by [his] personal circumstances."
His view was that "given these facts, and [his] duty
in respect to those who would pass judgement on [him] it is now
only right and proper to repay the sums in question at this time".
Mr MacShane accordingly enclosed with his letter a cheque for
£7,500, payable to the House of Commons Administration. He
said that the sum he was repaying was "based on the total
amounts claimed minus the invoices I have submitted from collaborators
who worked for me." He added that this complaint had
given him "an opportunity to reflect on what was a very
difficult time and to put into place administrative procedures
which reflect best practice."
64. Having acknowledged Mr MacShane's letter and informed
him that I was forwarding his cheque to the House authorities,[136]
I wrote substantively to him on 18 February.[137]
I attached a further revised version of the schedule of EPI payments
I had originally sent him on 14 October.[138]
The claims totalled £12,900. Four related to 2004-05 (£2,900),
six to 2005-06 (£3,550), six to 2006-07 (£4,400), and
three to 2007-08 (£2,050). I also summarised what Mr MacShane
had told me about the nature of the EPI and his control of its
finances. He had told me that the EPI was a loose network of like
minded individuals and academics, with no formal structure and
no separate financial structure. Mr MacShane controlled its bank
account. He had used the name of the Institute to enable him to
claim for a range of services and activities, namely his own travel
and accommodation, the purchase by him of books and periodicals,
his own research, research papers and translation work he had
commissioned and for which he had paid in cash and kind (namely
meals); reading and editing the manuscript arising from the Committee
of Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, and hospitality and travel costs
for EPI contacts, including other politicians, advisers and journalists.
He had no contemporary record of any of these payments, and neither
he nor his contacts had records which would enable him confidently
to link his claims to specific payments made via the EPI. He had
considered it desirable to claim against his IEP for these costs
since he had been asked to undertake the work by the Prime Minister;
it enabled him to pursue his wider European interests; there was
no separate provision for such activities, and the European Travel
Allowance was limited to three trips to European institutions
and agencies each year.[139]
The claims he had submitted stated that they were for research
and translation services and did not refer to the other costs
which were covered. I invited Mr MacShane to confirm or amend
this summary. I noted that he had voluntarily made a repayment
of £7,500 representing the full sum of his claims for the
EPI (£12,900) less, I assumed, £5,400 representing the
cash payments he had made to five of his colleagues and confirmed
by them.[140]
65. I also attached to my letter a summary of the evidence
Mr MacShane had given me in relation to the nine computers he
had bought from 2004-05 to 2007-08.[141]
I asked him to confirm its accuracy. I said that it was not clear
whether Mr MacShane still had the computers bought over this period
and noted that he could not identify whether any of the computers
in his main home and his constituency home, and which had been
issued to his staff, were the computers bought over this period
or replacement computers.
66. Mr MacShane replied on 25 February.[142]
Responding to my summary of the evidence he had given me in respect
of his EPI claims, Mr MacShane commented that he thought my summary
was "a fair one", though he supposed that the "greater
details and justification" he had provided "might be
adduced in argument". He concluded: "But as a summary
it is fair." On his computer purchases, Mr MacShane said
that he could "try and find all these computers scattered
around my homes, offices and with colleagues who worked for me".
He said that he had "always thought an MP could purchase
whatever equipment he or she needed up to the IEP limit and he
or she was a free agent in terms of these purchases".
67. Mr MacShane said that, when he had entered the
House, another Member had told him, "You have to go out
and buy it and sort everything out yourself." Mr MacShane
said that he had "assumed on all these claims that if
the Fees Office thought there was anything amiss or to be questioned
then they would let me know and either I would change practice
or seek their agreement to be funded for this research work in
Europe". He commented: "I freely concede that
I wish now I had not operated as I did. Or that I had gone and
asked the Fees Office for some arrangement to carry on my European
work which has been at the centre of my parliamentary existence
over the years."
68. Mr MacShane wrote to me again on 1 April.[143]
He enclosed with his letter a copy of a short book entitled Britain's
Steel Industry in the 21st Century which he said had been
published by the EPI in 1996. He commented, "It has been
a constant frustration in dealing with your queries that so many
documents etc have not been logged or kept. In particular this
applies to the EPI which did produce reports and documents steadily
in the 1990s and which remains available as a mechanism to publish
reports or receive moneys for conferences and travel though as
previously indicated to you I accept my errors in respect of claims
under question."
69. I replied to Mr MacShane on 6 April.[144]
I noted that the booklet had been published by Epic Books, which
according to the imprint was "the publishing division
of The European Policy Institute." I said that I hoped
that I was right in assuming from his letter of 25 February,[145]
in which he had agreed to the summary which I had sent him on
18 February,[146] that
the EPI no longer had the structure implied by that imprint and,
in particular, no longer had a publishing division and no longer
operated out of the address given in the imprint or any other
postal address.
70. Mr MacShane replied on 9 April.[147]
He said that he did not think that sending me the booklet altered
"in any way" the basic assessment I had made.
He said that "it was just very frustrating that as a hopeless
record keeper and someone who files nothing I was unable to show
you publications and reports and books that the EPI had produced
in order to demonstrate that it was not created simply and solely
to claim IEP money. So when, by chance [...] I came across this
book I sent it to you to show that the EPI did exist. But I see
no reason for you to alter the description as you have set it
down."
71. Meanwhile, I had written to the Director of Operations
at the Department of Resources on 1 March to seek his comments
and advice on the complaint.[148]
I subsequently copied to him Mr MacShane's letter of 1 April,
my response of 6 April, and Mr MacShane's letter of 9 April.[149]
I asked specifically if he considered that Mr MacShane's claims
against his IEP for research and translation carried out by the
EPI, as set out in my letter to Mr MacShane of 18 February,[150]
met the criteria for claims against that allowance. I asked for
the Director's advice on whether these claims were all permissible
in the light of the information Mr MacShane had provided, including
the use of this expenditure for travel and hotel costs by him
and others, and its use in relation to the work of the All-Party
Committee of Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. I also asked whether
Mr MacShane's claims for computers over this period were, in the
Director's view, within the rules of the House. I noted that Mr
MacShane was unable to recollect the full details of the nine
computer purchases listed by the complainant, and therefore asked
the Director for unredacted copies of the relevant claims and
supporting documentation. I also asked whether, in the Director's
view, the two claims for £498.95 in January 2008 were likely
to have related to separate machines. Finally, I asked for any
other information which the Department held about the EPI, including
details of the type and location of its bank account.
72. The Director of Strategic Projects replied to my letter
on 29 April.[151] In
relation to the payments to the EPI, the Director said that the
rules governing the IEP allowed for claims in respect of "work
commissioned and bought in services" and that this "included
both research and translation services". He said that
each of Mr MacShane's claims in respect of the EPI had been submitted
on a C2 direct payment form (the form used in respect of claims
from the IEP), with a relevant invoice from the EPI attached,
and that "on each occasion, the invoice simply stated
"Research and translation as requested"". There
was no record of any discussions between the Department and Mr
MacShane regarding either the wording of the invoices or the services
that the EPI had provided. The Director told me that the Department
"relied on Members' certification as evidence of their
claims' compliance with the House's requirements." The
Director went on to say, "In light of the information
now provided to you by Mr MacShane, I believe that some of the
services provided were not legitimate charges against IEP. Had
the services been broken down by type when they were submitted,
then travel and accommodation for Mr MacShane, and hospitality
and travel costs for EPI contacts, would have been queried and
almost certainly disallowed." He also noted that Mr MacShane
might have been able to make use of the extended travel provision
for some of his costs.[152]
The Director added, for completeness, that he took it that the
reference in my summary of 18 February[153]
to Mr MacShane's "own research" was a reference
to such things as the purchase of materials needed for research,
rather than to any emolument paid to Mr MacShane for his own research
work. He observed that "any such emolument would not have
been allowable".
73. The Director told me that the Parliamentary Committee
Against Anti-Semitism was a registered All-Party Group (APG).[154]
It had published "a major report" in September
2006 which the Director said had been the subject of debate in
Westminster Hall and had received responses from the Government
by means of Command Papers. Mr MacShane had chaired the Committee
during its inquiry. He said that it seemed to him that "work
in relation to the Committee was entirely properly work in furtherance
of parliamentary duties". He noted that there was, however,
"no specific guidance about APGs and expenses before a Practice
Note agreed by the Members' Allowances Committee in early 2010
which stated that no more than 25% of the time of an employee
paid out of parliamentary expenses should be spent on APG-related
activity."[155]
74. The Director said that he "had some concerns"
about the work which Mr MacShane had been asked to undertake by
the Prime Minister in 2005-6. He explained: "If this was
work in connection with his parliamentary duties, then it would
have been an eligible expense. If, however, it was work for party
political purposes, it would not have been eligible, and if it
was work for the purposes of Her Majesty's Government, then it
might have been more appropriate for the Government to meet the
cost."
75. On the question of Mr MacShane's computer purchases, the
Director attached to his letter a list of computers in respect
of which Mr MacShane had submitted claims. The information given
by the Director is summarised in the table below:
| 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
|
76. The Director also enclosed copies of Mr MacShane's unredacted
claims in respect of these computers.[156]
He observed that it appeared that "the claims on 11 and
17 January 2008 were for the same machine and that Mr MacShane
was reimbursed twice for the same cost".[157]
He explained that "it was not the practice of departmental
staff when validating claims for IT equipment to revisit previous
claims in order to confirm the nature and frequency of earlier,
similar purchases nor was it their practice to query whether the
equipment was necessary for a Member to carry out his or her parliamentary
duties." He believed that, if such a practice had been in
place at the time, "it would have been reasonable at least
to have asked Mr MacShane why this level of IT provision, in addition
to that provided by PICT, should not be have been regarded as
excessive." The Director said that the Department had
no record of any correspondence or other communication with Mr
MacShane about his computers. Finally, the Director, commenting
on Mr MacShane's statement in his letter to me of 16 July[158]
that he had provided computers to his paid and unpaid staff both
in the United Kingdom and abroad, said, "so long as these
computers were used only for Mr MacShane's parliamentary purposes,
and that value for money was obtained, this would seem to me to
be a proper use of allowances".
