1 Complaints rectified 2009-10

Ms Lorely Burt MP: Resolution Letter

Letter to Mr Stuart Davis from the Commissioner, 6 January 2010

I have now concluded my consideration of the complaint you sent me on 24 September against Ms Lorely Burt MP in respect of her parliamentary annual report for 2008‐09.

In essence your complaint was that Ms Lorely Burt distributed to her constituents an Annual Report funded from Parliamentary resources, the political content of which made that report ineligible for such funding. You identified the use of party logos as bullet points in part of the publication and the use of the word “our” at various points in the text.

I have consulted Ms Burt and the House Authorities about this matter.

Ms Burt has readily accepted that the use of the Liberal Democrat logo as bullet points in two of the articles in her annual report was a breach of the rules of the House. This is because Ms Burt's publication was funded from her Communications Expenditure for 2009‐2010 and the rules in relation to that expenditure state that a Member must not use party logos in their publication. There is no evidence, however, that Ms Burt intended to breach the rules of the House in this respect. She and her staff had overlooked this specific provision in the new Green Book. Ms Burt had submitted the whole of her Annual Report to the House Authorities in advance of its publication so that they could check its contents. They too did not pick up this error. Ms Burt has apologised for her breach of the rules and has taken action within her office to ensure that it does not happen again.

I have considered the second part of your complaint, which concerns the references to “our”, such as “our local MP”, in various parts of the Annual Report. Ms Burt has explained that these references were intended to refer to her relationship with her constituents and her position as fellow resident and representative of constituents in Solihull. Having considered this response against the concerns you have raised, I do not believe that this usage is evidence of party political activity.

I have, therefore, upheld your complaint in respect of Ms Burt’s use of party logos in her Annual Report. I have not, however, upheld the part of your complaint about the use of “our” in the text. Ms Burt has readily accepted that her publication was in breach of the rules because of its use of her party’s logo. Taking account of the fact that she had it approved in advance by the House authorities, that she has taken action to avoid a recurrence and that she has apologised, I consider this a satisfactory resolution of the matter. I therefore regard the complaint as closed. I will report the outcome to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

I am copying this letter to Ms Lorely Burt MP.

6 January 2010 2 Complaints rectified 2009-10

Ms Lorely Burt MP: Written Evidence

1. Letter to the Commissioner, from Mr Stuart Davis, 24 September 2009

We are writing to formally complain about the latest parliamentary funded communication from Lorely Burt, MP for Solihull.

On the back of the leaflet, it clearly states. “This communication is paid for from funds made available to MPs to assist them in communicating with and representing their constituents”.

We note that in rules of the “Green Book”, it states “No party political material is permitted in any part of a publication or website funded wholly or in part from the allowance. You must not use party logos or slogans”.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the latest literature circulated in the Solihull Constituency, where clearly you can see that Mrs Burt has used the Lib Dem Party logo as bullet points on seven occasions. Surely with the latest scandal on MP's expenses there should be much more scrutiny and the rules strictly followed.

We would also like to draw to your attention the use of the word “our”. It would be more becoming of an MP to put such communication in the third party. As the country is less than 9 months from a General Election, this could be seen as pure electioneering.

Clearly the rules have been broken and we therefore expect that Solihull taxpayer funds be refunded.

I look forward to your reply.

24 September 2009

3 Complaints rectified 2009-10

Lorely Burt MP 4th Annual Report 2008-09

4 Complaints rectified 2009-10 5 Complaints rectified 2009-10 6 Complaints rectified 2009-10 7 Complaints rectified 2009-10 8 Complaints rectified 2009-10 9 Complaints rectified 2009-10

10 Complaints rectified 2009-10

11 Complaints rectified 2009-10

Solihull Metropolitan Council web page

2. Letter to Ms Lorely Burt MP, from the Commissioner, 30 September 2009

I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received from Mr Stuart Davis about the content of your Annual Report for 2008‐09.

I attach a copy of the complainant’s letter of 24 September 2009 together with a copy of the extract from the Green Book to which he refers1. I have not enclosed a copy of your Fourth Annual Report 2008‐09 since I assume you will have a copy of that already.

