House of Commons - Nadine Dorries

Nadine Dorries - Standards Committee Contents

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—Complaint concerning Ms Nadine Dorries MP

Background

1. In early November 2012, it was reported in the press that Ms Nadine Dorries, the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would be taking part in the television programme "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!". Ms Dorries first appeared on the programme on 11 November 2012 and appeared for the last time in an episode shown on 21 November 2012.

The Complaint

2. On 3 June 2013 I received a complaint from Mr John Mann, the Member for Bassetlaw, concerning Ms Dorries.[36] Mr Mann asked me to investigate why Ms Dorries had not registered payments she had received for appearing in "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!". He said that this was a breach of the rules relating to the registration of Members' financial interests and a breach of the Code of Conduct.

3. Before I initiate an inquiry, I consider whether there is sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry into whether a particular named Member may have breached the Code of Conduct. In this case, the facts that Ms Dorries had appeared on the programme, and that participants usually receive a fee, were public knowledge. The fact that Ms Dorries had not made an entry relating to the programme in the Register of Members' Financial Interests was a matter of public record. I therefore considered that there was sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry, and initiated it on 3 June 2013.

Relevant Rules of the House

4. Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House of 12 March 2012 provides for the following rule for the registration of interests:

"Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests…"

5. The rules on the registration of Members' financial interests are set out in the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members. Paragraph 11 of the Guide sets out the purpose of the Register:

"The main purpose of the Register of Members' Financial Interests is "to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament." The registration form specifies twelve Categories of registrable interests which are described below. Apart from the specific rules, there is a more general obligation upon Members to keep the overall definition of the Register's purpose in mind when registering their interests."

6. The duties of Members in respect of registration include the following in paragraph 13:

"Members of Parliament are required to complete a registration form and submit it to the Commissioner within one month of their election to the House (whether at a general election or a by-election). After the initial publication of the Register (or, in the case of Members returned at by-elections, after their initial registration) it is the responsibility of Members to notify changes in their registrable interests within four weeks of each change occurring."

7. Paragraph 15 of the Guide provides as follows:

"Members are responsible for making a full disclosure of their interests, and if they have relevant interests which do not fall clearly into one or other of the specified categories, they are nonetheless expected to register them, normally under Category 11."

8. The rules require the registration of remunerated employment in Category 2 (Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc). Category 2 is defined as follows:

"Remunerated employment, office, profession, etc: Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation (apart from membership of the House or ministerial office) which is remunerated or in which the Member has any financial interest. Membership of Lloyd's should be registered under this Category."

9. Paragraph 24 of the Guide provides as follows:

"All employment outside the House and any sources of remuneration which do not fall clearly within any other Category should be registered here. Members must register under this category the precise amount of each individual payment made, the nature of the work carried on in return for that payment, the number of hours worked during the period to which that payment relates and (except where disclosure of the information would be contrary to any legal or established professional duty of privacy or confidentiality) the name and address of the person, organisation or company making that payment."

A Resolution of 30 April 2009, following an amendment made on 7 February 2011, provides that such payments must be registered where their value exceeds one tenth of one per cent of the current Parliamentary salary (currently £66) or where the cumulative value of payments from a single source exceeds 1 per cent of the Parliamentary salary (currently £660) in a calendar year.

10. The rules also require the registration of shareholdings under Category 9, which is defined as follows:

Shareholdings: Interests in shareholdings held by the Member, either personally, or with or on behalf of the Member's spouse or partner or dependent children, in any public or private company or other body which are:

(a) greater than 15 per cent of the issued share capital of the company or body; or

(b) 15 per cent or less of the issued share capital, but greater in value than the current parliamentary salary.

The nature of the company's business in each case should be registered.

11. Paragraph 19 of the Code includes the following:

"The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member's adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House.

My Inquiry

12. In the course of my inquiry I have considered evidence from the following:

a) Ms Dorries;

b) Companies House;

c) The Registrar of Members' Financial Interests;

d) Website of Ms Dorries' agent.

I have also taken account of information readily available on the internet about Ms Dorries' media articles.

The evidence is appended to this memorandum.