77. I replied to the Director on 5 May.[159]
I sought further guidance about the Department's practice and
policy covering the claims which Mr MacShane had made for the
EPI. This had included claims for the cost of Mr MacShane's own
international travel and his accommodation abroad. I therefore
asked whether it had been permissible at the time for Members
to claim from their IEP for the cost of such travel and subsistence
if they did so in support of their parliamentary duties, and whether
Members could claim for such costs from their own IEP when those
costs were incurred as part of the work of an all-party group.[160]
I also asked whether the Department would have considered it acceptable
at the time for Members to meet the costs of research and translation
services by paying the providers in cash and in hospitality, without
invoices or receipts from those providers, as had apparently happened
in this case. I also asked the Director, in the light of the description
in my letter to Mr MacShane of 18 February[161]
of the organisational and financial structure of the EPI, to which
he had agreed, whether the Department would consider that the
nature of EPI as now described made it a legitimate recipient
for funding in response to claims which appeared to have been
paid out to others. Finally, I asked the Director to which bank
account the Department's payments were made in response to Mr
MacShane's EPI claims, and whether any were made to his personal
bank account.
78. The Director of Strategic Projects replied on 13 May.[162]
He said that it was "not permissible for Members to claim
for their own international travel and accommodation from the
Incidental Expenses Provision even when the costs were incurred
in support of their parliamentary duties". He added that
"these rules applied equally when a Member incurred such
costs as part of the work of an all-party group".[163]
The Director noted that Mr MacShane had submitted receipts from
the EPI and explained that the Department "would not have
had any particular difficulty with EPI paying its own suppliers
in cash". He said that "if hospitality was a form of
remuneration, this would have been unorthodox, and, had the Department
known about it, it would have raised queries. If hospitality was
not remuneration, it would not have been permitted, whether or
not invoices or receipts were provided."
79. The Director said that, if Mr MacShane had absolute control
of EPI's finances, "that might have made it unwise of
him to allow claims to be made against parliamentary allowances
in respect of EPI." The Director added that he was aware
of Sir Thomas Legg's and Sir Paul Kennedy's views on conflicted
transactions in the ACA review,[164]
and commented, "there is an argument that transactions
with EPI were similarly conflicted". However, he added
that "there was no rule which meant that an organisation
structured and controlled as EPI was should not be a legitimate
recipient of funding, and the Department neither had nor sought
information about EPI's internal arrangements".
80. The Director said that all payments to the EPI had been
invoiced from an address in London SW6 and had been made by the
Department to the same bank account in the name of the EPI. None
had been made to Mr MacShane's personal bank account.
81. I sent copies of my exchanges of correspondence with the
Department of Resources to Mr MacShane on 18 May.[165]
I said that I was not asking Mr MacShane to respond to their views
on computer purchases at this stage, since I was seeking some
further information from the House authorities about computers
which were available to him, and would come back to him on this
aspect when I had received their response. In respect of his claims
for the EPI, I asked Mr MacShane in particular, in the light of
the advice from the Department, whether the hospitality he had
given had been part of the remuneration of those who had provided
him with research and translation services and, if so, whether
the arrangement had been agreed in advance, and how Mr MacShane
had identified the value of the hospitality to be offered. I also
asked him whether, when he had provided that hospitality, he had
met the cost of his own meals out of the funds he had claimed
from the EPI, or whether he had paid separately for his own food
and any drink. I asked him, given his evidence that the EPI did
not have an office or structure during the period covered by my
inquiry, who had been at the address in London SW6 from which
the invoices from the EPI had been sent, and who had raised and
authorised each of the invoices.
82. Meanwhile, on 11 May I had written to the Director of
Operations and Member Services, Parliamentary ICT services.[166]
I asked him for details of any computers which Mr MacShane borrowed
or purchased from the House in the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09.
The Director replied on 18 May.[167]
He enclosed a copy of Parliamentary ICT's IT records relating
to Mr MacShane's centrally-provided computer equipment.[168]
This showed that Mr MacShane had been provided with three laptops
and three PCs during the period relevant to the complaint, from
2004-05 to 2007-08.
83. I wrote to Mr MacShane on 20 May about his computer claims.[169]
I enclosed a schedule which summarised his computer provision
from both PICT and the IEP over the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08,
and their allocation between Westminster and his constituency.[170]
I asked Mr MacShane to confirm or revise this summary of the purchase
and use of his computers; to tell me how many parliamentary staff
he had employed at any one time from 2004-05 to 2007-08, divided
between Westminster and his constituency; to confirm that each
member of staff, including interns, passed on their computer to
any successor when they left Mr MacShane's office; to confirm
that the Sony laptop he had purchased VAT-free at Heathrow on
5 December 2006[171]
had returned with him to his constituency home, as he had suggested
in his letter of 29 October;[172]
and whether Mr MacShane accepted that he had claimed twice for
the £498.95 Toshiba laptop which he had purchased on 31 December
2007 and, if so, how this mistake had occurred. I also told Mr
MacShane that, in the light of his response, I would need to consider
whether the computers he had purchased in addition to the PICT
provision he had ordered were costs which had been wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred in his Parliamentary duties.
84. I had written to the Director of Strategic Projects on
17 May to ask him for unredacted copies of the relevant claim
forms and EPI invoices from 2004-05 to 2007-08.[173]
On 25 May he sent me 19 claim forms with invoices submitted by
the EPI.[174] The table
below sets out, in each case, the date of the invoice from the
EPI, the amount, and the description of the services provided:
| 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[175]
| 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
| |
85. I examined the invoices the Director had sent me.[176]
They were all on EPI headed notepaper and addressed to Mr MacShane
at the House of Commons. The address provided for the EPI was
that referred to in the Department's response of 13 May.[177]
The invoices had been presented for work on "research
and translation," although one invoice had described
the work as "research and communications work"
and another as "research and translation consultancy".
All the work was described either as "as agreed"
or "as requested". I also noted that the invoices
had all been signed by a named individual and the invoice footer
identified that individual as the General Manager. The footer
also identified by name an Acting Director and four Associate
Directors. Three of the Associate Directors appeared to be the
authors of correspondence Mr MacShane had enclosed with his letter
of 11 January 2010.[178]
86. Having examined the unredacted invoices, I wrote to Mr
MacShane again on 27 May.[179]
I told Mr MacShane that I was having some difficulty in reconciling
the information on the invoices with the information which he
had so far provided in respect of these claims. I said that he
had agreed as a summary of his evidence, set out in my letter
to him of 18 February[180]
and confirmed in his reply of 25 February,[181]
that the EPI had no formal structure, no separate financial structure
and that he controlled its bank account. I commented that the
invoices, however, suggested that as well as an office address,
there was a General Manager who was responsible for signing the
invoices, an Acting Director, and four Associate Directors. I
asked Mr MacShane about the role, responsibilities, and identities
of the General Manager, Acting Director and Associate Directors
identified on the invoices, for the current postal addresses of
the General Manager and the Acting Director so that I could take
evidence from them about the work of the EPI and, in particular,
about the invoices which the General Manager had presented to
him. I also asked Mr MacShane for how long EPI had been based
at these premises, and whether they were a business address of
his brother, as Mr MacShane had suggested in his letter to me
of 29 October.[182]
87. Mr MacShane wrote to me again on 15 June.[183]
He began by reiterating his view that he accepted that errors
had been made, "but they were mistakes based on an over-enthusiastic
zeal to carry out my parliamentary work on European affairs".
He said that he now accepted that his approach was "indeed
open to question and reproach". Dealing first with the
EPI, Mr MacShane confirmed the description in my letter to him
of 18 February[184]
of the EPI as "a loose network, with no formal structure
and no separate financial structures" and that he controlled
the bank account. He explained that the letterheads used to claim
for reimbursement dated from the 1990s, when he had been working
in Geneva and had set up the EPI. He went on to say that
"the names at the bottom of the letterhead were friends
and associates at the time. The titles were simply on the letterhead
to make it look more official." Mr MacShane also said
that, at the time, he had asked his brother if he could use a
business address of his "though any payments were made
by BACS so the address fell into disuse". Mr MacShane
told me that there was no office and nor had there ever been any
salaried staff. He said that he had "never been to the
address". He also stressed that his brother had "no
involvement in, responsibility for, payments from" the
EPI and that he was not "in any way connected to the EPI".
88. Mr MacShane said that he had "used the EPI as a means
to recoup expenses that I paid out for the research I carried
out by travelling in Europe to sustain my parliamentary work on
European issues". On his "travels to carry out research"
he would have "paid for a drink, a coffee or the odd meal
for people I met for the purposes of continually updating my parliamentary
knowledge on European affairs." Mr MacShane also said that
he had no detailed invoices, nor did he make any agreement or
specific arrangements about hospitality. He commented: "I
visited. I met. I stayed overnight. I bought books and magazines
in foreign languages. In the UK this would have been met by extended
travel[185], or by
sending in individual bills for books or newspaper/magazine subscriptions."
Mr MacShane said that the Fees Office had always met "reasonable
requests in that regard". He said that in his interpretation
of what he "considered to be research on my main area of
parliamentary work and for ease of administration" he had
"submitted EPI bills which covered what I considered to be
what I had disbursed in the period concerned". He explained
that "the invoices were pro-forma" on his computer,
"with just the amount varying according to what I judged
to have expended". He added: "Again I stress my sole
responsibility based on my interpretation of the rules and my
belief that carrying out this research in Europe added value to
my role as an MP specialising in European affairs."
