Mr Jim Dowd MP: Resolution Letter

1 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Letter to Mr David Eastham from the Commissioner, 22 December 2008

I have now concluded my consideration of your complaint against Mr Jim Dowd MP about the circulation of his Parliamentary report to you and others outside his constituency boundary.

In essence, your complaint was that Mr Dowd had used funds from the House of Commons Communications Allowance to circulate a report to people living outside his constituency. I have consulted Mr Dowd and the House authorities about this matter.

Having made my enquiries, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegation that the circulation of Mr Dowd’s newsletter outside his current constituency boundary was intended by him to secure advantage with potential voters in the new constituency, or that Mr Dowd deliberately used Parliamentary resources to circulate his report beyond his constituency boundary. I am satisfied that it was not Mr Dowd's intention that his Parliamentary report should be so circulated. The circulation outside his constituency was made in error by his distribution company against Mr Dowd's instructions to that company. Mr Dowd recognises that as a result there has been an inadvertent and comparatively minor breach of the rules of the House. Mr Dowd did not intend to breach these rules and he is sorry that the error occurred. He is taking steps to try to ensure that it does not happen again.

I consider that this is a satisfactory resolution of this matter, and I have therefore closed the complaint on this basis. I shall report the outcome informally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

I am copying this letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP.

22 December 2008 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Mr Jim Dowd MP: Written Evidence

1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Eastham, 21 September 2008

I would like to make a formal complaint about the use of the Communications Allowance by Jim Dowd MP, who is the MP for Lewisham West.

The enclosed ‘Parliamentary Report’ was delivered to the houses in my street on 14th September, and clearly states that it ‘had been paid for out of Parliamentary Allowances’.

Mr Dowd is not the MP for the area where I live, however; it is in fact Ms Jacqui Lait. Yet the ‘Report’ was delivered to my house and my street, and I assume to many thousands of others in Penge, which will be part of the new parliamentary constituency of Lewisham West & Penge.

I understand that Mr Dowd intends to contest this new seat at the next General Election, and I am concerned that he is seeking advantage by using the Communications Allowance to communicate with potential voters in the new constituency, instead of using it to communicate with his current constituents. Surely this is a blatant and serious misuse of public money?

I hope that this issue will be properly investigated, and I look forward to receiving a full report of the actions you will be taking in regard of this matter.

21 September 2008

3 Complaints rectified 2008-09

2. Mr Jim Dowd MP’s Parliamentary Report

4 Complaints rectified 2008-09 5 Complaints rectified 2008-09 6 Complaints rectified 2008-09

7 Complaints rectified 2008-09

3. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP from the Commissioner, 24 September 2008

I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received from Mr David Eastham about the circulation of your Parliamentary Report for summer 2008 funded by your Parliamentary allowances.

I attach a copy of the complainant’s letter of 21 September. 1His letter enclosed a copy of your Parliamentary Report, but I am not enclosing that with this letter since I am sure you have copies in your office.

In essence, Mr Eastham’s complaint is that you used funds from your Communications Allowance to circulate a report funded from that allowance to people living outside your constituency, contrary to the rules of the House.

The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in paragraph 14 as follows:

“Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.”

The rules for the use of the Communications Allowance are set out in a booklet entitled ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery’ published in April 2007. Appendix One provides a new section of the Green Book to cover the Communications Allowance. Section 6.1.1 provides:

“The Communications Allowance (CA) is available to meet the cost of Members engaging proactively with their constituents through a variety of media. It can be used for the production of unsolicited communications within the parameters set out in this Section.

The CA may only be used to help Members inform their constituents about what they have been doing and to consult them on issues of importance to them locally. It cannot be used to meet personal costs or the costs of party political activities or campaigning.”

Appendix Two to the April 2007 publication provides rules and guidance on producing newsletters and other publications from the Communications Allowance. Paragraph 10 of Appendix Two provides:

“Parliamentary newsletters and other publications can be distributed to all constituents or a targeted local grouping, for example local head teachers, or residents affected by a development scheme.”

Paragraph 12 provides:

“The cost of envelopes and postage or freepost facilities can be met from your Communications Allowance.”

On 6 November 2007, Mr Speaker made the following statement in the House:

“As Members, we are aware that the boundary commissioner is looking constantly at constituency boundaries. All Members have a duty to look after the constituents who elected them. Those boundaries do not change until the next election, so we must obey the convention by not involving ourselves with another Member's constituency until that time.”

