3 Inquiries into MPs' Conduct
The complaints process
29. Under the procedures agreed by the Committee
on Standards, I do not accept complaints unless they are in hard
copy, signed and bearing the complainant's name and address. If
a complainant is unable to submit a complaint in this way, my
office discusses with the complainant how we can adjust our procedures
to meet their needs. Each year my office receives a number of
complaints by fax and by e-mail. If the subject matter of any
of these complaints appears to come within my remit, my office
explains the procedure and invites the complainant to submit their
complaint formally in writing, if they are able to do so. This
allows me to consider the complaint further. This chapter deals
with the complaints received formally in hard copy during 2012-13.
30. When I receive a formal complaint, I first
consider whether it falls within the remit set by the House of
Commons. This remit does not include certain kinds of complaint,
namely complaints about:
- policy matters;
- a Member's views or opinions;
- a Member's handling of or decision about an individual
case;
- the funding of political parties;
- alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code; or
- the purely private and personal lives of Members.[15]
31. If a matter raised falls within the remit
of another person or body I will, where possible, direct the complainant
to the appropriate place. If the complaint does fall within my
remit, I then consider whether the complainant has provided sufficient
evidence to justify an inquiry. All complainants receive a response
from me or from my office as quickly as possible to let them know
whether their complaint has been accepted for inquiry.
Complaints received and accepted
for inquiry in 2012-13
32. In the year beginning 1 April 2012, 117 formal
complaints against Members and former Members were received. This
was very slightly more than in the previous year. We carefully
considered each one to see whether it fell within my remit and,
if so, whether the complainant had provided sufficient evidence
to justify an inquiry. Most of these complaints were about conduct
which was not within my remit.[16]
Some other complaints were about conduct which could not have
broken the rules of the House.
33. Of these complaints, we accepted seven for
inquiry. These came from six complainants and related to seven
different Members.
Complaints not accepted for inquiry
in 2012-13
34. As with most complaints systems, a large
number of the complaints received by the Commissioner cannot be
accepted for investigation. This has been the case in every year
since the office of Commissioner was first created, and it was
also the case in 2012-13. As in previous years, the largest category
of complaints not accepted (76% of all complaints received, 89
of the 117 received in total) were those which fell outside the
Commissioner's remit. Such complaints were not accepted because,
for example, they related to the way in which a Member had handled
an individual case (including whether the Member had responded
to correspondence), to a Member's views and opinions, or to actions
taken by Ministers. Wherever possible, we suggested a way in which
the complainant might pursue his or her concerns, but other options
are not always available.
35. It is understandable that many complainants
are not familiar with the details of the rules of the House. As
a result, some complaints are made about conduct which would not
constitute a breach of the rules of the House. Fifteen such complaints
were received last year. For example, some
of these involved misunderstandings about the rules relating to
Members' allowances from previous Parliaments, or about the requirements
of the House in relation to apparent conflicts of interest. The
House does not prevent Members undertaking paid employment outside
the House, but it does require them to register and, when relevant,
declare those interests openly.
36. The Commissioner can only accept a complaint
if it is supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.
Last year, three complaints were not accepted for inquiry because
the complainants provided insufficient evidence of the allegations
they were making. In such cases, my office replies to the complainant
to remind them of the need to provide sufficient evidence. In
two further cases, complaints were not accepted for investigation
because an inquiry into a similar complaint was already under
way.
37. Table 1 (overleaf) shows the number of complaints
accepted and not accepted during each quarter of the year. It
also shows the reasons why complaints were not accepted.
Suspended inquiries
38. From time to time it may become necessary
for the Commissioner to suspend his or her inquiries. This may
be, for example, because a matter is being considered by the police,
or on medical grounds. My predecessor brought forward two suspended
inquiries from 2011-12. He reactivated and then concluded one
of these inquiries. He closed the remaining inquiry, with the
agreement of the then Committee on Standards and Privileges, following
the conclusion of court proceedings. In the latter case, the
individual concerned was no longer a Member of the House and the
inquiry had been suspended for a considerable period of time.
At the end of the year, I carried forward no suspended inquiries
to 2013-14.