89. Mr MacShane said that he had recently discussed with a
senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official "the decision
of the then Prime Minister to ask me to report directly to him
via [that official] on EU politics but that there is no provision
in Government to pay anyone to do this work". Mr MacShane
said that the official had confirmed that his work and information
had been valued by the Government, and that, notwithstanding this,
it had been unable to pay anything towards his costs, and had
agreed, at his request, to send me a note to that effect "subject
to clearance from the FCO PUS[186]".[187]
Mr MacShane said that he "genuinely believed that as an MP
what I was doing was of value to public service even if as I now
accept and [the Director of Strategic Projects] makes clear that
I may have cut corners."
90. Turning to the subject of his computers, Mr MacShane began
by saying that he had tracked down one in Rotherham which had
not been thrown away and had brought it down to London. He added
that "there may be others gathering dust somewhere"
but that he had "never paid much attention
to matériel." He had "always just
bought what was needed when it was needed within the limits of
the IEP allowances", bearing in mind that he was not
claiming rent for an office in his constituency and
so "felt relaxed about buying kit." He said that
he had "bought a great deal of kit - printers, mobile
phones, Palms, scanners, collating machines, fax machines, cameras
etc" which he had "replaced, thrown away, or
stopped using as new models have come along." He had
had "an extensive network of interns - not employed staff"
in the period when he stopped being a Minister, and said that
"if they needed a cheap and cheerful computer" he
had bought a new one, much as he would buy "any other
bit of kit that I needed for the office". He added:
"They are scattered to the four winds in America and Europe".
He explained that "the computers offered by PICT quickly
became out-dated -- they had no wi-fi function for example and
PICT while being very helpful in certain regards were not able
to upgrade computers so it was easier to go to [a named computer
retail chain]" to get what he needed to do his parliamentary
work.
91. Mr MacShane said that he "had no reason to object"
to the schedule of his computer acquisitions[188]
that I had included with my letter to him of 20 May[189]
"as I genuinely cannot remember why or when I purchased any
bit of office kit in the 16 years I have been an MP." He
continued: "I have had at any one time between 3 and 5 people
paid as full or part-time staff with one dictation typist part-time
in Rotherham and usually one or two interns in my Westminster
office. I had complaints from staff about slowness of some computers
especially with the bigger programmes for case-work, web-sites,
design and so forth so just said "Let's get a new one.""
On specific purchases, Mr MacShane commented, "The 2006 Vaio
was a light-weight one that stayed with me in my brief-case until
it broke down and was not repairable." He said that if he
had claimed twice for the same computer bought on 31 December
2007 then "that was clearly a mistake", though he was
"surprised the Fees Office did not notice it."
92. Mr MacShane said that his paperwork was "useless"
and that he was "the world's worst keeper of bills,
invoices, papers etc"; he was "constantly
forgetting" either to claim payments to which he was
entitled or to make payments he should pay. He remained conscious
that he might have "gone beyond what is permitted or inferred
in the previous Green Book." He noted that he had "made
some rectification" and said that he was "willing
to make more if required". He said that he was grateful
to me and to an official in my office for "the thorough
but very fair manner with which you have conducted the inquiry".
As evidence of his "continuing parliamentary engagement
in European and international matters" he enclosed
"some recent interventions".[190]
He told me that he was doing so "to underline that
this activity is my parliamentary life and the claims I made were
not for personal gain but to discharge my duties as I saw fit."
93. I replied to Mr MacShane on 30 June.[191]
In respect of EPI, I said that I had noted the invoices which
were produced were on old letterheads and that my understanding
of what he had told me was that, at the time he had submitted
those invoices, the structure of the EPI suggested by the notepaper
was no longer extant. I also noted that EPI had never used the
address given for the business and that Mr MacShane had prepared
the invoices using a pro forma on his computer. Each of the invoices
had been addressed to Mr MacShane, and apparently submitted by
an individual who had signed each invoice in manuscript, and was
also listed on the bottom of the invoice as General Manager. I
asked Mr MacShane who had signed these invoices, and for their
address so that I could take evidence from them. In respect of
the hospitality funded by Mr MacShane's EPI claims, I said that
I took it from what he had said that the hospitality had not been
a part of the remuneration offered for those who had undertaken
any research or translation work for him, and that the cost of
such hospitality, and the cost of Mr MacShane's own meal and any
drinks, had been met from claims he had made through the EPI invoices
for research and translation. I invited Mr MacShane to let me
know if any of this was wrong.
94. Turning to Mr MacShane's response on his computers, I
noted that he was content with the summary I had provided.[192]
I invited him to confirm that, at any one time, he had had some
four computers in Westminster for use by himself and between one
and two interns. I also said that I took it that when the interns
had left, they had taken with them the laptops or notebooks which
Mr MacShane had provided, which were now "scattered to
the four winds in America and Europe",[193]
and that the Sony laptop bought at Heathrow on 5 December 2006
had travelled with Mr MacShane in his briefcase until it had ceased
to work. I asked Mr MacShane to let me know if any of this was
wrong. I also informed him that I was minded to prepare a memorandum
for the Committee.
95. Mr MacShane replied on 22 July.[194]
He began by repeating that he remained "heavily involved
in European political issues" as his "main parliamentary
speciality." He told me that a former Member had once
remarked that "an MP who could not get to speak at any
meeting in Britain by using the Extended Travel Scheme to cover
the costs was not worthy of the job." He observed that
"today that creative interpretation of parliamentary expenses
would be found shocking and to be condemned." He feared
that he was "of the [name of former Member] school".
He said that he had "carefully husbanded" his
IEP payments, principally by not charging any rent for his
constituency office, so that he could "use the
EPI as a vehicle to cover the costs of [his] European work
as outlined in some detail in previous letters."
96. Mr MacShane said that the complaint had "to be set
in the context of how MPs are to undertake work which is not formally
covered by a budget line". He continued: "As I have
said I and I alone take full responsibility for all payments and
claims made by the EPI as a vehicle. My staff scrawl my name for
me regularly on letters and the reference to [name] is to a similarly
scrawled nom de plume. It was once used by my brother who allowed
me to use his London office address as a kind of poste restante
when the EPI was set up in the 1990s. But as I have also said
my brother has no involvement with or knowledge of the EPI for
more than a decade".
97. Mr MacShane said that he carried out his European political
and parliamentary work in the period concerned through a network
of collaborators who helped with "research, translation
and networking". He said that he either paid these collaborators
"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." He added that there was "no list
of restaurant or bar receipts" and, since he ate and
lived modestly and did not frequent expensive restaurants, he
doubted "if it comes to very much." He continued:
"I appreciate you would be more comfortable with a detailed
set of receipts etc, and with the benefit of hindsight so would
I. With the benefit of hindsight I almost certainly should not
have used the EPI as a vehicle to cover costs of working on European
affairs. But then my interest and I hope useful parliamentary
work on Europe would not have been able to be developed as it
was after I stood down as a Minister in 2005."
98. Mr MacShane said that "of course" he
accepted the comments of the Director of Strategic Projects. However,
he observed that he had not said he had claimed for an All-Party
Parliamentary Group's work, and that he had never done so. Mr
MacShane commented: "[the Director of Strategic Projects]
is confusing this with the Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry
Into Antisemitism (not the same as an APPG) which I chaired and
which reported in 2007 and then was dissolved."[195]
He went on to say that he had subsequently taken a lead as an
MP speaking in the Commons and in public on the scourge of neo-antisemitism
and had helped set up the International Parliamentary Coalition
Against Antisemitism. Mr MacShane added that some of his travel
to Europe had also involved "meetings with fellow parliamentarians
and others involved in this aspect of work" and said
that he had felt it reasonable, given the way he controlled his
IEP costs, "to allow EPI claims to cover some of this
work". He concluded: "So part of all my expenses
claimed in the period under review were in connection with parliamentary
work on anti-semitism, including EPI money, but they were not
as [the Director of Strategic Projects] suggests in connection
with a registered APPG".[196]
99. Turning to the subject of his computers, Mr MacShane said
that there were currently five in his office in the Commons with
others at homes in London and Rotherham and in the constituency
office. In the course of "looking through old notebooks"
he had noticed that he had had an "intern from the
US in 2005/06." He could not remember whether he had
provided that intern with a computer to do work. He had "just
bought kit as and when it was needed." He noted that
the complainant had focused on computers, but suggested that he
"might just as easily have listed every other bit of equipment
on the expense forms submitted to the Department of Resources
for the period under question." Mr MacShane said that
he could "go and find all these computers or equivalents
and bring them to you if you really want me to", and
continued: "On this as on all other aspects of this procedure
I accept full responsibility for what I spent and what I claimed.
I have been a hard-working MP with a passion for European affairs
and with no interest or ability in being an office manager. I
had a variety of researchers, interns, co-workers and simply provided
them with computers and any other kit as when it was needed to
work both in my tiny office in the Commons or elsewhere as was
most appropriate."
100. Mr MacShane said that he wished the Department of Resources
had challenged any of these claims in the period concerned and
he could then have had a discussion with them. He said that "had
this happened this whole business might have been avoided."
He recalled that one or two claims he had submitted had been rejected
and he had accepted the Department's decision "as final".
He said that he had not sought to duck his responsibility.
He accepted "fully there was a conflict in the strict
interpretation of what might be claimed" and said that
he regretted that. He said that he was not going
to resile from his commitment to the parliamentary and political
work he had undertaken in that period, "even if the method
of being reimbursed for part of it is open to question."