In essence, the complaint is that you have distributed to your constituents an Annual Report funded from Parliamentary resources, the political content of which made that report ineligible for such funding.

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

1 Not included in the evidence. 12 Complaints rectified 2009-10

“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 in relation to communications funded from Parliamentary allowances are set out in the Green Book. If your report was funded from the Communications Expenditure Budget for 2009‐10, then the rules are likely to be those set out in the Green Book published in March 2009. Paragraph 1.3 sets out the fundamental principles which apply to all claims against Parliamentary allowances. These include the following:

• “Allowances are reimbursed only for the purpose of a Member carrying out his or her parliamentary duties. Claims cannot relate to party political activity of any sort, nor must any claim provide a benefit to a party political organization.

• Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.”

The rules in relation to the Communications Expenditure are set out in Section 2.5, Paragraph 2.5.3.1 gives as examples of appropriate expenditure the following:

Regular reports and constituency newsletters; questionnaires, surveys and petitions

• Production and design costs

• Distribution costs

• Freepost facilities

Paragraph 2.5.4.3 deals with content as follows:

“The purpose of a publication or website must be to inform constituents about your work as a Member, to consult with constituents or local groups, or to provide information about how to contact you.

No party political material is permitted in any part of a publication or website funded wholly or in part from the allowance. You must not use party logos or slogans. You may use the House of Commons Portcullis provided the document meets the rules.

You must take care when using photographs not to promote other elected office‐holders or candidates for office. Captions must be neutral and kept within the context of the publication.”

Paragraph 2.5.6 sets out how communication expenditure works in practice including:

“Claims for the costs of any survey or production of any publication of any publication costing more than £1000 will only be met if the publication has been cleared in advance with the Department. If this approval is not given, you will not be able to claim for the costs of the publication. You are strongly encouraged to submit all items for which you are intending to claim from Communications Expenditure to the Department for approval in advance.”

13 Complaints rectified 2009-10

The Green Book published in March 2009 is supplemented by the more detailed rules provided in the booklet published in April 2007 entitled The Communications Allowance and the Use of House Stationery. If your publication was funded from the Communications Allowance for 2008‐09, then the rules in that booklet would apply and in that case I would be happy to draw your attention to the relevant requirements if that would be helpful.

I would welcome your comments on this complaint in the light of the above summary of the rules. In particular it would be helpful to know:

1. whether your communication was funded from the Communications Allowance for 2008‐09 or from the Communications Expenditure for 2009‐10;

2. why you came to use the Liberal Democrat party logo to highlight the issues in the section headed “A strong voice for Solihull in Parliament” and in “Our local champion listening to you”.

3. why you came to select the photograph of you with Mr Nick Clegg MP and Mr Vince Cable MP and why you chose the photograph apparently showing Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament with the Gurkhas, both on page four of your newsletter, and the photograph of you with Mr Nick Clegg MP visiting Land Rover on page six of your newsletter;

4. why you chose to use phrases identified by the complainant such as “our area,” “our local MP,” “our local environment,” “our local champion”;

5. whether [...] who published and promoted your communication has links with the Liberal Democrat party;

6. whether you consider the use of the Liberal Democrat logo, the photographs identified, the use of the possessive (our) and your choice of promoter and publisher were in accordance with the rules for publications funded from Parliamentary allowances;

7. how many copies of your newsletter you produced and distributed; the means of distribution; and the total cost, including preparation, printing and distribution;

8. whether you consulted the Department of Resources at any time about this publication or submitted the final text for approval and, if so, what advice you sought and were given.

Any other points you may wish to make would, of course, be very welcome.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow. I have written to the complainant to let him know that I have accepted your complaint and am inviting your comments on it. It would be helpful if you could let me have your response within the next three weeks. If you would like a word about any of this, please contact me at the House.I would welcome your help on this matter.

30 September 2009

3. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Lorely Burt MP, received on 26 October 2009

Further to my earlier correspondence2, I am writing to address the points you raised in your letter.