Table 1: Complaints
considered in 2012-13
| Quarter 1
Apr-June 2012 | Quarter 2
Jul-Sept 2012 | Quarter 3
Oct-Dec 2012 | Quarter 4
Jan-Mar 2013 |
Total |
| 1. Formal complaints received
| 23 |
29 | 42
| 231
| 117 |
| 2. Complaints inquired into:
|
| (a) Complaints under inquiry and brought forward from 2011-12
| 2 |
- | -
| - |
- |
| (b) New complaints accepted for inquiry
| 1 |
0 | 5
| 1 |
7 |
| (c) Inquiries suspended at quarter end
| 2 |
1 | 0
| 0 |
0 |
| 3. Complaints not inquired into:
|
| (a) because the complaint fell outside Commissioner's remit
|
18
|
24
|
32
|
15
|
89
|
| (b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules
|
4
|
4
|
2
|
5
|
15
|
| (c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
| (d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
12
|
2
|
| Total complaints not inquired into
| 22
| 29
| 36
| 22
| 109
|
Note 1: One of these complaints
was considered in Quarter 1 of 2013-14.
Note 2: This complaint was received
in Quarter 3.
Resolution of complaints
39. When the Commissioner has accepted a complaint
for inquiry, there are three possible outcomes, each of which
is made public at the appropriate time. If the Commissioner decides
that there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint,
he or she does not uphold the complaint. If this happens, the
Commissioner writes to the complainant to explain this decision
and informs the Committee on Standards.
40. In some cases, if the Commissioner finds
that the Member has broken the rules of the House, the Member
accepts this, and the Commissioner considers that the breach was
inadvertent and/or at the less serious end of the spectrum, the
Commissioner may resolve the complaint informally. This is called
the "rectification procedure". The Member must make
an apology and must take appropriate action to put the matter
right—this might be a repayment or a late entry in the Register
of Members' Financial Interests. In these cases, the Commissioner
writes to the complainant to explain how the complaint has been
resolved and informs the Committee on Standards.
41. In other cases, the Commissioner reports
his or her findings and conclusions to the Committee on Standards
(formerly the Committee on Standards and Privileges). The Committee
then reaches its own conclusions on whether the Member has broken
the rules of the House. The Committee will then publish its own
report on the complaint, together with the Commissioners' findings
and the evidence he or she has received. It is for the Committee
to decide what further action, if any, it wishes to recommend
to the House. It can recommend a range of sanctions, including
an apology, a repayment of money or a period of suspension from
the service of the House.
COMPLAINTS RESOLVED IN 2012-13
42. During the year, my predecessor and I resolved
nine complaints, including two brought forward from 2011-12 and
two inquiries which had previously been suspended. Brief details
of each of these are given below and further information is available
to the public online (or in hard copy on request), as follows:
- Five complaints were resolved
informally using the rectification procedure. In each case, the
relevant evidence and the Commissioner's letter closing the complaint
are available on the Commissioner's web pages.[17]
- Two complaints were the subject of a memorandum
to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. These memoranda,
together with the relevant evidence, are published with the Committee's
reports on its web pages.[18]
- In one case, my predecessor did not uphold the
complaint. The relevant evidence and the Commissioner's letter
closing the complaint are available on the Commissioner's web
pages.[19]
- One inquiry was closed following the conclusion
of court proceedings. A statement about this is available on the
web pages of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.[20]
43. Table 2 shows the complaints which were resolved
during the year.
Table 2: Complaints inquired into and resolved
in 2012-13
| Quarter 1
Apr-June 2012 | Quarter 2
Jul-Sept 2012 | Quarter 3
Oct-Dec 2012 | Quarter 4
Jan-Mar 2013 |
Total |
| 1. Complaints upheld:
|
| (a) resolved through the rectification procedure
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
| (b) subject of a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
2
|
| Total complaints upheld
| 1
| 2
| 1
| 3
| 7
|
| 2. Complaints not upheld:
|
| (a) without a formal report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
| (b) subject of a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Total complaints not upheld
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 0
| 1
|
| 3. Other complaints submitted to the Committee on Standards and Privileges
|
| (a) Inquiry closed |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| | |
| | |
| Total complaints inquired into and resolved
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
SUBJECT MATTER OF COMPLAINTS RESOLVED DURING
THE YEAR
44. Chart 1 shows the main subject matter of the nine complaints
resolved during the year. This includes one complaint which was
closed following the conclusion of court proceedings. Four cases
(45%) related to the registration or declaration of a Member's
financial interests. Three cases (33%) were about a Member's use
of the Incidental Expenses Provision, an allowance provided under
the expenses rules in the previous Parliament to meet the costs
of accommodation for office or surgery use and other office costs.