Finally, on the subject of the material he had sent me with his
letter of 15 June,[197]
Mr MacShane explained that this "was just to show the
continuing range of work on European affairs partly covered by
EPI payment" and said that, if this matter was to be
considered by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, he did
not doubt "that colleagues there will be aware of my commitment
to and interest in European political issues as they impact on
our country."
101. I replied to Mr MacShane on 9 August.[198]
I noted that it appeared from what he had said that members of
his staff had regularly signed invoices on outdated EPI notepaper,
not using their own name but the name of an individual who
appeared on the notepaper as the General Manager of EPI. In the
light of this, I asked Mr MacShane if he had instructed members
of his staff to sign in this way, and if so why such instructions
had been given; why the name had been used, and if there had been
such a person acting as "General Manager" of
the EPI; whether the named individual was in fact his brother,
or some other person; and what his reasons had been for using
notepaper which referred to an address which he had described
as having fallen "into disuse". I added that
I had understood from his letters of 22 July 2010[199]
and 29 October 2009[200]
that his brother had never had any direct active part in the work
of EPI, whether as General Manager or anything else, and that
his brother's only involvement had been to let Mr MacShane use
one of his London business addresses to receive mail. I also asked
Mr MacShane to confirm that, as suggested in my letter to him
of 30 June,[201] interns
had been able to take the parliamentary-funded laptops with them,
and did so, when they had left his office. I said that I was sure
he would appreciate the implications of the invoices he had submitted
for his EPI claims and that I did need to explore these further
before I could decide how best to conclude my inquiry.
102. Mr MacShane replied on 14 September.[202]
He began by saying that he did not know if there was much he could
add to previous correspondence. He said that he took "full
responsibility for all claims made to the Fees Office". He
had had "a flow of interns and assistants" in
his office and they had taken charge of many aspects of his work,
"booking travel, sending out invoices for payments, and
helping with HoC form filling". He added: "I
have always allowed others—staff, family, etc—to sign
or pp my name. But I take responsibility."
103. Mr MacShane said that he had "carefully husbanded"
his IEP allowance, principally by not charging any rent for his
constituency office, so that he "would have part of the
allowance to use on [his] European work." He had
"used the EPI as a convenient vehicle". Since
its inception before he became an MP, the EPI had been
"a loose network" with "no office, no staff,
and just a post-box address." Mr MacShane stressed that
his brother was "not involved in any way". Mr
MacShane also said that the EPI letterhead had "remained
unchanged over 20 years." The name given on the
invoice was "a nom de plume used over the
years to cover expense claims and payments from the EPI".
The EPI had "published books, reports, organised conferences
and is used by its network as and when appropriate". Mr
MacShane said that he had "used the EPI to claim reimbursement
from the Fees Office." He observed that Members were
"allowed extended travel to carry out similar travel,
attend conferences, carry out research, and stay overnight in
the UK" but that there was "no
equivalent system for European work beyond three heavily circumscribed
trips"[203].
He preferred not to claim these "as they were always
held up to press opprobrium when published."
104. Mr MacShane said that he could have "submitted
all the individual payments to EPI collaborators on individual
invoices", but that since he was operating within the limits
of his allowance "it was just easier to submit periodic claims
and use that money for reimbursement." He fully accepted
that this approach was "open to criticism" and was "part
of the overall problem of covering MPs' costs which have given
rise to all the new rules." He said that, as an indication
of his acceptance of this, he had sought "to repay £7,500"
even though he was satisfied in his own mind that "all EPI
claimed moneys were in pursuit of [his] work as an elected parliamentarian
who specialises in Europe."
105. On the question of his computers, Mr MacShane reiterated
that he was "happy to hunt down" any computer
I might like him to return. He had "bought different bits
of kit as and when needed". These had included "computers
and other more expensive pieces of electronic and communication/printing
equipment". He said that he had "two, possibly
three new interns" coming into his parliamentary office
that month and would again have to "provide computers
etc for them". He had had "no new computers from
the Commons system since 2005" and observed that "laptops
etc quickly get out of date". He had used his "allocated
OCA[204] office
to buy what [he] needed when [he] needed it."
106. Finally, Mr MacShane wished to make clear that he had
"always accepted any ruling from the Fees Office which
challenged any claim" he had made. Had the Fees Office
called him in "on either EPI or computer claims",
he would have explained his position "but accepted their
decisions." He told me that he worked "very long
days, weekends" on his "parliamentary/political/constituency
work" and had "never had time for precise clerical
book-keeping." He felt that it was "somewhat
unfair to apply retrospectively today's more rigorous (moralistic?)
norms on what MPs can and cannot claim to carry out their duties
as they see them." He added that if MPs could not "undertake
European work then our debates in the Commons given our membership
of the European Union and its influence on public policy will
be all the poorer."
107. By this stage of my inquiry Mr MacShane had submitted
extensive evidence in writing, but certain questions remained
unanswered. I considered it necessary to determine why Mr MacShane
had produced the EPI invoices in the manner he had described,
and whether or not his actions were intended to circumvent the
rules on Members' entitlement to allowances. I therefore considered
that I needed to interview Mr MacShane in order to conclude my
inquiry. However, it seemed likely that the process of seeking
the answers I required risked raising questions about possible
criminal liability. I was therefore concerned that, by continuing
my inquiry, I could jeopardise any subsequent criminal investigations.
108. Questions also remained about Mr MacShane's computer
purchases; in particular, whether his staff had taken the computers
with them when their employment ended. I did not consider that
Mr MacShane's computer claims raised any questions of possible
criminal conduct, but I was concerned that to continue with my
inquiry into Mr MacShane's conduct in respect of these claims
could risk jeopardising any police investigation.
109. The procedure that the Commissioner follows in circumstances
such as these is set out in the Eighth Report of Session 2007-08
from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and described in
paragraph 21 above.[205]
In accordance with that procedure, I submitted a recommendation
to the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the matter be
referred to the police for them to consider an inquiry. The Committee
agreed to this recommendation at its meeting on 12 October 2010
and reported its decision to the House in its First Special Report
of 2010-12.[206] That
report noted that, in accordance with the agreed procedure, my
inquiry would be suspended until the question of possible criminal
proceedings had been resolved.
110. I accordingly wrote to the Commissioner of the Police
of the Metropolis on 12 October 2010.[207]
I told the Commissioner that I had been considering a complaint
in relation to claims Mr MacShane had made between 2004 and 2008
in respect of research and translation services apparently provided
by the European Policy Institute. I noted that I had also been
considering a complaint in relation to Mr MacShane's claims for
computers. I said that, during the course of my inquiries, I had
seen invoices produced for the claims in respect of the services
provided through the EPI which I believed might have been produced
in a way which could raise questions of possible criminality.
I told him that the Committee had agreed that I should report
this matter to the Metropolitan Police Service and that I should
suspend my own inquiry. I asked the Commissioner to let me know
as soon as the Metropolitan Police Service had concluded its consideration
of this matter.
111. On 16 December 2010 Mr MacShane wrote to me, enclosing
a further cheque for £5,400 payable to the House of Commons
Administration, which he said represented the full cost of the
EPI claims over the period.[208]
He said that he had been aware of the approach that I had adopted
"in relation to expenses claims generally" and
of my "interpretation, and that of other authorities within
the House, of the application of the expenses provisions".
He said that, in hindsight, he could see that this approach was
"the proper one, given the recent intense scrutiny of
the expenses and allowance scheme". Although he had believed
that that he "was making claims using a system and on
a basis then accepted by the Fees Office and the House administration",
he now saw "that the method of claiming through the EPI
invoices was inappropriate." I acknowledged Mr MacShane's
letter and forwarded the cheque to the House administration.[209]
112. I checked periodically with the Metropolitan Police Service
that they were still actively considering the case. I kept the
Committee informed on a continuing basis. On 3 July 2012 the Metropolitan
Police Service wrote to me to inform me that the police would
be taking no further action against Mr MacShane.[210]
I considered carefully whether I should resume my inquiry. Mr
MacShane remained a Member of Parliament. There had been no resolution
of the original complaint that he had breached the Code of Conduct
and its associated rules and there had been no opportunity for
the Committee or the House to consider these matters. I concluded
therefore that I should resume my inquiry and, in view of the
time that had elapsed, bring it to a conclusion as quickly as
possible.
113. I wrote to Mr MacShane on 4 July to inform him that I
was resuming the inquiry that I had, with the Committee's agreement,
suspended on 12 October 2010.[211]
I told Mr MacShane that I proposed to move to arranging an interview
with him and explained the process. I invited Mr MacShane to let
me know whether he had any additional information he wished to
give me in relation to the complaint. If he did have any such
information, I told him that it would be helpful to know whether,
in his view, it added to or modified the extensive evidence he
had already helpfully given me.
114. Having received no response to my letter of 4 July,[212]
my office spoke to Mr MacShane on 30 July. My office reported
to me that Mr MacShane had said that he had not yet responded
to my letter because he had been advised by the Chair of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges to answer via his lawyer. He said
that my inquiry had caused loss and damage to him and his family.[213]
He was unable to say when he would be able to respond. I wrote
to Mr MacShane again on 30 July.[214]
I noted that it was of course open to him to seek advice but that,
under the procedures agreed by the House, Members were required
to respond to my inquiries for themselves. I also said that I
was sure that Mr MacShane was aware of the expectation set out
in the Code of Conduct that Members would cooperate at all stages
with a Commissioner's inquiry. I invited Mr MacShane to let me
know when I could expect a reply to my letter.
115. I received no response. I therefore wrote to Mr MacShane
again on 4 September.[215]
I told him that I was satisfied that he had already given me sufficient
evidence to enable me to bring this inquiry to a conclusion and
that I had given him a substantial period to comment further on
that evidence. I therefore invited him to interview so that we
could discuss the main questions which arose on the basis of the
evidence he had given me. I said that my office would be in touch
with him to arrange a date and time which was convenient to him.