1. The publication was funded from the Communications Expenditure for 2009‐2010.

2. The use of the logo was a mistake, but the publication was produced in good faith and according to the rules as understood. The use of the logo was “proportionate and discreet” as required— it was used only as a bullet point and was very small and not in colour, which was required by the rules until they were changed earlier this year. Furthermore, the artwork for the publication was submitted to the Department of Resources in advance and who did not raise the use of the logo as an issue.

2 Not included in the evidence. This letter acknowledged receipt of WE 2 from the Commissioner. 14 Complaints rectified 2009-10

I have discussed the matter with the member of staff involved in the production and have made them aware of the rule change. I would ask you to look on this with understanding given the recent rule changes and as the publication was cleared in advance with by the Department of Resources.

3. All the photos in the report illustrate my work locally and in Parliament. The photos which feature Nick Clegg MP and Vince Cable MP are not captioned and no reference is made to their name or title in the text.

4. “Our” refers to working as the recipients’ MP and as a fellow resident and representative of constituents in Solihull.

[...] works part‐time for me as my constituency parliamentary manager. Production and publishing of this item was part of her parliamentary duties.

5. As noted above, the publication was produced in good faith and according to the rules as understood. The publication was further submitted to the Department of Resources and was given approval. It has been the case for some years that logos were allowable and the change was recent.

6. The number of newsletters produced was 44,000 to allow one copy of the newsletter to be delivered to every household. The publication was distributed by a local commercial delivery company. The total cost of the claim is £3840.00 for production and distribution.

7. The publication was submitted to the Department of Resources in advance and was approved for publication. I enclose a copy of the email which was received from Department of Resources for the publication. You will note that we followed the advice that we received and further notified the Department of Resources that this change had been made.

I trust that the above information will be helpful in the course of your investigation. I hope that you will be able to look on the matter with some understanding, taking the above points into account.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Received on 26 October 2009

4. Exchange of e-mails between the office of Ms Lorely Burt MP and the Department of Resources

E-mail to the Department of Resources, from office of Lorely Burt MP 13 August 2009

Please find attached PDF for Lorely’s Report Back for payment from the Communications Allowance for your approval.

13 August 2009

E-mail to office of Lorely Burt MP, from the Quality Assurance Manager, Department of Resources 14 August 2009

Thank you for your email. We are requesting one small change to be made to the report so that it meets the guidelines of the Communications Expenditure.

The comments below are produced in good faith and in accordance with the rules and guidance agreed by the Members Estimate Committee and applied by the Department of Resources. We would remind you that it remains your responsibility to ensure that the content of any publications meet the criteria contained in our published guidance, ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery’, a copy of which can be found on the Department of Resources website. http://dfaweb.parliament.uk/members/publications/pubfacts.htm 15 Complaints rectified 2009-10

We reviewed your publication on 14/08/09. When doing so this department takes into consideration the language and tone used in articles and whether the content directly or indirectly criticises the political opponents or promotes a particular political party. We therefore make the following observation and recommendation:

1) Introduction letter

“For the last year, I have published details of all my claims on my website. Also, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I have thought to make the expenses system even more open and transparent.”

Please remove the reference to the Liberal Democrats in this sentence. The guidance in ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery’ booklet, page 22, para 15 states that the Communications Allowance should not be used ‘to advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of the promoting interests of any person, political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any other such person or organisation.’ Perhaps the sentence could be changed to ‘...along with my parliamentary colleagues...’ Alternatively the Member may wish to remove the reference to her colleagues altogether.

Please confirm that you will be making this change so that I can mark the report as approved on our files.

14 August 2009

5. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 27 October 2009

I would welcome your advice and comments on a complaint I have received against Ms Lorely Burt MP in respect of the content of her 4th Annual Report funded from her Communications Expenditure.

I enclose [relevant material].

In essence, the complaint is that Ms Burt distributed to her constituents an annual report funded from Parliamentary resources, the political content of which made that report ineligible for such funding.