MS DORRIES' EVIDENCE

13. I wrote to Ms Dorries on 3 June 2013.[37] I asked her whether any fee had been paid for her appearance in the programme—and, if so, I asked her to let me know the amount(s), the date(s) on which payment was received and to whom the payment had been made. I also asked her whether she had at any time considered registering an interest and, if so, why she had not done so. I also requested a copy of any contract or agreement she had signed in relation to the programme.

14. Ms Dorries replied on 11 June.[38] She told me that she had not been paid a fee for her participation in "I'm a Celebrity". She said that all fees for work she was commissioned to undertake were, without exception, paid to a company called Averbrook Ltd. Ms Dorries enclosed with her letter two exchanges of e-mails that her office had had with the Registrar about the registration of her interest in Averbrook Ltd.[39] She told me that this exchange had been followed by a telephone call, during which she had assured the Registrar that, were she to be remunerated at any time via her company, she would inform her immediately.

15. Ms Dorries explained to me her interpretation of the rules of the House. She believed that she had two objectives to fulfil. The first was to register her company (Averbrook Ltd), which she told me she had "done for the purpose of transparency even though as yet it is not required for me to do so". The second was to notify me should she receive any remuneration, which she had not. In response to my request for a copy of any contract she had signed, she said that all contracts with commissioning companies were confidential and commercially sensitive. She said that she was therefore unable to meet my request.

16. I wrote to Ms Dorries on 13 June[40] to ask her again to respond to the questions set out in my letter of 3 June[41] and to provide a copy of any contract or agreement she had signed. In response to her concerns about providing confidential information, I explained that all evidence I received during my inquiries was confidential unless and until it was published by me or by the Committee on Standards. I told her that we were always prepared to consider requests for the redaction of confidential and personal information which was not relevant to the resolution of an inquiry. I also asked her whether I was right to understand from her letter that any fee for her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity" had been paid directly to Averbrook Ltd. I also asked her, if this was this case, to let me know the nature and history of her relationship with that company.

17. Ms Dorries replied on 19 June.[42] She told me that the last payment she had personally received in relation to her outside interests had been registered. Since October 2012, all of her outside earnings (from a number of media companies and publishers) had been paid to Averbrook Ltd, of which she was a joint director. She enclosed an e-mail from her accountant to confirm this.[43] She said that she had registered Averbrook Ltd, and told me that "All information regarding Averbrook Ltd is available via Companies House". She said that she did not feel that there was anything further she could add or anything further that she was obliged to provide in relation to this complaint.

18. I wrote to Ms Dorries again on 24 June.[44] I reminded her of the expectation, set out in the Code of Conduct, that Members will co-operate with a Commissioner's investigation. I also repeated my explanation about the confidentiality of material submitted to my investigations. I asked Ms Dorries again to respond to my questions and to provide the evidence I had requested.

19. Ms Dorries responded to this letter on 28 June.[45] She told me that she was "disappointed" that I was asking her for information which she was under "no obligation whatsoever to provide". She told me that the information I had requested, including whether any fee had been paid by "I'm a Celebrity" and how much that fee was, was "the business of Averbrook alone".

20. She said that, "in the spirit of being as helpful as possible", she had enclosed an e-mail from her agent.[46] This e-mail confirmed that "payments for all written and media work undertaken by Nadine Dorries on behalf of Averbrook Ltd since October 2012" had been paid to her agent and, following deduction of her agent's commission, "the remaining balances" had been paid to Averbrook Ltd. The e-mail further stated that "No payments are made personally to Nadine Dorries".

21. Ms Dorries repeated that "all information regarding Averbrook is available online via Companies House". She considered that she had no other information that she was obliged to provide. She said that her office had contacted the Registrar for guidance "from the first day" and that her involvement in the company had been registered. She considered that she had fulfilled her obligation and told me that she was not aware that any complaint regarding her directorship of Averbrook Ltd had been made. She concluded by saying that she considered the complaint against her to be "simplistic, unfounded [and] vexatious".