116. My office contacted Mr MacShane on 10 September to make
arrangements for the interview, but he said that he did not wish
to do so. I therefore wrote to him again on 12 September.[216]
In my letter I noted that he had made clear to my office that
he did not wish to make arrangements for an interview. I reminded
him that the Code of Conduct required Members to participate at
all stages of an investigation into their conduct by or under
the authority of the House. I told him that I was disappointed
that he had decided not to cooperate at this final stage of the
inquiry. I informed him that I would be preparing a memorandum
for the Committee.
117. Mr MacShane wrote to me on 26 September.[217]
He apologised for the "long delay" in replying
to my letters. He explained that much of his life had been "put
on hold" during the police investigation and that "when
finally the dark cloud was lifted" he had gone into
"shut down for most of the summer period". He said
that he did not think that he was "in any fit state to
be interviewed in that period."
118. Mr MacShane said that he had believed that the claims
he made under the EPI invoices were "a reasonable reflection
of the monies that had been spent in relation to parliamentary
business". He believed that he could have claimed all
the costs directly if he had "kept all the individual
receipts for each payment or purchase (if they were given by the
supplier)". He had been aware "that claims could
be made of up to £250 per month for petty cash under the
IEP scheme". He had made no such claims, "instead
estimating and amalgamating all the costs and monies paid for
work incidental to [his] Parliamentary duties in the EPI
invoice claimed under the IEP Allowance scheme". He had
believed that "the Allowances Scheme allowed an MP to
estimate various categories of claim up to a reasonable maximum
amount". He had come to realise that he had been "unable
to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support all the
EPI claims" and said that this was why he had paid back
all the money claimed "under that heading".
119. Mr MacShane said that he had also come to recognise that
his "actions had fallen below the accounting standards that
are now required for individuals claiming public funds and were
open to criticism". He said that "the process of lumping
together" his "out of pocket expenses in EPI invoices",
some of which related to the request from the then Prime Minister
that Mr MacShane act as his "envoy to European politicians",
was "the wrong way to approach the claims and could be the
subject of criticism". He said that he regretted "not
collecting receipts for every item of expenditure and duly submitting
them" and said that he was not, and never had been, "sufficiently
organised in that way". He concluded: "I can only repeat
my regret and apologies for not having fully followed the rules
to the strictest interpretation of the letter and bringing down
upon my own head the troubles that have taken up so much of my
life since the summer of 2009. In the light of this I do not think
an interview can add anything."
120. I replied to Mr MacShane on 3 October 2012.[218]
I told him that I was disappointed that he had declined to accept
my invitation to an interview at a time convenient to him. I said
that I believed that his cooperation would have helped the Committee
when it came to consider my memorandum. I enclosed the factual
sections of my draft memorandum and asked him whether he was content
with its factual accuracy. Mr MacShane responded on 8 October
2012.[219] He noted
that the draft memorandum stated that the EPI invoices had been
signed by a member of his staff at his request.[220]
He said: "That is not what I wrote to you on 22 July".[221]
He told me that "this was investigated by the police"
and said that he would be grateful if I quoted "in
full the relevant sentence [...] so that [the] facts
are clear". I replied to Mr MacShane on 9 October.[222]
I said that, in relation to the question of who had actually signed
the invoices, I had taken from his letter of 22 July 2009 as a
fact that his staff scrawled the "nom de plume" in the
same way that they scrawled Mr MacShane's own name.[223]
I said that I took it from his letter of 8 October 2012 that this
was not correct and that I had therefore made clear that he had
scrawled the "nom de plume" himself.[224]
I asked him, if that was wrong, to let me know whether he had
signed the name, his staff had signed the name, or both had done
so on different occasions. I said that I would otherwise assume
that he had signed the name himself.
121. Mr MacShane replied on 10 October.[225]
On the question of who had signed the invoices, he said "This
matter was dealt with by the police and I do not propose to reopen
it. So please use what I wrote [...] namely "I
and I alone take full responsibility for all 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."" He said that, as far as he was
concerned, "that phrase" was "the correct
one" from his earlier written evidence. I replied to
Mr MacShane on 15 October.[226]
I told him that I was disappointed that he had not cooperated
in answering what I believed to be a relevant question—namely,
who signed the invoices. I said that I had however recast the
relevant paragraph to reflect our exchange of correspondence.[227]
Findings of Fact
EPI CLAIMS
122. Between 2004 and 2008, Mr MacShane made 19 claims against
his incidental expenses provision (IEP) which were supported by
invoices from the European Policy Institute (EPI). The total amount
claimed was £12,900. All of the invoices described the services
provided as "research and translation", except
for one which was for "research and translation consultancy"
and another which was for "research and communications
work".
123. Mr MacShane's evidence is that the EPI was created in
the early 1990s as a loose network of like minded individuals
and academics interested in European affairs and that he reactivated
the EPI on leaving ministerial office in 2005. At the time the
claims were made, Mr MacShane's evidence is that the EPI had no
formal structure, no office and no employees. He controlled its
bank account.
124. Mr MacShane's evidence in respect of his claims is that
he used the EPI as a vehicle to enable him to claim for a range
of services and activities. He is unable confidently to link each
claim to specific payments. The claims covered the cost of his
trips to eight European countries, including his travel, accommodation
and subsistence costs, and the costs of hospitality and travel
for his contacts. One such trip was to interview candidates for
Mr MacShane's Personal Assistants. The claims also covered payments,
in cash or in kind (hospitality), to EPI collaborators for translation,
research, reading and editing a manuscript, the drafting of reports
and political analysis. The claims also included the costs of
purchasing books, newspapers and magazines.
125. The evidence of the Director of Strategic Projects, Department
of Resources, on Mr MacShane's claims against the IEP in respect
of the EPI is that the rules governing the IEP allowed for claims
in respect of "work commissioned and bought in services"
and that this included both research and translation services.
The Department of Resources has no record of any discussion with
Mr MacShane about either the wording of the invoices or the services
that the EPI had provided. The Director's evidence is that some
of the services provided were not legitimate claims against the
IEP and that, had the services provided been broken down by type
when the claims were submitted, then travel and accommodation
for Mr MacShane and hospitality and travel costs for EPI contacts
would have been queried by the Department and almost certainly
disallowed. The Director's evidence is that it was not permissible
for Members to claim for their own international travel and accommodation
from the IEP even when the costs were incurred in support of their
parliamentary duties. Hospitality which was not remuneration would
not have been permitted.
126. The invoices submitted to support Mr MacShane's claims
were addressed to him at the House. They were printed on EPI notepaper—which
named a General Manager, an Acting Director and four Associate
Directors of the organisation—and were signed in the name
of the General Manager. The printed address was an office address
once used by Mr MacShane's brother. Mr MacShane has stressed that
his brother had had no involvement with the EPI for more than
a decade. Mr MacShane's evidence is that he prepared the EPI invoices
himself using a pro forma on his computer and that the invoices
were printed on EPI letterheads dating from the 1990s. Mr MacShane's
evidence is that he and he alone takes "full responsibility
for all the payments and claims made by the EPI as a vehicle"
and that his "staff scrawl [Mr MacShane's] name
regularly on letters and the reference to [name] is to
a similarly scrawled nom de plume".[228]
He has declined to answer the specific question of who actually
signed the invoices. Mr MacShane's evidence is that in drawing
up the invoices he sought to stay within the civil service allowance
for travel abroad "within my own framework of what was
fair to charge."[229]
He estimated and amalgamated "all the costs and monies
paid for work incidental to [his] parliamentary duties
in the EPI invoice."[230]
The amount given on the invoice varied according to what Mr
MacShane judged he had spent. Mr MacShane's evidence is that he
prepared the invoices in this way for ease of administration.
127. Mr MacShane's evidence is that all the costs for which
he claimed arose in connection with his parliamentary work. This
included his role as Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry
into Anti-Semitism, his membership of delegations to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
work he said he was asked to do by the Prime Minister and preparation
for debates on the Lisbon Treaty. He considered it necessary to
maintain a high level of involvement with European matters in
order to carry out his parliamentary duties.
CLAIMS FOR COMPUTERS
128. Mr MacShane made nine claims for eight computers from
his IEP in the period 2004-05 to 2007-08. The total cost of these
claims was £6,467.76. These computers were in addition to
equipment loaned to him free of charge by the Parliamentary ICT
service (PICT) in June and July 2006, namely three laptops and
three PCs. The evidence of the then Director of Strategic Projects,
Department of Resources, is that it was not the practice of departmental
staff when validating claims for IT equipment to query whether
the equipment was necessary for a Member to carry out his or her
parliamentary duties. If such a practice had been in place at
the time, the Director believed that it would have been reasonable
to have asked Mr MacShane why this level of IT provision, in addition
to that provided by PICT, should not have been regarded as excessive.
On the computers purchased for the use of Mr MacShane's paid and
unpaid staff, including interns, the Director's evidence is that
this would have seemed to him to be a proper use of allowances,
provided the machines were used only for Mr MacShane's parliamentary
purposes and that value for money was obtained. The Director's
evidence is that two of the claims made by Mr MacShane in this
period were for the same machine, at a cost of £498.95,
and that Mr MacShane had been reimbursed twice for the same
purchase.
129. Mr MacShane's evidence is that he believed that the rules
of the House allowed him to purchase whatever equipment he considered
he needed, provided that he remained within the IEP limit, and
that he "gave no thought to" the cost of his
purchases.[231] He
did not keep an inventory of his computers and was unable to say
with certainty what had happened to the computers for which he
had claimed. On the computers he had supplied to his interns,
some of these computers had been taken by them when they left
and so were "scattered to the four winds in America and
Europe".[232]
Mr MacShane's evidence is that he bought these computers because
he was not satisfied with the quality of the computers provided
on loan free of charge by the Parliamentary ICT service. Mr MacShane's
evidence is that all of these computers were bought for his own
use or for the use of his staff in order to carry out his parliamentary
duties.