I would welcome your comments on this complaint. In particular, it would be helpful to have your confirmation of the exchanges which Ms Burt had with the Department of Resources, to know when these took place and to have any explanation of why the question of the logo was not picked up at that stage. I would also welcome any comments you may have on the questions raised about other aspects of the content of the report, to which Ms Burt responds in her letter. Any other points you may wish to make would, of course, be very welcome.

If it were possible to let me have a response within the next three weeks, that would be most helpful.

27 October 2009

6. Letter to the Commissioner, from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 1 December 2009

Thank you for your letter dated 27 October 2009 about the complaint concerning the content of Ms Lorely Burt’s annual report. You asked for my comments on the use of logos, the photograph of Nick Clegg MP and Vince Cable MP, the context in which ‘our’ was used in the publication and also details of any exchanges between the Department of Resources and Ms Burt.

Ms Burt’s publication was submitted for review on 14 August 2009 as required by the Green Book and a response sent to [...] in Ms Burt’s office on the same day. One minor alteration—a reference to the Liberal Democrats—was agreed to. Confirmation that this change had been made was received by the Department on 16 August 2009. The report was subsequently approved.

Publications are always reviewed by two members of staff to ensure consistency and reduce errors. Unfortunately, although two members of staff reviewed Ms Burt’s newsletter, both failed to notice that the bullet points in the main text took the form of the Liberal Democrat logo. If they had not been missed, Ms Burt would have been asked to remove them because party logos are not permissible in literature paid for from the Communications Expenditure. I am disappointed that such an obvious breach of the rules was not spotted by the Department. We review dozens of newsletters each week and the pressure of work probably contributed to the oversight. 16 Complaints rectified 2009-10

With reference to the photograph of Ms Burt with Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, the accompanying text suggests that she is active in representing and discussing constituents’ concerns. The picture would appear to have been included to augment this suggestion. Neither Mr Clegg nor Mr Cable are mentioned in the report and the photo does not carry a caption.

I consider that, on balance, the approach adopted avoids tipping the report towards partisanship or party campaigning and is reasonable in the context of a publicly funded report. No undue publicity or prominence was afforded to either Nick Clegg or Vince Cable or to the Liberal Democrats and therefore no breach of the rules occurred. However, I am also aware that the recent report by the Standards and Privileges Committee (HC 66) comes to a different conclusion in a similar but not identical case.

Your last point is about language and specifically the references to ‘our’ which run through the report. The main examples are as follows:

— ‘Lorely is a strong voice for local people in our area in Parliament’.

— ‘As our local MP, Lorely has been fighting in Parliament to protect Solihul's threatened maternity services’.

— ‘As our local MP, Lorely has championed the issues that matter to local people and our area’.

— ‘Lorely Burt works hard as our local MP’.

— ‘As a local MP she can speak out on issues that matter most to local people and always put our area first’.

— ‘No wonder so many people are saying Lorely is making a real difference as our MP’.

The complainant maintains that the use of ‘our’ ‘could be seen as pure electioneering’ and believes ‘it would be more becoming of an MP to put such communication in the third party’.

In response Ms Burt states that ‘our’ refers ‘to working as the recipients’ MP and as a fellow resident and representative of constituents in Solihull’.

I acknowledge that the language used is somewhat curious in the context of a personal annual report to constituents, but I accept Ms Burt’s view that in the context of her report, reference to ‘our’ refers to her relationship with constituents and as a fellow resident of the community. I do not consider this aspect of the complaint to have particular merit.

Finally, the guidance in the booklet ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery’, page 21, para 9 states that the Member ‘alone is responsible for ensuring that the rules are fully observed’. The guidance on page 22, para 19 also states: ‘While the Department will always offer advice in good faith, responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules remains unchanged’. However, you will want to consider that advice and guidance was sought from and given by the Department of Resources. Ms Burt's office was asked to make one amendment, which was made in accordance with our advice. The use of the party logo was not, at any time, raised with her office, although Ms Burt and her staff ought to have been aware of the prohibition on such use. However, the logos are, in my opinion, neither proportionate nor discreet, which was the basis of the previous Green Book rule which Ms Burt cites.

I hope this covers all the points you raise. Please let me know if you require any further clarification on any point.