The remaining two cases (22%) related to a Member's use of House
stationery or facilities.
45. Four complaints resolved this year related
to a Member's actions in the current Parliament. Four other complaints
related to conduct in previous Parliaments. The remaining complaint
related to conduct which had begun in the previous Parliament
and continued into the present Parliament.
Chart 1: Main subject matter of inquiries resolved
in 2012-13
TIME TAKEN TO RESOLVE COMPLAINTS
IN 2012-13
46. Over the year, 8 of the 10 cases which were
under active inquiry were resolved. One case was resolved in less
than a month. Four further cases were resolved in two months or
less. Another case was resolved in less than five months. A further
case, which had been carried forward from the previous year, was
resolved in nine months. Of the remaining two cases, one had been
suspended for a significant period while matters were investigated
by the police and was resolved three years and three months after
it had first been accepted for inquiry. The remaining case was
closed following the conclusion of court proceedings.
Reports to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges
47. During the year, my predecessor submitted
two memoranda to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In
both cases, he upheld the allegations. In both cases, the Committee
accepted his overall findings before deciding what action, if
any, to take or to recommend to the House.
48. The first memorandum related to claims made
by the Member for his constituency office.[21]
The complaint was that between 2002-03 and 2009-10 the Member
had rented accommodation for his constituency office from an organisation
in which he and a family member owned shares, which was in breach
of the rules of the House. My predecessor found that the Member
had indeed sub-leased office premises from a company in which
he had a substantial interest and in which his sister-in-law had
a much smaller interest.
49. The Member told my predecessor that he had
sought advice from officials in the Fees Office and that he had
been advised that his arrangements were within the rules at the
time. Having taken evidence from the officials concerned, my predecessor
concluded that that
the evidence was not sufficient on the balance of probabilities
for him to conclude that the Member had omitted to tell Fees Office
staff in 2002 of his shareholding in this company before they
approved his arrangements. The Member accepted that he had breached
the rules, albeit not deliberately or knowingly, and apologised.
The Committee noted this breach of the rules and did not recommend
any further action.
50. The second memorandum[22]
related to claims made by the Member for research and translation
services between 2005 and 2008, and to his claims for computer
equipment during the same period. The complaint was accepted on
15 July 2009. As a result of information discovered by my predecessor
in the course of his inquiry, the Committee on Standards and Privileges
agreed that the conduct of the Member should be reported to the
Metropolitan Police. This was done in October 2010 and the Commissioner's
investigation was suspended. On 3 July 2012, the Metropolitan
Police Service informed the Commissioner that they would take
no action as a result of their inquiries. He then resumed his
own inquiry and reported to the Committee in October 2012.
51. In respect of the Member's claims for computer
equipment, my predecessor concluded that the Member had breached
the rules of the House by buying some computers when that expenditure
was not wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on parliamentary
duties. Moreover, one claim for a computer was made twice and
therefore should not have been made or paid a second time.
52. With regard to the Member's claim for research
and translation services, my predecessor found that he had submitted
19 invoices which the Commissioner considered to be misleading.
He found that these invoices had been presented on headed paper
of a policy institute and signed by its General Manager. At that
time, the institute did not exist in this form and there was no
General Manager. The Member told the Commissioner that he, or
one of his staff acting under his authority, had signed the invoices
in the name given for the General Manager. My predecessor considered
that these invoices misled the House authorities and ensured there
was no means of checking their accuracy or admissibility, nor
any restraint on the Member's claims. In
effect, the Member had been sending the invoice to himself and
writing his own cheque.
53. My predecessor found that the claims that
the Member had made against the incidental expenses provision,
supported by these invoices for "research and translation",
went beyond what was allowable under the rules. In particular,
over four financial years he had claimed for the costs of his
own extensive travel across Europe.
54. The Committee considered that this was the
gravest case that had come to it for adjudication. It agreed with
my predecessor's findings and recommended that the Member be suspended
from the service of the House for twelve months. Before the House
had an opportunity to debate this recommendation, the Member chose
to stand down from the House.