I would welcome your comments on this complaint, taking into account of the rules and Mr Speaker's statement. In particular, it would be helpful to know:

1. the circumstances in which your Parliamentary Report came to be circulated outside your constituency (if it was so circulated);

2. what was the geographical scope of any circulation outside your constituency, and how many copies of your Parliamentary Report were distributed outside your constituency boundaries;

1 WE 1 8 Complaints rectified 2008-09

3. what was the total cost of printing and distribution for your Parliamentary Report which you have claimed or will claim from your Communications Allowance;

4. what proportion of your printing and distribution costs were accounted for by any circulation of your Parliamentary Report beyond your constituency boundary;

5. whether any of your staff paid for from Parliamentary funds were engaged in the preparation or any distribution of your Parliamentary Report outside your constituency, and if so, what level of staff was involved and for how long;

6. whether you discussed or sought advice from the Department of Resources on the distribution of your Parliamentary Report.

Any other comments or points you would like to make would of course be very welcome.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedures which I follow. I am writing to the complainant to let him know that I have written to you about the complaint. I appreciate that we are still in the recess, but if it were possible for you to let me have your comments within the next four weeks, that would be most helpful. If there is any difficulty about this, do let me know. In any event, if you would like a word, please contact me at the House. I would be very grateful for your help on this matter.

24 September 2008

4. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Jim Dowd MP, 22 October 2008

Thank you for your letter concerning the above and our subsequent, brief telephone conversation. I am now in a position to provide a full response to your enquiry.

As you state that you are already in possession of a copy of my report I have not enclosed one. However, I do attach a copy of a letter sent to my Parliamentary Assistant, who is based (as are all my staff) at the constituency office, from the distribution company that was used for the unaddressed, door-to-door delivery. [...] co-ordinated the technicalities of the preparation, production and circulation of the report although this was obviously conducted under my direction and the content was entirely mine.

As is plain from [company] s letter, they were under instruction to circulate the report only in the wards of the current Lewisham West constituency and a seeming failure of communication led to the mistake, for which they accept responsibility. Following discussions, we are confident that steps will be taken to ensure that the error is not repeated in future deliveries.

As you will see from the contents of the report itself, the features it contains relate solely to issues in Lewisham West and my work in Parliament. There is no reference at all to the London Borough of Bromley nor any part of it. Neither does it mention the Parliamentary boundary change which will result, at the next General Election, in the creation of the Lewisham West and Penge constituency and it most certainly does not refer, directly or indirectly, nor make any allusion whatsoever to my position as the Labour Party candidate for the new constituency. Indeed, the word Labour appears precisely once in the entire document— on the back page in the address for one of my regular monthly Advice Surgeries!

I would further assure you that any material of a party political nature or seeking to promote Labour candidates of any kind in the 3 Bromley wards of the new constituency—or the 4 in Lewisham for that matter—is paid for in full by the Lewisham West and Penge Constituency Labour Party.

I quite understand that you have a duty to pursue such matters, but hope that you will appreciate that this publication was prepared and intended solely for my constituents in Lewisham West and that this episode was human error, pure and simple!

I hope that this is clear but should you require any further clarification or information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 9 Complaints rectified 2008-09

22 October 2008

1. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP, from [distribution company], 10 October 2008

Further to our telephone conversation and emails, we have now had time to investigate the circumstances of the distribution to some wrong roads, and to speak to the supervisor of the teams involved.

As part of our normal deliveries, our teams are instructed that in the event of a delivery not being totally completed in an area, due to non-accessibility of some flats or an unexpected series of requests from householders not to leave leaflets of any description, they are to finish their multiple of 1,000 houses in the next suitable area. This occurred during your distribution and unfortunately the excess deliveries were in the next ward, which is not part of your constituency. Obviously the teams walking the area would not know the boundaries or the importance of not covering the neighbouring road. This only happened in a few roads adjoining your wards and was in error against your instructions, and of course we take full responsibility for this occurring.

Once again please accept my apologies for this slight error and for the inconvenience caused to you.

10 October 2008

5. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP from the Commissioner, 27 October 2008

Thank you for your letter of 22 October about this complaint in respect of the circulation of your recent Parliamentary Report outside your current constituency.

I am grateful to you for having looked into this and for the evidence you have sent me.

I will need to take the advice of the House authorities and then to come to a conclusion on how this complaint is best resolved. But before doing so, I need answers to all the questions which I set out in my letter to you of 24 September. You have given me the answer to the first question, but I do need answers to the remaining ones. This is because it will be necessary for me to identify the number of copies of the newsletter which were distributed outside your Parliamentary constituency, and the cost of that distribution. Subject to any comments from the House authorities, you may then need to consider whether you accept that there has been breach and that you wish to meet the costs involved. That will be helpful to me in deciding whether I need to report this formally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or whether it would be appropriate to agree a form of rectification with you which would enable me to resolve the complaint on that basis and without a formal report to the Committee. Could you, therefore, please let me have the additional information which I sought in my letter of 24 September? Could you also let me know what action you would wish to take to avoid any repetition?

