The
Complaint against Mr Wilson
10. Councillor Sutton's complaint against Mr Wilson
also consists of three elements:
- circulation of his Parliamentary
report close to the start of an election campaign would result
in its being regarded as Conservative Party election material
produced at public expense;
- the inappropriate inclusion of a photograph of
a Conservative candidate seeking election in May 2007 in a marginal
ward; and
- inclusion within the report of a Conservative
Party leaflet.
11. The Commissioner recommends[6]
that the first element of the complaint be dismissed as Mr Wilson
had taken steps, for the most part successfully, to seek to avoid
distribution of the report during the local election campaign
and more fundamentally, there is nothing in the rules of the House
restricting the timing of the distribution of such reports. We
agree with the Commissioner that this element of the complaint
should be dismissed.
12. The Commissioner also recommends[7]
that the second element should be dismissed on the ground that
on balance he doubted that any significant personal or party advantage
was gained from the publication of the photograph in question.[8]
We accept the Commissioner's analysis and agree that this element
of the complaint should also be dismissed.
13. As to the third element, the inclusion
of party material with the report when it was delivered clearly
heightened the risk that the Parliamentary report would be seen
in a similar light, particularly as it also carried a specific
reference to the local party name—'Reading East Conservatives'.[9]
Mr Wilson has apologised for the fact that a number of copies
of the report were delivered along with copies of a Conservative
Party survey with the parliamentary material not separated from
the party material, as Department of Finance and Administration
(DFA) guidance requires. We agree with the Commissioner that
this element of the complaint should be upheld, but do not recommend
any further action.
14. The Commissioner has also drawn attention[10]
to a matter not raised in the original complaint, namely the prominent
reference to 'Reading East Conservatives' on the front page of
Mr Wilson's report. In the Commissioner's view, this particular
choice of words heightened in all the circumstances the risk of
the impression being gained that the report was a party rather
than a parliamentary publication. This risk will have been further
enhanced in those wards where the report was physically accompanied
by party material. The Commissioner considers that the inclusion
of these words crossed the line between Parliamentary and party
political material, and that their inclusion therefore breached
the relevant guidelines.[11]
15. Mr Wilson has raised two concerns about this
conclusion[12]. First,
he has asked whether it is appropriate for the Commissioner to
reach a conclusion on a point which was not included in the original
complaint. Second, he has suggested that, in circumstances such
as arose in this case, Members who had followed the correct procedures
and acted in good faith on DFA advice should be able to rely absolutely
on the fact that they had done so in the event of their conduct
being challenged. We consider each of these points below.
16. On the question of whether it is appropriate
for the Commissioner to comment on matters which emerge in the
course of his investigation of a complaint, but are not raised
directly in that complaint, it has been the practice of successive
Commissioners to do so, and of successive Committees to reach
decisions on them. We believe this to be right in principle. Public
confidence in the complaints process would undoubtedly be eroded
if, in the face of clear evidence of a breach of the Code, the
House declined to take action on the technicality that the conduct
concerned, although it emerged in the course of an inquiry into
a complaint, was not the direct subject of the complaint.
17. On Mr Wilson's second point, we acknowledge that
he had submitted an electronic copy of his draft report for approval
by the DFA, and had acted on the suggestions it made.[13]
He submitted the final proof and received written confirmation
that "the whole publication met the relevant criteria that
would allow costs to be met from the IEP".[14]
DFA, for its part, accepts that, as a result of difficulties handling
the electronic submission, it failed to notice the use of the
expression 'Reading East Conservatives'.[15]
Had it done so, it would have asked Mr Wilson to remove the expression.
18. As Mr Wilson points out,[16]
the Director of Operations at DFA did not feel that Mr Wilson
could be held responsible for the Department's mistake in failing
to spot the inclusion of an expression that could give the impression
that it was promoting the local Conservative Party, and we agree
with him in that respect. Nevertheless, we agree with the Director
of Operations and the Commissioner that it was wrong to include
a reference to 'Reading East Conservatives' in the report, on
the grounds that it could be construed as implying that the publication
was promoting the local party.[17]
We note that there were also two display references to 'Conservatives'
elsewhere in the report.[18]
We do not accept that, regrettable though it was, the fact
that the Directorate failed to notice all the references absolves
Mr Wilson from responsibility for including them in the first
place.