Complaints rectified
55. During the year,
my predecessor and I resolved
five inquiries by means of the rectification procedure. Three
of these related to the registration or declaration of Members'
financial interests; one related to a Member's use of House of
Commons stationery and pre-paid envelopes, and the remaining complaint
related to a Member's use of his parliamentary e-mail account.
56. In the first case, my predecessor investigated
the Member's use of House of Commons stationery and pre-paid
envelopes. The complaint was that the Member had used House of
Commons stationery and pre-paid envelopes to send his constituents
a letter which included material in connection with work for his
political party, contrary to the rules of the House. These letters
were accompanied by reply slips which included material about
the Member's political party. The view of the House authorities,
with which my predecessor agreed, was that the inclusion of these
reply slips meant that the letters were in breach of the rule
that House stationery and postage must not be used in connection
with work for a political party. The Member immediately recognised
and accepted this mistake, apologised and repaid the full cost
of sending the letters. He undertook to retrain all his staff
members who were involved with this dispatch so that they were
clear about the requirements of the rules of the House.
57. In the second case, the complaint was that
the Member had failed to register sponsorship he had received
for a series of networking events held for him and another Member
between May 2009 and March 2010. The advice of the Registrar of
Members' Financial Interests, with which my predecessor agreed,
was that the Member was required under the rules on registration
to register the three networking events he had attended since,
in her view, the events provided financial or material support
for both himself and the other Member as Members of Parliament,
including for their political activities. She would not have
advised him to register the events he did not attend. The Member
readily accepted that he should have registered these events,
registered them once he was aware of the situation and apologised.
The late entries appear in the Register of Members' Financial
Interests in bold italic type, with an explanatory note. They
will remain in the Register in that form for 12 months from the
date of the rectification of the complaint or until the next printed
edition, whichever is the later.
58. In the third case, the complaint was that
the Member had failed to register, from 2005 to the date of the
complaint in 2012, a financial interest in a film partnership,
contrary to the rules of the House. The advice of the Registrar
of Members' Financial Interests, with which I agreed, was that
she found it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Member had
a financial interest which met the purpose of the Register. She
therefore advised that the interest should have been registered
in the Miscellaneous category. The Member accepted that he had
breached the rules of the House, apologised and registered his
interest in the film partnership. This late entry appears in the
Register of Members' Financial Interests in bold italic type,
with an explanatory note. It will remain in the Register in that
form for 12 months from the date of the rectification of the complaint
or until the next printed edition, whichever is the later. The
Member undertook to ensure that he will in future notify the Registrar
promptly of any interest which the House requires him to register.
59. In the fourth case the complaint was that
the Member had, contrary to the rules of the House:
- failed to declare benefits
from two companies connected to the gambling industry at an early
stage of a select committee inquiry related to gambling;
- failed to declare those benefits when asking
three parliamentary Questions;
- failed to declare those benefits in debate; and
- failed to declare a relevant interest when asking
questions of a witness in a select committee evidence session.
The advice of the Registrar of Members' Financial
Interests, with which I agreed, was that the benefits that the
Member received from one of the companies did not meet the test
of relevance—that is, that they could reasonably be thought
by others to influence the Member's words or actions in the proceedings
identified by the complainant. She did, however, consider that
the benefit the Member had received from the other company met
this test, and that it should therefore have been declared in
proceedings. The Member accepted that he had breached the rules
of the House and apologised on a point of order.
60. In the fifth case, the complaint was that
the Member had used his parliamentary e-mail account to send a
message which constituted party political campaigning, contrary
to the rules of the House. The e-mail related to the then forthcoming
Police and Crime Commissioner elections. The advice of the House
authorities, with which I agreed, was that the e-mail would, under
the rules which operated for a communications allowance between
2007 and 2010, have crossed the line between acceptable parliamentary
communication and party political campaigning. The Member accepted
that he had breached the rules of the House, apologised and undertook
to avoid a recurrence.
Complaint not upheld
61. There was one case during the year in which
my predecessor did not uphold the complaint. This was because,
following an inquiry, the facts did not support the allegation
that the Member had breached the rules of the House. The complaint
was that the Member had failed to declare to a select committee,
of which he was the Chair, a relevant personal interest arising
from his relationship with the owners of a care home company.