OVERALL
130. Mr MacShane's evidence is that his prime responsibilities
as a Member of Parliament are to meet and serve the needs of his
constituents, to play his full role at a national level, to undertake
responsibilities asked of him by the Government at an international
level and in so doing to do his best to implement the policies
and politics for which he was been elected. He has no interest
or ability in being an office manager. His affairs are disordered.
That is reflected in the management of his expenses claims. He
used his allowances to get the "job in hand done"
without "bothering too much about anything" other
than that.[233] But
he is satisfied that these claims were all made to support him
in carrying out his parliamentary duties and his EPI claims were
a "reasonable reflection" of the monies he had
spent in relation to parliamentary business.[234]
He believes that he could have claimed the costs directly if he
had kept all the individual receipts for each payment or purchase.
Many would not have required receipts because they fell below
the £250 threshold or could have come out of the monthly
provision of up to £250 for petty cash. His evidence is that
he needed to travel to Europe, buy books, meet people, and commission
papers, research and translation in order to be able to maintain
his expertise and to contribute fully to parliamentary debates
on European affairs. He funded this aspect of his parliamentary
work by carefully husbanding his constituency office costs, leaving
room in his incidental expenses provision for these claims and
to provide his office staff with computers and other office equipment
as they were required. He never intended to do any wrong. He considers
his claims for the computers he bought were necessary. But he
now accepts that "lumping together" the expenses
he incurred in EPI invoices was the "wrong way to approach
these claims"[235]
and that these claims are not above reproach. He has said
that his failure to deal well with his affairs was "undoubtedly
compounded" by distressing personal and professional
circumstances.[236]
He has apologised. He has paid back in full the sums he claimed
on the basis of the EPI invoices, amounting to £12,900. He
has offered to pay back any other sums required by the Committee.
Conclusions
131. The matter I have to resolve is whether Mr MacShane was
in breach of the rules of the House in respect of his claims for
research and translation services and for computers against the
House of Commons incidental expenses provision from 2004-05 to
2007-08.
132. I initiated this inquiry in July 2009, well over three
years ago. The Committee agreed to my recommendation in October
2010 that it should be suspended while the police were given the
opportunity to consider with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
whether criminal proceedings should be instigated. The police
informed me—a few months short of two years later, in July
this year—that, following their inquiries and having taken
CPS advice, they had decided to take no further action. Accordingly,
I resumed my inquiry as I had previously informed the Committee
that in such circumstances, I would.
133. I am very aware—and concerned—that overall
this matter has been hanging over Mr MacShane's head for more
than three years. My investigation covered only the question of
whether Mr MacShane had breached the rules of the House, and,
if so, how serious that breach was. I took no part in the police
investigation, and was neither asked for, nor did I provide to
that investigation, the evidence I had received. That evidence
was subject to parliamentary privilege and secured without the
normal protections of the criminal law. The police inquiries could
not and did not resolve the question of whether Mr MacShane had
breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and its
associated rules. That is a matter solely for the House. I considered
that the allegations against Mr MacShane—who has remained
a Member of the House—were serious and substantial. It was
right, therefore, that following the police's decision to take
no further action, I should report my conclusions to the Committee
with as little further delay as possible so that the Committee,
and the House, could consider the matter. This memorandum enables
them to do so.
134. Mr MacShane cooperated fully and sincerely with my inquiry
from July 2009 until October 2010, when it was suspended. On occasions
he took some months to reply to my letters, but I appreciated
the full and frank replies he sent and understood the pressures
which were on him at the time. For his part, Mr MacShane was generous
enough to say that I and my staff had conducted the inquiry in
a "thorough but very fair manner."[237]
135. I very much regret, therefore, that Mr MacShane did not
continue to cooperate fully with my inquiry following its resumption
in July 2012. Despite reminders, he initially ignored my letters
to him in July inviting him to let me know whether he had any
additional information he wished to give me and then in September
inviting him to interview. It was not until 26 September 2012
that Mr MacShane sent me a substantive reply to these letters.
I was grateful that he did so, and that he subsequently responded
promptly in commenting on the factual sections of this memorandum.
But I am disappointed that Mr MacShane declined to attend an interview
and declined to tell me in terms whether it was he or his staff
who had signed the invoices. While he told me that he had nothing
further to add, I consider that the Committee and the House would
have been assisted had Mr MacShane given me oral evidence and
had he answered my specific and relevant question about the invoices.
An interview would have enabled him, among other things, to explain
more fully the process by which he prepared the EPI invoices and
his deployment of his parliamentary computers. It would also have
enabled me to put to Mr MacShane in person the allegations against
him. It is understandable that Mr MacShane felt he needed the
summer away from the pressures of the inquiry, but I made clear
the interview would be at a time convenient to him and it is disappointing
that he did not agree to this and did not answer in writing the
direct question that I put to him about the invoices.
136. The Code of Conduct provides that, in relation to a Commissioner's
investigation, Members "shall cooperate, at all stages, with
any such investigation by or under the authority of the House."[238]
I appreciate the pressures on Mr MacShane, but that cannot, in
my judgment, justify refusing what I consider to be reasonable
requests to attend an interview at a time convenient to him and
to answer a specific question. If Members were to feel an interview
when sought by the Commissioner was optional it would considerably
hamper the Commissioner's inquiries. So too would a view that
Members could decline to clear up ambiguities in their evidence.
With regret, therefore, I find that Mr MacShane was in breach
of the Code of Conduct in deciding to withdraw his cooperation
in this final stage of my inquiry.
137. I turn now to my findings. The questions I have to resolve
are:
i. Were Mr MacShane's claims within the Green Book rules for
the incidental expenses provision?
ii. Was the way in which these claims were submitted above
reproach?
Were Mr MacShane's claims within the Green Book rules for the
incidental expenses provision?
138. I deal first with Mr MacShane's claims for his European
activities. The rules on the incidental expenses provision allowed,
among other things, for Members to claim for "work commissioned
and bought in services". Under this heading allowable expenditure
is listed as including interpreting and translation services,
research and recruitment services. Under the heading "communications
and travel", Members could claim for subscriptions e.g. to
newspapers and periodicals and for recruitment and recruitment
advertising costs.
139. Some of Mr MacShane's expenditure in support of his European
activities was, in my judgment, an allowable claim under the incidental
expenses provision. That included those research and position
papers which Mr MacShane commissioned and which were clearly in
support of his parliamentary duties, in particular his contributions
to debates. It properly covered the translation of those documents
which again he felt he needed for his parliamentary duties. And
it included the purchase of magazines and periodicals for these
purposes.
140. But Mr MacShane's claims went far beyond these provisions,
and, in my judgment, far beyond what was allowable under the rules.
In particular, over four financial years he claimed for the costs
of his own extensive travel across Europe. This included his own
air fares, his hotel accommodation where required and his meals.
Mr MacShane suggested that this was necessary so he could conduct
his own "face to face" research.[239]
Given what Mr MacShane has said about the visits, which covered
a wide range of activities, that may be stretching the definition
of research. But in any event, since expenditure on research was
specifically associated in the rules with "work commissioned
and bought in services" it was clearly outside that provision.
The definition of commissioned and bought in services cannot be
extended to a Member who commissions himself and who buys in his
own services.
141. Mr MacShane has suggested that he should have been allowed
to undertake his European trips funded by the House of Commons
because Members could undertake unlimited extended travel within
the United Kingdom under the separate allowance for travel. That
could have been grounds for arguing for a change to the rules.
It was not, in my judgment, grounds for the Member taking the
rules into his own hands. And extended travel within the United
Kingdom required prior authorisation from the House authorities
(the Fees Office). It might have been possible for a few of the
costs of Mr MacShane's European visits to have been met by claims
against the European travel entitlement, but, as Mr MacShane knew,
the number of trips per year, and their destination, was limited.[240]
They also required prior authorisation by the Department of Finance
and Administration. Mr MacShane never sought such authorisation
for his extensive European travel. Indeed, the House authorities
never knew until my investigation that that was what a significant
part of his claims for research and translation services was being
spent on.
142. Mr MacShane has also suggested that it was open to him
to use the incidental expenses provision to pursue his European
interests because, since he was making no claims for his constituency
office, he had the money available in his allowance. Mr MacShane
was probably not alone in thinking that the expenses provisions
in the Green Book were a series of allowances which Members could
spend to the full as they wished. This view was mistaken. Mr MacShane's
claims under the incidental expenses provision were only allowable
if they could be met within the financial limits of that provision
(which they could) and if they met the requirements of the rules
for that provision (which they substantially did not).
143. While it is difficult to be precise about Mr MacShane's
expenditure since he has readily accepted that his record keeping
was "totally inadequate",[241]
I consider that Mr MacShane's claims for the following activities
were outside the scope of the incidental expenses provision and
so, sometimes for overlapping reasons, not allowable:
i. All Mr MacShane's personal travel, hotel and food bills
for his visits to Europe. In my view, Mr MacShane's travel claims
under the incidental expenses provision were not justified, or
allowable, whether or not any were made in response to an invitation
from the then Prime Minister, in support of work for the All Party
Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, or for any other purpose.
They therefore breached paragraph 5.3.1 of the Green Book.
ii. Payments for travel to Paris for meetings related to the
European Book of the Year award, which, as well as including travel
and subsistence costs which fell outside the rules, was in my
view clearly not a parliamentary duty. This was a breach of paragraph
5.1.1 of the Green Book.
iii. Payments for travel to Paris to interview candidates
for Mr MacShane's Personal Assistants—which, as well as
being prohibited travel, was not, in my view, justifiably proportionate
expenditure solely, exclusively and necessarily incurred on account
of Mr MacShane's parliamentary duties. A trip to Paris cannot,
I believe, reasonably be justified by a wish to interview PAs.