AVERBROOK LTD: COMPANIES HOUSE RECORDS

22. Ms Dorries' letters of 19 and 28 June[47] told me that all information relating to Averbrook Ltd was available via Companies House. The information available from the Companies House website at that time showed that Averbrook Ltd was a private company limited by shares which was incorporated on 12 May 1994.[48] Its status was "active". Ms Dorries had been made a director on 4 October 2012 and had been the sole director from that date until 14 March 2013 when a further director was appointed. This was a re-appointment, since the same individual appeared as a director and shareholder of the company on all of the annual returns available on the Companies House website.[49] He had ceased to be a director of the company on 3 October 2012 and was reappointed on 14 March 2013. At this stage, the annual return for 2012-13 had not been filed.

23. Averbrook Ltd's annual return, which was dated 12 May 2013, was filed on 11 July 2013.[50] This showed that the company had two shareholders (Ms Dorries and the other director) and 100 shares, which were valued at £1 each. Of these, Ms Dorries held 90 shares. The return showed that 90 shares had been transferred from the other director on 3 October 2012. The annual return contained no other information about Ms Dorries' relationship with the company. Averbrook Ltd's annual accounts are not due to be filed until 30 September 2013.[51]

THE REGISTRAR'S ADVICE

24. I wrote to the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests on 1 July, enclosing the information I had from Companies House.[52] I asked her whether she considered that, under the rules of the House, Ms Dorries should have registered any payment made for her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity", even if that fee was paid to a company and not to Ms Dorries. I also asked what advice, if any, she had given to Ms Dorries about the registration of any payment made for her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity" and/or about the registration of her relationship with Averbrook Ltd.

25. The Registrar responded to my letter on 8 July.[53] On the question of whether Ms Dorries should have registered any fee she received for participating in the programme, even if it was paid to a company and not to Ms Dorries herself, she explained that the rules of the House relating to the registration and declaration of interests "do not touch on arrangements of this sort". However, she added that "in the absence of either specific guidance or a specific exemption, my advice was and is that Ms Dorries should have registered this payment". She said that this was based on the purpose of the Register, defined in paragraph 12 of the Guide to the Rules as "openness". She told me that the established practice of her office was to advise Members to register remuneration for their work even if it was paid not to them but to other organisations, and noted that the published Register contained a number of entries made in accordance with this advice.

26. She then described the advice her office had given to Ms Dorries about the registration of any payments made for her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity". She told me that, in the light of media coverage of the appearance, she had e-mailed Ms Dorries on 3 January 2013 to remind her to provide details as soon as possible if she had payments to register, either from "I'm a Celebrity" or from Averbrook Ltd. She reminded her again on 18 January. On 21 January, following a telephone conversation with Ms Dorries, she sent her an e-mail in which she advised Ms Dorries to register payments from the television programme even if they were made to another organisation.

27. The Registrar noted that Ms Dorries had already sent me a copy of an e-mail exchange with the Registrar's office, which began in October 2012. The Registrar told me that she had understood from this exchange that Averbrook Ltd was a new company which was to be wholly owned by Ms Dorries, and that it had not yet started trading.[54] On this basis, she had taken the view that registration was not required at that stage. On 18 October, the Registrar asked Ms Dorries' office to inform her after the first payment from Averbrook Ltd had been received and after its address had been confirmed. On 31 October, the Registrar's office telephoned to ask whether there was anything to register in relation to Averbrook Ltd, and was told that there was not. The Registrar included further reminders in e-mails of 3 December 2012 and 3 and 18 January 2013.

28. On 10 June, Ms Dorries' office e-mailed to register her directorship of Averbrook Ltd, even though it remained unremunerated. The Registrar advised that, since Ms Dorries was not a paid director, her relationship with the company would not be registered under the heading of remunerated directorships. Instead, the Registrar advised that this relationship should be registered under Category 9, shareholdings, on the basis that Ms Dorries was the sole shareholder. She sent a draft register entry in these terms to Ms Dorries, who replied that she was not the sole shareholder. She said that she had acquired a holding of more than 15%, but she did not know the exact size of the holding and said that the paperwork for the transfer of stock had not yet been completed. On this basis, the Registrar included the following entry in the Register:

9. Shareholdings

(a) Director and shareholder of Averbrook, a writing and media consultancy. (Registered 10 June 2013)

MS DORRIES' FURTHER RESPONSE

29. I wrote to Ms Dorries on 9 July, enclosing the letter I had received from the Registrar.[55] I asked her, in the light of the Registrar's advice, to let me know:

whether any fee had been paid for her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity", and if so the amount(s) and the date(s) on which payment had been received by Averbrook Ltd;
details of all other employment payments made to Averbrook Ltd by her agent on her behalf;
the nature and history of her relationship with Averbrook Ltd.

30. Ms Dorries responded to my letter on 10 July.[56] She told me that she had "no obligation to answer what payments are made by whom to Averbrook Ltd". She said that she did have an obligation, as a joint director of Averbrook Ltd, to inform me when she was remunerated by that company. She undertook to tell the Registrar immediately if she received remuneration from Averbrook Ltd. She also considered that she had no obligation to tell me about the nature or history of her relationship with Averbrook Ltd, other than to confirm that she was a shareholder and to confirm that her interest as a shareholder had been registered at the appropriate time.

31. Referring to the Registrar's advice, Ms Dorries said: "It may be the established practice of her office to recommend that Members, in her opinion, should but it is not a requirement or an obligation that the Member must." She told me that, because she was not the sole director of the company, she chose "to strictly abide by the rules and not by subjective requirement." She said that she believed that, while some Members did register payments made to their own companies, "not many" did so, because there was "no specific legal requirement" to do so. She undertook to declare her interest if she ever spoke in the Chamber on "matters relating to DCMS [the Department for Culture, Media and Sport]".

32. On 15 August 2013 the draft factual sections were sent to Ms Dorries to check. She responded to me on 21 August 2013 and I amended the report to take account of the additional information she provided.[57]

INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET

33. In the meantime, I had consulted the website of Ms Dorries' agent which listed her media activities. These included at least 8 appearances on television since November 2012.[58] I also became aware of a number of media articles by Ms Dorries over the last year.[59] These included, as well as her articles for the Mail Online, a piece for The People on 26 August 2012 and a diary article of 1 December 2012, neither of which were listed in her Register entry.

34. On 22 August 2013 Ms Dorries wrote to me again. She drew my attention to the date when the certificate for her shares in Averbrook was signed. This was 13 June 2013. She also said that "the Registrar's criteria of openness" was made "within the context of pecuniary interest having relevance or influence upon a Member's work in Westminster". She said that her media work had no such bearing upon her representation of mid-Bedfordshire.

35. On 23 August my office acknowledged this letter and asked Ms Dorries to forward copies of the share certificate and the share transfer form. On 11September her office emailed[60] to say "I have now been told that Nadine has nothing further to add to the last letters sent to the Commissioner so there is no additional response from this office. I understand that the case now progresses to discussion by the Standards Committee." I wrote again on 12 September[61] but have not received the documents requested.

Findings of fact

36. In November 2012, Ms Dorries appeared on the television programme "I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!". Ms Dorries first appeared on the programme on 11 November 2012 and appeared for the last time in an episode shown on 21 November 2012. She has not registered any financial interest arising from her appearance on the programme. She has neither confirmed nor denied that payment was made in return for her participation in the programme. Her evidence is that, since October 2012, all payments for work she is commissioned to do have been paid to Averbrook Ltd. She has registered no payments for employment since December 2012, when she made an entry for work done in October-November 2012. The website of her agent indicates that Ms Dorries has made at least eight media appearances including 'I'm a Celebrity ...' since that time. She has also written at least two media articles. She has told me that she has taken no remuneration from Averbrook Ltd.

37. Ms Dorries became a director of Averbrook Ltd, an 'off the shelf company' incorporated on 12 May 1994, on 4 October 2012. The company was classed as active but had not traded in 2011, the latest year for which accounts are available. She was the sole director of the company from that date until 14 March 2013. Averbrook Ltd's Annual Return shows that on 12 May 2013 Ms Dorries held 90 of the company's 100 shares. 90 shares had been transferred from the company's other director and shareholder on 3 October 2012.