The Member told my predecessor that the couple in question had
been family friends for approximately fifteen years, and that
this friendship had not arisen because of the couple's business
interests. My predecessor concluded that the nature of the Member's
connection to his friends was not such as to require him to declare
it as a personal interest and so he was not required to stand
aside from the Committee's inquiry.
Inquiry closed
62. My predecessor closed one inquiry during
the year. The inquiry related to the Member's use of the incidental
expenses provision, administrative and office expenditure and
the staffing allowance. This inquiry had been suspended in 2010
to allow time for the question of possible criminal proceedings,
relating to the Member's claims for other allowances, to be resolved.
Following the outcome of court proceedings, my predecessor—with
the agreement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges—closed
the inquiry.
Trends in complaints from 2007
to 2013
63. The overall number of complaints has remained
broadly the same in the last three years, having fallen substantially
from the high level it reached in 2009-10. The number of active
inquiries undertaken each year has declined in the same period.
64. The number of complaints which did not provide
sufficient supporting evidence is very similar to the number recorded
in the previous year: 3 in 2012-13 and 2 in 2011-12. This may
be because the matters that now fall within the Commissioner's
remit mainly relate to matters for which there are published
and easily available sources, such as the Register of Members'
Financial Interests and Hansard.
Table 3 and Chart 2: Complaints received from 2007-08
to 2012-13
| 2007-08
| 2008-09 | 2009-10
| 2010-11 | 2011-12
| 2012-13 |
| 1. Formal complaints against a named Member
| 226 | 192
| 317 | 115
| 109 |
117
|
| 2. Complaints subject of inquiry
| 71 | 54
| 80 | 37
| 14 |
10
|
| 3.Complaints not inquired into
| 155 | 160
| 245 | 105
| 101 |
109
|
Table 4 and Chart 3: Complaints not inquired into
| Complaints not inquired into
| 2007-08 | 2008-09
| 2009-10 | 2010-11
| 2011-12 | 2012-13
|
| a) because complaint fell outside remit
| 94 | 83
| 105 | 82
| 81 |
89
|
| b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules
| - | 32
| 76 | 17
| 15 |
15
|
| c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided
| - | 27
| 53 | 6
| 2 |
3
|
| d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted
| - | 18
| 11 | 0
| 2 |
2
|
| e) because inquiry not justified following self-referral
| - | 0
| 0 | 0
| 1 |
0
|
Note 1: Before 2008-09 the Commissioner's office
did not maintain detailed statistics on the reasons why complaints
were not inquired into.
Table 5 and Chart 4: Complaints resolved
| Complaints resolved |
2007-08 | 2008-09
| 2009-10 | 2010-11
| 2011-12 | 2012-13
|
| a) upheld by means of rectification procedure
| 7 | 16
| 14 | 14
| 4 |
5
|
| b) upheld by means of a memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges
| 15 | 17
| 20 | 10
| 4 |
2
|
| c) Complaints not upheld (where no memorandum was submitted to the Committee)
| 29 | 13
| 16 | 2
| 1 |
1
|
| d) Complaints not upheld (where a memorandum was submitted to the Committee)
| 0 | 3
| 1 | 5
| 0 |
0
|
| (e) Consideration by Committee postponed because of criminal proceedings
| | | | 1
| 0 |
0
|
| (f) Inquiry closed |
| | | 1
| 3 |
1
|
| Total complaints resolved
| 51 | 46
| 51 | 33
| 12 |
9
|
Frivolous or vexatious complaints
65. The Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members
states that, if the Commissioner receives a complaint and concludes
that it is frivolous or vexatious, he or would report this briefly
to the Committee on Standards. This guidance was first introduced
in 2005 and has never been used. In the course of his review of
the Guide to the Rules, my predecessor recommended to the Committee
on Standards and Privileges that this provision should be removed.
The Committee accepted this recommendation, which is now a matter
for the House.
15 The Code of Conduct together with The
Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members, HC
1885, para 105 Back
16
See paragraph 30, above. Back
17
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/pcfs/publications/inquiries/matters-rectifiied/ Back
18
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/standards-and-privileges-committee/Publications/ Back
19
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/pcfs/publications/inquiries/matters-not-upheld/ Back
20
http://www.parliament.uk/sandp Back
21
First Report of Session 2012-13, HC 564 Back
22
Second Report of Session 2012-13, HC 635 Back
| 