It was a breach of paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green Book.
iv. The costs of a report in Mr MacShane's name on the position
of Labour's sister parties in the EU. This went beyond what Mr
MacShane fairly accepted might have been "some overlap
between parliamentary and political involvement in European affairs".[242]
It was in my judgment a report in support of party political activities
and so contrary to paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green Book.
v. Mr MacShane's claims for some of the hospitality he provided
to his academic and political contacts which appeared to go beyond
remuneration in kind for a commissioned service. Mr MacShane appears
to have been using parliamentary funds to entertain his European
contacts. This is not allowable expenditure under paragraph 5.13.4
of the Green Book.
vi. Mr MacShane's extensive purchase of books in the course
of his travels which went, in my judgment, well beyond the scope
of a provision allowing claims for subscriptions to newspapers
or periodicals. These claims were substantial, extensive and for
comparatively expensive volumes. Mr MacShane has provided a list
of 54 books with a total cost of more than €1,000[243].
There was, he told me, a further list of titles which he could
not find. Mr MacShane has suggested that he could have sought
to obtain these books from the House of Commons Library. Be that
as it may, while it would be disproportionate to have prevented
claims for some books being made against the incidental expenses
provision, Mr MacShane's claims went way beyond what was reasonable
and, in my judgment, seemed to border on him using parliamentary
resources to build his personal European library. They breached
paragraph 5.13.4 of the Green Book.
144. While, therefore, some of Mr MacShane's Europe-related
claims were allowable under the incidental expenses provision
in respect of the work he commissioned for research and translation
and his purchase of periodicals, many of them were extensively
in breach of the rules. The total value of his claims over the
period of just over three years covered by the complaint was £12,900.
It is impossible to say with any assurance what proportion of
his claims were outside the rules, but, taking account of the
sums Mr MacShane initially decided to return to the House, it
may have been in the order of £7,500.
145. I turn now to Mr MacShane's computer purchases. Mr MacShane
was clearly within the rules of the House in claiming for computers
additional to those loaned by the Parliamentary Information and
Communications Technology service. But, as the Department of Resources
has implied, Mr MacShane's claims would appear to have been excessive.
In the course of just under three years, he obtained 14 computers:
6 provided by the House and 8 bought from his allowances. Even
allowing for the two which he said had broken down and for essential
upgrades, that could not in my judgment be justified. While I
believe that Members should expect to have a considerable degree
of latitude in deciding, within the limits of any allowance, what
provision they need in their offices to support them in their
parliamentary duties, Mr MacShane's computer purchases appear
to go well beyond that reasonable expectation. They reflect a
cavalier approach to the use of public resources and, in some
cases, at least, it appears that Mr MacShane allowed an outgoing
intern to take away with them a parliamentary-funded laptop, and
then bought a new one for his or her successor. In my judgment,
the result was that, for part of the lifetime of the equipment,
these computers were not being used solely in support of Mr MacShane's
parliamentary duties and there were, in any case, just more than
any reasonable person would think necessary. These were comparatively
expensive items and should have been better husbanded. On both
counts, therefore, I find that the expenditure was not wholly,
exclusively and necessarily incurred on parliamentary duties.
As a result, Mr MacShane was, in my judgment, in breach of paragraph
5.1.1 of the Green Book.
146. Mr MacShane was also in breach of the rules in submitting
the same invoice twice for a computer he bought in December 2007
for £498.95. I fully accept that this was a mistake on his
part and agree with Mr MacShane that it is unfortunate that this
was not picked up by the Fees Office at the time.
Was the way in which these claims were submitted above reproach?
147. While Mr MacShane's approach to the management of his
office computer equipment could be seen not to have been above
reproach, in my judgment that pales when set alongside the way
in which Mr MacShane presented his claims in support of his work
on European affairs.
148. Mr MacShane has very fairly said that: "I accept
that errors were made but they were mistakes based on an over-enthusiastic
zeal to carry out my parliamentary work on European affairs [...]
I now accept that my approach is indeed open to question and reproach."[244]
Mr MacShane had written earlier to me that: "I could well
understand that consideration of just the facts could lead to
individuals being highly critical but I did not intend a wrong"[245]
and "I wish now that I had not operated as I did."[246]
149. I agree with Mr MacShane's overall conclusion that his
approach to his claims for his European work were not above reproach.
This was not a close call: it was a very substantial failure.
150. I come to this conclusion for three reasons. First, Mr
MacShane provided invoices purporting to come from the European
Policy Institute (EPI) which described the services provided by
the Institute as being for research and translation or research
and communications work. That description did not, in my view,
come even close to providing an adequate description of what the
money was being spent on. It is so far short of a proper description
as to mean that neither the Department of Finance and Administration
nor anyone reading the redacted invoices when they were finally
published would have known that the money was being spent also
on Mr MacShane's travel across Europe. This was not an isolated
occurrence. 19 such misleading invoices were presented by Mr MacShane
to the Fees Office over the course of just over three years. By
purporting to use the EPI as the provider or commissioner of the
relevant service, Mr MacShane avoided any requirement for specific
invoices to be provided. Mr MacShane explained that this was "for
ease of administration."[247]
It was clearly administratively convenient for him not to have
to explain his claims, but that did not make it acceptable. It
was not.
151. Mr MacShane has argued that many of his claims would
not have needed invoices since individual items were often below
the £250 threshold above which invoices were at that time
required or could have been taken out of the £250 monthly
petty cash provision. Neither is in my view a plausible argument.
It is hard to see how much of his European expenditure could reasonably
have been funded from a petty cash provision and even claims without
invoices had to be itemised, described and costed. Had Mr MacShane
claimed for reimbursement of the costs in this way, the unacceptable
nature of his expenditure should very quickly have been exposed.
152. Secondly, Mr MacShane's invoiced claims were in fact
no more than broad estimates of what he had spent in support of
his European work. He told me that the amounts on the invoices
varied "according to what I judged to have expended"[248]
and that he sought to stay within the civil service allowance
for travel abroad "within my own framework of what was
fair to charge."[249]
Whether, on his own terms, Mr MacShane overcharged or undercharged
his actual costs—and I have no evidence that at any time
he made a personal profit from his claims—that is not an
acceptable basis on which to submit claims against parliamentary
resources. The Green Book provides that the incidental expenses
provision "is available to meet costs incurred on Members'
parliamentary duties." But those costs have to be the costs
which have actually been incurred. Mr MacShane's claims were not
prepared in this way. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that he spent as he felt necessary and put in rounded claims to
the Department when the account he used for his European work
was running low.
153. Thirdly, Mr MacShane made claims purporting to be based
solely on invoices submitted to him by the European Policy Institute,
authenticated by the EPI's letterhead and signed by the General
Manager of the Institute. But by the time he started making these
claims, the Institute in this form did not exist; the notepaper
on which the invoices were produced was obsolete, and there was
no General Manager—the General Manager's signature was provided
by Mr MacShane himself or someone else under his authority. The
sum claimed was not a sum determined by the General Manager of
the EPI to meet the cost of services commissioned on Mr MacShane's
behalf. It was the sum of money entered on his computer by Mr
MacShane himself. In effect, he was sending the invoice to himself
and writing his own cheque. The claims were paid out unchallenged
by the House authorities and the money put into a separate bank
account which Mr MacShane controlled. He used the money as he
thought fit, in support of his European activities.
154. Mr MacShane has sought to argue that the name of the
General Manger was in effect a "nom de plume".
[250] Mr MacShane
told me that his staff regularly sign his letters in his name
and seemed to imply that this arrangement was no different. But
of course it was. The name used was that once used by Mr MacShane's
brother: if it was anyone's "nom de plume" it
was his—and Mr MacShane's evidence is that his brother was
not involved in any way with his claims during this period.[251]
Nor was this a "nom de plume" used by the Member
for an activity disassociated from Parliament. It was used to
receive monies from Parliament. And the vehicle was the invoices
produced by Mr MacShane and signed in someone else's name. Those
paying out the money were never told that the "nom de
plume" was in fact being used by the Member himself.
The effect was that, unbeknown to the Department, Mr MacShane
was submitting invoices to himself and asking the parliamentary
authorities to pay.
155. The result was that the invoices misled the House authorities;
they provided no check, balance or restraint on Mr MacShane's
claims; they ensured there was no means of checking their accuracy
or admissibility, and, when they came to light, they put unwelcome
pressure on a member of Mr MacShane's own family.
156. Mr MacShane has suggested that the management of his
financial activities was "simply inept".[252]
He has accepted that "with the benefit of hindsight I almost
certainly should not have used the EPI as a vehicle to cover costs
of working on European affairs."[253]
I consider Mr MacShane's conduct in presenting the invoices in
this way was more than inept. It was clearly wrong. It is not
necessary to consider this with the benefit of hindsight or in
the context of the expenses scandal which was to follow. Whatever
the pressures, and however chaotic his affairs, Mr MacShane should
have recognised immediately that filling in his own invoices,
without receipts, purporting to come from an outside organisation
which did not exist in that form and ensuring that the invoice
was authenticated using someone else's name was simply unacceptable
and wrong.
Overall
conclusions
157. I conclude, therefore, that Mr MacShane
was in breach of the Code of Conduct in withdrawing his cooperation
by declining at the conclusion of this inquiry to attend an interview
and to answer a specific question about his invoices. This was
contrary to paragraph 19 of the Code of Conduct approved by the
House in 2012. He was also in breach of the Green Book rules for
the 19 claims he made from 2004-05 to 2007-08 together totalling
£12,900 against his incidental expenses provision in support
of his work on European affairs. Mr MacShane was also in breach
of the rules for buying some computers between 2004-05 and 2007-08
when that expenditure was not wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred on parliamentary duties. And one claim for £498.95
had already been submitted and so should not have been made or
paid. I therefore uphold this complaint.