38. Ms Dorries' office first notified the Registrar of her directorship of Averbrook Ltd on 4 October 2012 and of her shareholding in the company on 18 October 2012. The e-mail of 18 October 2012 stated that the company had only been set up a few weeks earlier and had not yet carried out any business.[62] On this basis, the Registrar advised that an entry in the Register was not necessary at that stage. After further exchanges between Ms Dorries and the Registrar, Ms Dorries registered her shareholding in, and directorship of, Averbrook Ltd on 10 June 2013.

39. The Registrar's evidence is that the rules of the House do not make any specific reference to circumstances in which payments for a Member's employment are made not directly to the Member, but to another person or organisation. In the absence of any specific provision, the advice of her office has been that Members should register such payments. This advice is based on the fact that the purpose of the Register is openness. The published Register contains a number of entries made in accordance with this advice.

40. Ms Dorries considers that there is a long list of Members who do not declare payments to their companies or even their shareholdings, when these are below 15%.

41. Ms Dorries does not consider that she is required to register payments for her employment which are made to Averbrook Ltd and not directly to her. In her view, she is required to make an entry in the Register only when she personally receives a payment. She considers that details of contracts with commissioning companies are confidential and commercially sensitive. As a result, she considers that she is not obliged to respond to my questions about her employment. She has undertaken to inform the Registrar immediately if she is remunerated by Averbrook Ltd.

Conclusions

42. The question raised by the original complaint was:

a) Should Ms Dorries have registered a payment related to her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity"?

In addition, as a result of the evidence I have received from Ms Dorries, of the information available on the internet and from her agents' website and of the information I have obtained at her suggestion from Companies House, I have also had to consider:

b) Did Ms Dorries' registration of her interest in Averbrook Ltd meet the requirements of the rules of the House? and

c) Did Ms Dorries co-operate with my inquiry, as required by the Code of Conduct for MPs?

a) Should Ms Dorries have registered a payment related to her appearance on "I'm a Celebrity"?

43. I have not been able to establish with absolute certainty whether or not a payment was made for Ms Dorries' participation in the programme, because she has not provided this information. I consider it more likely than not that such a payment was made: had Ms Dorries participated in the programme without payment, she could have told me this and thus demonstrated that she had no financial interest to register. In addition, it is widely known that payments are usually made to participants.

44. Ms Dorries has told me that all fees from work she is commissioned to do are paid to Averbrook Ltd, and that since October 2012, her "outside earnings, paid by a number of media companies and publishers" have been paid to Averbrook Ltd. Her agents' website includes reference to 'I'm a Celebrity ...'. I have therefore assumed that any payment for her participation in "I'm a Celebrity" was paid to Averbrook Ltd by her agent in this way—although Ms Dorries has not confirmed this. Ms Dorries considers that she is not required by the rules of the House to register payments for employment if these are not made to her personally. She has registered no remunerated employment since December 2012, when she made an entry for work done in October-November 2012.

45. The requirements of the House relating to the registration of outside employment, under Category 2 of the Register, state that "all employment outside the House and any sources of remuneration which do not fall clearly within any other Category should be registered here". Since 1 July 2009, Members have been required to register detailed information about such remuneration, including the precise amount of each individual payment made, the nature of the work, the number of hours worked and the name and address of the person or organisation who pays them.[63] In addition, if they register remuneration from one organisation but provide services to another, they have been required to register details of the second organisation as a client under Category 3.

46. In the debate on 30 April 2009, the then Deputy Leader of the House explained the reason for these changes as follows:

"...so that not only the public but Sir Christopher Kelly's committee can have a full understanding of precisely the level of remunerated employment and directorships enjoyed by MPs...I believe it is legitimate for constituents to understand how much of our time we choose to commit to the House and how much we choose to commit to other remunerated employment."[64]

47. These changes were endorsed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its Twelfth Report, when it said:

"it is important that constituents have access to as complete information as possible about the extent of their MPs' activities outside the House of Commons". [65]

48. It is important to bear in mind the principles that underpin the registration rules. The Guide to the Rules clearly states that "the purpose of registration is openness". To guide Members in this, the House has agreed that Members should register a range of details about their employment, which are then made available to the public and to other Members. It cannot have been the intention of the House, in approving these rules, to permit Members to avoid the publication of information about their outside employment by channelling payments to other people or organisations, particularly those in which (like Ms Dorries) they have a controlling interest.

