Annual Report 2012-13 - Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Contents


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 2008-092009-10 2010-112011-12 2012-13
1. Formal complaints against a named Member 226192 317115 109
117
2. Complaints subject of inquiry 7154 8037 14
10
3.Complaints not inquired into 155160 245105 101
109



Table 4 and Chart 3: Complaints not inquired into




Complaints not inquired into 2007-082008-09 2009-102010-11 2011-122012-13
a) because complaint fell outside remit 9483 10582 81
89
b) because complaint did not concern a breach of the rules -32 7617 15
15
c) because insufficient supporting evidence was provided -27 536 2
3
d) because a similar complaint had already been accepted -18 110 2
2
e) because inquiry not justified following self-referral -0 00 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 2007-082008-09 2009-102010-11 2011-122012-13
a) upheld by means of rectification procedure 716 1414 4
5
b) upheld by means of a memorandum to Committee on Standards and Privileges 1517 2010 4
2
c) Complaints not upheld (where no memorandum was submitted to the Committee) 2913 162 1
1
d) Complaints not upheld (where a memorandum was submitted to the Committee) 03 15 0
0
(e) Consideration by Committee postponed because of criminal proceedings 1 0
0
(f) Inquiry closed 1 3
1
Total complaints resolved 5146 5133 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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 3 July 2013