19. However, we acknowledge that Mr Wilson took all
reasonable steps to ensure that his publication complied with
the rules. As the Director of Operations said, he "was entitled
to take the Department's approval of the newsletter as a whole
at face value".[19]
It would therefore in our view be inequitable for him to suffer
any penalty in this respect.
20. We hope that the DFA will look carefully at the
implications of this unfortunate case for its arrangements for
reviewing parliamentary reports, and if necessary modify them
to prevent a reccurrence. While Members must retain overall responsibility
for the contents of publications they submit for approval, it
is vital they can have complete confidence in the advice they
receive in this respect from DFA.
General
points
21. Mr Salter drew attention to what he saw as a
lack of clarity in the rules and guidance relating to the use
of postage-paid envelopes.[20]
It is clear to us that the changes introduced in 2005, which re-classified
newsletters and calendars as unsolicited items and hence ineligible
for inclusion in pre-paid envelopes in any circumstances,[21]
was, in substance, a significant change in the rules. It would,
in all the circumstances, have been helpful to Members if this
guidance had been included, together with the relevant rules,
in the stationery catalogue. We recommend that, in future,
all the relevant rules and guidance are included in the Members'
stationery catalogue.
22. One element of the complaint against Mr Wilson
related to the non-separation of parliamentary and party material
in the distribution of material to constituents. We take this
opportunity to remind all Members of the need to ensure that those
responsible for distributing parliamentary material on their behalf
understand that such material must always be clearly separated,
by a suitable envelope or cover, from any party material they
may be distributing at the same time.
23. The Commissioner has drawn attention to two related
general points raised by various aspects of these complaints.
The first[22] arose from
the distribution of a leaflet during the local election campaign
in Reading which could be seen as seeking to pre-empt our decision
on one of the complaints. We agree with the Commissioner that
the House's apolitical standards enforcement system must not be
drawn into party political controversies.
24. The second[23]
relates to the political dimension which undoubtedly underlies
both complaints. As the Commissioner points out, this can lead
to political parties and those associated with them seeking to
use the complaints process as another institutional means of pursuing
their objectives. While we would in no way wish to discourage
the submission to the Commissioner of well-founded complaints,
it is particularly important for those involved with the political
process to exercise a proper sense of proportion. We share
the concern of the Commissioner about the scope for damage both
to the credibility of the complaints process and to the standing
of Members and the House in general if the complaints system is
misused for pursuing what are in reality political arguments.
25. As the Commissioner points out,[24]
both complaints raise some general issues about the rules relating
to newsletters funded out of parliamentary allowances, including
the timing of their distribution in relation to local election
campaigns, and the appropriate use in them of distinctive Party
emblems such as logos and party colours. We welcome the fact
that he proposes to return to these matters in the context of
a later report.
1 See WE 2, p. 30-33 and WE 5, p 36-39 respectively. Back
2
Appendix 1, para. 56. Back
3
Appendix 2, p. 52. Back
4
Appendix 1, para. 57. Back
5
Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (HC 351,
Session 2005-06), para. 85. Back
6
Appendix 1, para. 63-4. Back
7
Appendix 1, para. 66. Back
8
Appendix 1, paras. 65-6. Back
9
A similar description also appears on the survey form circulated
with some copies of the report. Back
10
Appendix 1, paras. 68-9. Back
11
Appendix 1, para. 69. Back
12
Appendix 3, p. 53. Back
13
Appendix 3, p. 53 and Appendix 1, para. 38. Back
14
Appendix 3, p. 53. Back
15
Appendix 1, para. 38. Back
16
Appendix 3, p. 53. Back
17
Appendix 1, para. 39. Back
18
In the heading on the right-hand inside page and in the left-hand
column of the back page. Back
19
See Appendix 1, paras 39 and 69. Back
20
See WE 10, p. 45. Back
21
Appendix 1, para. 25. Back
22
Appendix 1, para. 70. Back
23
Appendix 1, para 73. Back
24
Appendix 1, para. 71. Back