49. Ms Dorries believes that these requirements to register do not apply in her case because she has not personally received any payment at all in respect of the services she has provided. However, the rules do not state that Members need only register payments made to them directly. As the Registrar has explained, it is her established practice to advise Members to register payments they receive for their employment even when those payments are made directly or indirectly to a third party. This includes for example payments for the completion of opinion surveys, which are paid directly or indirectly to charity or community organisations. I believe this advice is correct. In the absence of a specific exemption for payments made to third parties, I consider that these rules require Members to register all remunerated employment where the remuneration exceeds the threshold for this category—which (for individual payments) is 0.1% of the current Parliamentary salary, or £66.

50. The rules do not require Members to register the name and address of the person, organisation or company making a payment for their employment where the disclosure of that information "would be contrary to any legal or established professional duty of privacy or confidentiality". Ms Dorries herself has not sought to suggest that this exemption would have applied in her case. However, in view of her arguments about the confidentiality of information relating to her outside employment, I believe that it is important to note the limitations of this exemption. It applies only to the name and address of the source of the remuneration, and not to any of the other details Members are required to register. It does not override the requirement for Members to register their paid employment.

51. I therefore conclude that Ms Dorries has been in breach of the rules of the House since October 2012 when she failed to register her "outside earnings paid by a number of media companies and publishers" which were paid through her agent to Averbrook Ltd. It is more likely than not that these earnings, including the payment from "I'm a Celebrity", were above the financial threshold for registration.

b) Did Ms Dorries' registration of her interest in Averbrook Ltd meet the requirements of the rules of the House?

52. Ms Dorries' registration of her interest in Averbrook Ltd was not the subject of the complaint which prompted this inquiry. However, in view of the evidence that I have obtained in the course of my inquiry, I believe that it is necessary for me to consider this aspect of Ms Dorries' registration of her interests.

53. Ms Dorries' office first alerted the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests to Ms Dorries' relationship with Averbrook Ltd on 4 October 2012, the day on which she became a director of the company and the day after 90 shares were transferred from the other shareholder. On 18 October 2012, Ms Dorries' office told the Registrar that Ms Dorries was the director, secretary and whole owner of the company. Her office also said that the company had "literally just been set up in the past few weeks and hasn't done anything yet". The Registrar, understanding from this description that the company was not yet trading, advised that Ms Dorries did not at that stage need to register her interest in Averbrook Ltd. In my view, bearing in mind the guidance in paragraph 20 of the Guide to the Rules, that was the correct advice based on the information available to the Registrar at the time. Later, on 10 June 2013, Ms Dorries told the Registrar that she was not the sole shareholder and that the shares were divided between herself and another director. She said that she did not know the exact size of her holding, although she knew that it was more than 15%, and that the paperwork for the transfer of stock had not yet been completed.

54. The records held by Companies House, to which Ms Dorries referred me, tell a different story. It is true that Ms Dorries was the sole director of the company from 4 October 2012 until 14 March 2013. However, the company had not been set up in the preceding weeks: it had existed since 1994. In October 2012 its status was active. In addition to this, Ms Dorries was not the sole shareholder in October 2012: according to the company's annual return, she held 90% of the shares of the company. 90 shares were transferred from the company's other director and shareholder on 3 October 2012.

55. The rules require Members to notify the Registrar of changes in their registrable interests within four weeks of a change occurring. Averbrook Ltd's annual return shows that 90% of the company's shares were transferred from its other shareholder on 3 October 2012. Since Ms Dorries held 90% of the company's shares on 12 May 2013, and no other shareholders are listed on the annual return, it seems likely that Ms Dorries has held her shares since 3 October 2012—the day before she became a director of the company. I therefore consider that it is likely that Ms Dorries has had a registrable interest in Averbrook Ltd since that date. In the event, however, this interest did not appear in the published Register until 10 June 2013, more than eight months after it arose, and after I had opened this inquiry.