I appreciate that you would like this resolved as soon as possible, and therefore a reply within the next two weeks would be most helpful. If you would like a word about any of this, please give me a call at the House.

27 October 2008

6. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Jim Dowd MP, 26 November 2008

Further to our previous exchanges of correspondence and subsequent telephone conversations, I readily apologise for the delay in providing the precise information that you requested originally. I now have this to hand but am most disappointed to discover that you did not find my earlier written and detailed response to be a satisfactory explanation. I will pursue this aspect with the House authorities.

In terms, I address your itemised enquiries contained in your letter of 24th September as follows:

1. Please refer to my letter of 22nd October.

2. A few parts of London SE26 not in Lewisham (95% plus are) and a small contiguous part of London SE20 in the London Borough of Bromley. I have made the most stringent enquiries of the delivery company to try to 10 Complaints rectified 2008-09

establish the extent of the unauthorised incursion into addresses in the London Borough of Bromley which suggests a figure of 1492. I would add, as you can readily verify for yourself, that there is a much longer boundary between Lewisham and Bromley in what will be the Lewisham West and Penge constituency but that it is just this small part of London SE20 where the overlap occurred.

3. I have obtained an approximate figure of £2500 as the cost of the technical preparation and printing of all the 23,000 copies of the report—the lack of precision in this is due to the fact that it is part of a broader arrangement for my Parliamentary Communications activity which was agreed in advance with the Department of Resources. The distribution however, was commissioned, as you are already aware, directly by me with a commercial distributor at a cost (including VAT) of £594.55.

4/5 The figures contained in 3. above should enable the calculation to be made together with the appropriate proportion of the 4 hours or so of the time of my Parliamentary Assistant involved in the report's initial compilation.

6. See 3. above, but this did not involve the specific content of the newsletter.

In your further letter of 27th October you raise another question as to what action I “would wish to take to avoid any repetition?” I have not reached a firm conclusion as to this but am currently discussing with the delivery company using a strong boundary well within the Lewisham West constituency (e.g. Sydenham Road) in this area as the limit for their activity to avoid any future difficulty. Alternatively, I could cease to issue a Parliamentary Report altogether, but this is not my favoured option.

I would reiterate strongly the summary I included in my previous reply which stated “As you will see from the contents of the report itself, the features it contains relate solely to issues in Lewisham West and my work in Parliament. There is no reference at all to the London Borough of Bromley nor any part of it. Neither does it mention the Parliamentary boundary change which will result, at the next General Election, in the creation of the Lewisham West and Penge constituency and it most certainly does not refer, directly or indirectly, nor make any allusion whatsoever to my position as the Labour Party candidate for the new constituency. Indeed, the word Labour appears precisely once in the entire document - on the back page in the address for one of my regular monthly Advice Surgeries!

I would also add that Jacqui Lait, the MP for the Beckenham constituency which currently covers the area in question, wrote to me on this matter after it was brought to her attention by a constituent. Following an amicable discussion with her in which I explained the circumstances, she accepted it for the simple mistake that it was. Further, during the course of my investigation, I have also discovered from the delivery company that there was a minor transgression on the northern boundary into some London SE23 addresses in the Lewisham, Deptford constituency—which will not be forming part of the Lewisham West and Penge seat. I spoke to my colleague Joan Ruddock to apologise for any confusion that this might cause and she too, accepted that it was a genuine error. Thus the charge of a deliberate and improper attempt to gain political advantage collapses.

In your original letter you quoted Mr Speaker’s direction of 6th November 2007 and, in common with all members, I readily accept my responsibility to ensure that it is observed. As I mentioned in my recent telephone conversation with you, the Members’ Estimate Committee considered the matter subsequently and stated that Members “must use their best endeavours to ensure that distribution arrangements for newsletters do not stray unreasonably beyond the boundaries of their constituency; while accepting that non-contiguous post codes can make this inevitable at the margins”. I would contend that I have made every reasonable effort to conform to the letter and spirit of these instructions.

I hope that you are now in possession of all the information you need to determine this matter but, as always, please do not hesitate to contact me again should you feel the need to do so. 11 Complaints rectified 2008-09

26 November 2008

7. Letter to the Director of Member Liaison Services, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 1 December 2008

I would welcome your comments and advice on a complaint I have received against Mr Jim Dowd MP about the circulation of his Parliamentary Report outside his constituency boundary.

I attach [relevant correspondence].