158. Taken together, I consider these breaches
to be a particularly serious violation of the Code of Conduct.
Wrongly claiming from the incidental expenses provision for his
European activities was itself serious, more so than for his computer
claims. But the seriousness was very substantially compounded
by Mr MacShane's wrongdoing in his presentation of the highly
misleading and inaccurate invoices which helped to fund his European
activities.
159. I recognise that Mr MacShane was under personal
pressure throughout much of the period covered by his claims.
I recognise too that the police investigation, followed by the
resumption of my inquiry, had the effect of continuing that pressure.
Mr MacShane is an acknowledged parliamentary expert on European
affairs and, having lost his post as Minister for Europe, it was
understandable that he would have wished to have continued with
the work to which he has been committed for many years. He has
also repaid the cost of his European claims of his own volition
and has offered to repay whatever else is required. He has apologised.
I have no evidence that Mr MacShane received any personal profit
from his claims. All this needs to be weighed in the balance.
But in my judgment, it cannot absolve Mr MacShane from his responsibility
for the extremely serious way in which he breached the House of
Commons Code of Conduct and its expenses rules over a period of
some four financial years. On reflection, I hope he might recognise
that overall his conduct fell far below the standards of integrity
and probity expected of every Member of the House.
62 WE 1. Back
63
Mr Barnbrook let me know on 7 July 2012 (not included in the written
evidence) that he was no longer a member of that political party. Back
64
WE 2 Back
65
WE 2 Back
66
WE 3 Back
67
WE 4 Back
68
Not included in the written evidence Back
69
In the April 2005 and July 2006 editions this paragraph was underlined
from "but" to "duties". Back
70
Expenditure claimed for extended travel for journeys within the
UK under Travel Entitlements had to be wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred on Parliamentary business and the journey
had to relate to a matter currently before the House, relate to
a matter currently before a select committee on which the Member
served, be to a constituent or relevant to a general constituency
matter, or be to a UK Parliamentary assembly. Members were required
to seek prior authorisation from the Department of Finance and
Administration. Back
71
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Eighth Report of Session
2007-08, The Complaints System and the Criminal Law, HC
523 Back
72
WE 5 Back
73
WE 1 and 4 Back
74
WE 6 Back
75
WE 7. This document is summarised at paragraph 25 below. Back
76
WE 7 Back
77
This was a reference to the review undertaken by Sir Thomas Legg
of Members' claims against a different allowance (the Additional
Costs Allowance). See Members Estimate Committee, First Report
of Session 2009-10, Review of Past ACA Payments, HC 343. Back
78
WE 8 Back
79
WE 5 Back
80
WE 9 Back
81
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism was commissioned
by the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism but
was not itself a registered All-Party Parliamentary Group. Back
82
About £225 at the relevant time. Back
83
Around £70+ at the relevant time. Back
84
See footnote 20. Back
85
Not included in the written evidence Back
86
WE 10 Back
87
WE 8 Back
88
Not included in the written evidence. For the final revised version
of this schedule, see WE 33 below. Back
89
WE 8 Back
90
WE 11 Back
91
WE 12 Back
92
Around £70 at the relevant time. Back
93
WE 12 Back
94
Around £140 at the relevant time. Back
95
About £700 at the relevant time. Back
96
WE 12 Back
97
WE 12 Back
98
WE 13 Back
99
Not included in the written evidence. For the final revised version
of the schedule see WE 33. Back
100
WE 6 Back
101
WE 5 Back
102
WE 5 and WE 8 Back
103
WE 14 Back
104
WE 15 Back
105
WE 5 Back
106
WE 16 Back
107
WE 17 Back
108
WE 19-25 Back
109
Around £4,000 at the relevant time. Back
110
Around £520 at the relevant time. Back
111
WE 19-22 Back
112
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. 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. Back
113
See footnote 51. Back
114
See footnote 9. Back
115
See footnote 51. Back
116
Not included in the written evidence. Mr MacShane sent me copies
of papers, notes and articles which he said had been prepared
with EPI help. Back
117
See footnote 9. Back
118
WE 19-22 Back
119
Around £200 at the relevant time. Back
120
Around £340 at the relevant time. Back
121
Around £520 at the relevant time. Back
122
Around £490 at the relevant time. Back
123
Around £200 at the relevant time. Back
124
Around £70 at the relevant time. Back
125
The Industrial Union of Metalworkers. Back
126
Around £340 at the relevant time. Back
127
WE 17 Back
128
WE 23-25 Back
129
WE 18 Back
130
WE 26 Back
131
Around £340 at the relevant time. Back
132
WE 27 Back
133
WE 28 Back
134
WE 29 Back
135
WE 30 Back
136
WE 31 Back
137
WE 32 Back
138
WE 33 Back
139
See footnote 51. Back
140
The cash payments amounted to the equivalent of about £4,500
at the relevant times. Back
141
WE 33 Back
142
WE 34 Back
143
WE 35 Back
144
WE 36 Back
145
WE 34 Back
146
WE 33 Back
147
WE 37 Back
148
WE 38 Back
149
WE 35-37 Back
150
WE 32 Back
151
WE 39 Back
152
The extended travel provision was for travel within the UK; see
footnote 9. There was a separate European travel entitlement for
some travel to Europe; see footnote 51. Back
153
WE 32 Back
154
See footnote 20. Back
155
See footnote 20. Back
156
Not included in the written evidence Back
157
These appeared to relate to the Toshiba laptop bought on 31 December
2007. Back
158
WE 6 Back
159
WE 40 Back
160
See footnote 20. Back
161
WE 32 Back
162
WE 41 Back
163
See footnote 20. Back
164
First Report from the Members Estimate Committee, Session 2009-10,
(HC 348), paragraphs 86-88 (Sir Thomas Legg) and Appendix 2, pages
173-4 (Sir Paul Kennedy). Back
165
WE 42 Back
166
WE 43 Back
167
WE 44 Back
168
WE 45 Back
169
WE 46 Back
170
WE 47 Back
171
The receipt for the purchase showed that the computer had been
bought "tax free". Back
172
WE 11 Back
173
WE 48 Back
174
Not included with the written evidence. For a redacted example
of an EPI invoice enclosed with this letter, see WE 49. The unredacted
invoices are available to the Committee. Back
175
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
176
Not included in the written evidence. For a redacted example of
an EPI invoice enclosed with this letter, see WE 49. The unredacted
invoices are available to the Committee. Back
177
WE 41 Back
178
WE 17 and WE 23-25 Back
179
WE 50 Back
180
WE 32 Back
181
WE 34 Back
182
WE 11 Back
183
WE 51 Back
184
WE 32 Back
185
See footnote 9. Back
186
Permanent Under-Secretary of State. Back
187
This note was never received. Back
188
WE 47 Back
189
WE 46 Back
190
Not included in the written evidence Back
191
WE 52 Back
192
WE 47 Back
193
WE 51 Back
194
WE 53 Back
195
See footnote 20. Back
196
See footnote 20. Back
197
WE 51 Back
198
WE 54 Back
199
WE 53 Back
200
WE 11 Back
201
WE 52 Back
202
WE 55 Back
203
See footnotes 9 and 51. Back
204
Office Costs Allowance. This was an earlier allowance which no
longer existed at the time the claims were made. Back
205
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Eighth Report of Session
2007-08, The Complaints System and the Criminal Law, HC
523 Back
206
Committee on Standards and Privileges, First Special Report of
Session 2010-12, HC 527 Back
207
Not included in the written evidence Back
208
WE 56. The EPI claims from 2004-05 to 2007-08 amounted to £12,900.
Mr MacShane repaid £7,500 of these claims on 10 February
2010 (see paragraph 63 and WE 30). His cheque for £5,400
repaid the balance. Back
209
Not included in the written evidence Back
210
Not included in the written evidence Back
211
WE 57 Back
212
WE 57 Back
213
In commenting on 8 October 2012 on this paragraph in the draft
factual sections of this memorandum, Mr MacShane wrote: "I
also made clear that I had been through hell following your reference
to the police and I was too emotional and stressed to handle any
further interrogation until I had recovered my full health. I
made that clear when someone from your office called me in July.
It was on the basis of advice that I declined any more cross-examination
following my ordeal with the police." Back
214
WE 58 Back
215
WE 59 Back
216
WE 60 Back
217
WE 61 Back
218
WE 62 Back
219
WE 63 Back
220
In accordance with Mr MacShane's wishes (see WE 63) this statement
graph is now apragraph ho had actually signed the invoices correspondence.
elieved to be a relevant question-namely, whas been removed. Back
221
WE 53 Back
222
WE 64 Back
223
WE 53 Back
224
WE 63 Back
225
WE 65 Back
226
Not included in the written evidence Back
227
This paragraph is now paragraph 126. Back
228
WE 53 Back
229
WE 12 Back
230
WE 61 Back
231
WE 18 Back
232
WE 51 Back
233
WE 11 Back
234
WE 61 Back
235
WE 61 Back
236
WE 30 Back
237
WE 51 Back
238
Paragraph 19 of the 2012 Code of Conduct. Back
239
WE 17 Back
240
WE 17 Back
241
WE 30 Back
242
WE 11 Back
243
Around £700 at the relevant time. Back
244
WE 51 Back
245
WE 30 Back
246
WE 34 Back
247
WE 51 Back
248
WE 51 Back
249
WE 12 Back
250
WE 53 Back
251
WE 9 Back
252
WE 30 Back
253
WE 53 Back
| 