56. It is regrettable that the information provided by Ms Dorries' office led the Registrar to understand in October 2012 that Averbrook Ltd was a recently established company which had not begun trading. I have no reason to believe that Ms Dorries or her staff provided this information other than in good faith. However, if more accurate information had been provided, Ms Dorries' office might have been given accurate advice, and her shareholding might have been registered within the 28 days required by the House. It is important that Members seeking advice on the rules make every effort to provide accurate information on which that advice can be based. Where mistakes are made, these should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

c) Did Ms Dorries co-operate with my inquiry, as required by the Code of Conduct for MPs?

57. The Code of Conduct provides, in relation to an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, that "Members shall co-operate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House." Without such co-operation, my work is significantly impeded. A Member under investigation who does not co-operate also deprives him or herself of an opportunity to demonstrate that the rules of the House were not breached. In this case, I have not been able fully to resolve the questions raised by the complaint. This is because Ms Dorries has not provided the information I have requested, despite some of it being publicly available on her agents' website.

58. I fully recognise that Members may be concerned about the publication of personal or confidential information. However, as I have made clear to Ms Dorries, the evidence I receive is confidential unless and until it is published by the Committee or by me. I would not expect to publish any confidential or personal information which was not relevant to the resolution of one of my inquiries. In particular, I would not normally expect to publish details of payments unless I had concluded that the rules of the House required a Member to have registered them.

59. Ms Dorries has replied promptly to each of my letters. She has, however, declined to provide me with a copy of any contract or agreement she entered into in relation to "I'm a Celebrity" because she considers that such contracts are confidential and commercially sensitive, despite my reassurances about the confidentiality of my inquiries. She has also told me that " If IAC paid a fee, and how much that fee was, is the business of Averbrook alone". The Guide to the Rules requires Members to supply for publication in the Register details about contractual matters, including fees which may be paid. These rules apply equally to all Members. Ms Dorries has not advanced any arguments to explain why she considers that the payments made to Averbrook Ltd — unlike similar payments made in respect of other MPs — gives rise to an expectation of confidentiality which prevents her disclosing any information at all about them, including the amount paid.

60. Ms Dorries has also cited confidentiality and commercial sensitivity as a reason for not responding to my questions. I do not consider that any expectation of confidentiality can override the duty imposed by the Code of Conduct to co-operate with the Commissioner's inquiries. Members should ensure, when entering into employment agreements, that they are not making any undertakings which would prevent them from complying with the Code of Conduct and its associated rules.

61. Ms Dorries has told me that she considers that she is not obliged to answer my questions because she does not believe that she is required by the rules of the House to register payments for her employment if they are made to a company and not to her personally. It is each Member's personal responsibility to register their interests. However, once I have initiated an inquiry into a Member's conduct, it is not for that Member to decide whether he or she has broken the rules. My role in investigating complaints is to report the facts I have established and to offer my conclusion on whether the Code has been breached. It is then for the Committee, and ultimately the House, to rule on whether or not the Member has breached the Code.

62. I have offered Ms Dorries several opportunities to answer the questions I have put to her and I have reminded her of her obligation under the Code of Conduct to cooperate with my inquiry. It would have been open to her, if she could not herself provide the evidence I sought, to authorise ITV or her agent to do so. I note that the Committee on Standards and Privileges, reporting in 2010 on an inquiry into Ms Dorries' conduct, endorsed the then Commissioner's view that Ms Dorries had taken too long to provide evidence to the Commissioner and concluded that "that prompt, full and open responses to the Commissioner's inquiries are of great importance".[66] I am sorry that on this occasion Ms Dorries has chosen not to co-operate with my inquiry and I accordingly conclude that she is in breach of the Code of Conduct in this respect.