1 December 2009

7. Letter to Ms Lorely Burt MP from the Commissioner, 4 December 2009

I have now heard back from the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources with his comments and advice on this complaint in respect of the content of your fourth annual report, funded from your Communications Expenditure.

I enclose a copy of my letter to the Department of 27 October and of their response of 1 December.

As you will see, the Director accepts that your use of the Liberal Democrat logo to bullet point some of the text was in breach of the rules. It was not spotted by the Department when you submitted the publication to them. The 17 Complaints rectified 2009-10

Department does not find merit in that part of the complaint relating to your use of “our” in the text. Finally, on balance, the Director considers that your use of the photograph with Mr Clegg and Mr Cable was reasonable in the context of the report, although he is aware that the Standards and Privileges Committee came to a different conclusion in a similar but not identical case (HC 66).

I need now to consider how to resolve this complaint. Given that you have, I believe, accepted that your use of the logo was a breach of the rules of the House, and that there is a question over the use of the photograph of Mr Clegg and Mr Cable, one option would be for me to submit a formal Memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges so that they may consider the matter and prepare and publish a report on it.

Alternatively, under Standing Orders, I have the power to resolve a complaint myself where I consider the matter is not so serious that it requires a submission to the Committee and where the Member has accepted that there has been a breach of the rules and has taken appropriate action to rectify the matter. The Committee also expects the Member to apologise.

Having carefully reviewed this matter, I am considering the possibility of using the rectification procedure for this complaint. To do so it would be necessary for you to accept that the use of the Liberal Democrat logo for the bullet points as part of your text was in breach of the rules. I would wish to make clear that the breach was not intentional on your part, but that you and your staff had over looked this provision in the new Green Book. You did submit the full publication to the House authorities for approval, but unfortunately they did not pick up this error. You would need to apologise for this breach and confirm you had taken action in your office to ensure that it did not happen again. In the circumstances, I would not expect you to offer to repay any of the costs which you claimed from your Communications Expenditure for this publication. I would also make clear to the complainant that I did not uphold that part of his complaint which referred to the use of the word “our” in the text.

I have also considered the use of the photograph with you, Mr Clegg MP and Mr Cable MP and the photograph of the Gurkha celebration. These were not matters raised by the complainant and, for this reason I do not believe I need to come to a conclusion on them in order to rectify this complaint. But I would suggest that you consider very carefully the views of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the case referred to by the Department of Resources and take particular care to avoid the risk of falling foul of the rules in any future publication you produce.

If you would like to consider my rectifying this complaint on the lines which I have described, I would be grateful if you could confirm that I may do so on the basis of paragraph 6 of this letter, and let me have a suitable apology which I can note in writing to the complainant.

If you do agree to this course, I would prepare a letter to the complainant which I would show you in draft so that you can comment, if you so wish, on its factual accuracy. I would then write to the complainant and close the complaint. I would report the outcome briefly to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

If you could let me have a response to this letter within the next week then I would hope to have the matter resolved before the recess.

I look forward to hearing from you.

4 December 2009

8. Letter to the Commissioner from Ms Lorely Burt MP, 14 December 2009

Thank you for your letter dated 4th December 2009 regarding the complaint from Mr Stuart Davis.

I have read and fully understand the points you make in the letter. I fully accept that the use of the bird logo was in breach of the rules, but the breach was not intentional on my part. Also my staff overlooked this provision in the new Green Book. I submitted the publication for approval to the House authorities but unfortunately they did not pick up this error.

May I sincerely apologise for the breach. You have my full assurance that I have taken the necessary steps in my office to ensure that such a breach does not happen again. 18 Complaints rectified 2009-10

I also note your comments on the use of the photographs with myself and Mr Clegg and Mr Cable, and the photograph of the Gurkha celebration. Again I apologise and assure you that I will take all the necessary steps to ensure that any photography I use in future complies fully with the rules.

May I thank you for your consideration of this complaint. I will take every possible step to ensure that I comply with the rules, and indeed with the spirit of the rules, in future.

14 December 2009