I would welcome your comments on the complaint and on Mr Dowd’s response. In particular, it would be helpful to know whether, given what appears to be an unintentional distribution outside Mr Dowd’s constituency, this would be viewed by the Department as a breach of the rules of the House or whether, in accordance with your policies and taking account of the report of the Members Estimate Committee of 25 June 2008 to which Mr Dowd refers, you consider that the unintentional distribution outside his constituency of Mr Dowd's Report is not a breach of the rules of the House. If it were viewed as a breach I would need to ask Mr Dowd for details of the number of reports delivered in the Beckenham constituency.

It would be very helpful if I could have a response to this letter within the next two weeks so that, if possible, I can decide on how best to resolve this complaint before the Christmas recess.

1 December 2008

8. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member Liaison Services, Department of Resources, 4 December 2008

Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2008 and its enclosures concerning the circulation of Mr Dowd’s recent Parliamentary Report outside his constituency.

You have asked for my comments on this case, in particularly my view on whether there has been a breach of the rules of the Communication Allowance.

The purpose of the Communications Allowance is to allow Members to communicate proactively with their own constituents. However, as Mr Dowd has pointed out, the Members Estimate Committee has taken the view that it is inevitable that some distributions will stray beyond constituency boundaries. We therefore take the view that minor deviations beyond constituency boundaries, provided they are not done deliberately or with the intention of gaining political advantage, are merely inadvertent and technical breaches of the rules.

Whilst the delivery of some 1,500 reports is a little more than a minor deviation, the erroneous delivery of these reports was outside Mr Dowd's control and I therefore take the view that any breach of the Communications Allowance rule was entirely inadvertent. In these circumstances, we would not seek any re-imbursement for the cost of the report or the distribution cost. However, if Mr Dowd was to receive a refund from his distribution company we would expect the amount involved to be returned to his Allowance.

4 December 2008

9. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP from the Commissioner, 11 December 2008

I have now heard back from the Department of Resources about this complaint in respect of the circulation of your recent Parliamentary report outside your constituency.

I attach a copy of my letter of 1 December to the Director of Member Liaison Services who is dealing with this matter on behalf of the Department of Resources, and a copy of his response of 4 December. As you will see, the Department takes the view that minor deviations beyond constituency boundaries, provided they are not deliberate or done with the intention of gaining political advantage, are a technical breach to the rules. While the Director considers that the delivery of some 1,500 reports was a little more than a minor deviation, it was in their view outside your control and that any breach of the rule was inadvertent. In these circumstances, the Department would not seek 12 Complaints rectified 2008-09 any reimbursement for the cost of the report or the distribution cost, unless you were to receive a refund from your distribution company.

In this case, as I understand your evidence, the mistake was made by the distribution company. That mistake was not an unavoidable consequence of the distribution of your newsletter within your constituency since the distribution company could for example have instructed their teams not to deliver surplus newsletters outside your constituency.

In the light of this, I need now to consider the way forward. One option open to me is to resolve this complaint through the informal resolution procedure. This procedure would allow me to conclude the complaint without a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and without them, therefore, publishing it together with their report on the matter. I would instead write to the complainant and report the outcome informally to the Committee.

In order to follow this rectification procedure, I would need you to accept that there had been a breach of the rules of the House in respect of the Communications Allowance through the inadvertent distribution of your Parliamentary report outside your constituency by the distribution company. I would need to accept that it was not your intention that it should be so distributed. The error was made by the distribution company and you have discussed with them arrangements to ensure that it is not repeated in future deliveries. I would need also to be able to report that you had apologized. In view of the advice from the House authorities, I would not ask you to meet the cost of the erroneous distribution unless you received a refund for this from the distribution company.

I would be very grateful to know whether you would like me to consider using the rectification procedure to resolve this complaint on this basis. If so, it would be helpful if you could confirm my summary of the position in the previous paragraph and let me know that you wish to apologise for your inadvertent breach of the rules. I would then write to the complainant on these lines and informally let the Committee know the outcome at its next meeting.

If it were possible to let me have a reply within the next week or so, I would try to resolve this matter before the Christmas break. If you would like a word about any of this, please contact me in the House. I am grateful for your help.

11 December 2008

10. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP from the Commissioner, 16 December 2010

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss this complaint with you earlier today.2

As promised, I attach a draft of the letter I would propose to send to the complainant if you accept that this matter can be resolved through the rectification procedure. I believe this fairly reflects the information you have helpfully given to me. I am satisfied that it properly covers the areas which need to be met by the rectification process.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know as soon as convenient whether you are content for me to proceed on this basis. Thank you again for your help with this matter.

16 December 2010

2 Mr Dowd telephoned his agreement.