Overall conclusions

63. On the basis of the evidence above, I conclude, therefore, that Ms Dorries was in breach of the rules of the House in not registering outside earnings which have been paid to Averbrook Ltd since October 2012, and in the late registration in June 2013 of her shareholding in Averbrook Ltd. I conclude also that she was in breach of the Code of Conduct in not co-operating with my inquiry. This was contrary to paragraph 19 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House in 2012.

64. According to the website of Ms Dorries' agent, since November 2012 she has made at least eight media appearances involving six different television programmes, including "I'm a Celebrity". None of these is recorded in her Register entry. In addition, it seems likely that she has since October 2012 written at least two media columns which have also not been registered. I consider that if payments were made for these appearances and these articles, and these payments were not registered, this amounts to a serious breach of the rules of the House. The House has decided that Members should disclose in the Register of Members' Financial Interests how much time they spend on their outside employment, who pays for that employment and the size of the sums involved. The omissions from Ms Dorries' entry means that constituents, other Members and the wider public do not have access to this information in her case. The omissions also have the potential to undermine public confidence in the completeness and accuracy of the Register.

65. I also consider Ms Dorries' refusal to co-operate with my inquiries to be a serious breach of the Code of Conduct. Without this co-operation the standards framework established by the House cannot function effectively. The consequent absence of an effective mechanism for determining whether a Member has breached the Code of Conduct has the potential to undermine the public trust in the system. I shared with Ms Dorries the factual part of my report and I have included in the written evidence her letter in response to that draft which includes her continued refusal to co-operate or accept the findings of my inquiry.[67]

66. I have no evidence that the apparent late registration of Ms Dorries' interest in Averbrook Ltd was other than inadvertent. On this basis I consider it a less serious matter. I would normally have expected to be able to resolve such a breach informally, using the rectification procedure. However, I consider that the serious breaches of the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House entailed by Ms Dorries' omissions from the Register and her refusal to co-operate with my inquiry require me to report my findings formally to the Committee. These breaches would prevent me from using the rectification procedure to correct Ms Dorries' entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, assuming that she had provided the necessary information.

Proposed revisions to the Guide to the Rules

67. In the light of Ms Dorries' argument that she is not required by the rules of the House to register payments for her employment if these are not made to her personally, I have considered whether any clarification of the rules in this area is needed.

68. My predecessor conducted a thorough review of the Guide last year and submitted a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. He addressed the question of employment payments made to third parties in that report as follows:

The existing rules require Members to register both the work they do for clients and the payments they receive for this work. But a possible difficulty arises if the remuneration is not passed to the Member, or if the payment cannot easily be linked to the work done. My office has advised Members in this position to register under the existing category for Clients any payment which has been made to an intermediary in respect of work the Member has done, but not in respect of work done by others. I believe that this is correct. A Member should not be able to avoid registration by the device of ensuring that payments for his or her work are made to an intermediary.

69. He recommended that:

"The Guide should make clear that if payments in respect of work done by a Member are made to some other person or organisation, and if those payments are not passed on to the Member in a form which can be easily linked to the work done, or at all, that Member should nevertheless register any such payment to the other person or organisation in respect of the Member's work."

The Committee on Standards and Privileges endorsed this recommendation. The revised Guide proposed by the Committee accordingly makes provision for payments for a Member's employment which are made to other people or organisations. Under the new Category 1 (Employment and earnings), the proposed rules state that:

A Member who does not receive payment for his or her work in a recognisable form or at all, because it is made to another person or organisation, should nevertheless register the payment within 28 days of its receipt by that other person or organisation. This applies only to payments which, if made direct to the Member, would have required registration under this category.

70. I consider that this offers a useful clarification for Members of the existing practice in this area. The House has not yet had an opportunity to consider the Committee's recommendations, although I hope that it will do so in due course. In the expectation that the House will consider and take a view on my predecessor's proposals in the near future, I do not recommend any change to the current rules in the meantime.

15 October 2013 Kathryn Hudson

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

36 WE 1 Back

37 WE 2 Back

38 WE 3 Back

39 WE 4 and 5 Back

40 WE 6 Back

41 WE 2 Back

42 WE 7 Back

43 WE 8 Back

44 WE 9 Back

45 WE 10 Back