1 Complaints rectified 2009-10
Mr Steve McCabe MP: Resolution Letter
Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 5 January 2010
I have now concluded my consideration of the complaint you sent me on 15 May about the circulation by Mr Steve McCabe MP of his Parliamentary Report for 2009.
In essence, the complaint which I accepted from you was that Mr McCabe circulated his Parliamentary Report funded from the Communications Allowance to people outside his current constituency, contrary to the rules of the House. I did not accept for inquiry your complaint about Mr McCabe’s freepost address.
I have consulted Mr McCabe and the House authorities about your complaint and, as you know, requested, but did not receive, further evidence from you about the distribution of Mr McCabe's report.
I have established that Mr McCabe prepared a Parliamentary Report for the spring of 2009 for distribution to his constituents. The content of the report was agreed in advance by the House authorities as suitable for Parliamentary funding. Mr McCabe’s Parliamentary Report was distributed across his constituency. It was prepared by Mr McCabe himself. The cost of printing the report was met from Mr McCabe’s Communications Allowance. It was delivered by volunteers.
There is no evidence that Mr McCabe’s Parliamentary Report was distributed outside his current constituency.
Mr McCabe also produced an Annual Report in terms similar to his Parliamentary Report, which he distributed to the wards of Bournville and Selly Oak, which are not part of his present constituency. This report gave different contact details for Mr McCabe, and made no reference to the surgeries which he held within his constituency and which were included in his parliamentary report.
In the course of my inquiries, I have identified that a mistake was made in the funding of this annual report. Mr McCabe intended that the printing costs would be met by the Labour Party and accordingly the Labour Party paid for the cost of printing that report. However, the invoice from the printers which, contrary to what Mr McCabe had expected, covered the cost of printing both reports, was submitted also to the House Authorities who therefore paid the costs of printing both, with the effect that the printers were paid twice. Mr McCabe was not aware of this until it was identified by the House Authorities during the course of this inquiry. Mr McCabe immediately secured a refund from the printers which they sent to the House Authorities. Neither Mr McCabe nor the Labour Party benefited financially from this error.
Whilst this was not part of your complaint, my conclusion therefore is that Mr McCabe was in breach of the rules of the House in that parliamentary funds were used, albeit unintentionally, for non‐parliamentary purposes, namely the printing of a report intended for distribution outside Mr McCabe's constituency. Were it not for that mistake, I do not consider that there would have been a breach of the rules. It is open to a Member of Parliament to campaign outside their current constituency by circulating communications to people living in those areas, as long as parliamentary resources are not used for this purpose. I do not consider that it is outside the rules of the House for a Member of Parliament to identify him or herself as such in campaigning communications, or to identify in such communications the work they are currently doing as a Member of Parliament.
Mr McCabe has readily accepted that he was inadvertently in breach of the rules of the House in initially claiming from parliamentary resources for the printing of his Annual Report, for which the Labour Party had separately paid. The overpayment to the printers has been paid back to the authorities.1 Mr McCabe has apologised for the error. While this was not part of your complaint, which I have not upheld, I consider Mr McCabe’s response to have satisfactorily resolved this issue and I now the regard the matter as closed. I will report the outcome briefly to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
I am copying this letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP.
1 £829 2 Complaints rectified 2009-10
5 January 2010 3 Complaints rectified 2009-10
Mr Steve McCabe MP: Written evidence
1. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Nigel Dawkins, 15 May 2009
I would be grateful if you could investigate the following issue.
Steve McCabe is the MP for Hall Green in Birmingham. He is also the Labour candidate for Birmingham Selly Oak at the next election. Birmingham Selly Oak only contains 2 wards from the existing Hall Green because of boundary changes. Therefore in 2 wards in Birmingham Selly Oak Steve McCabe is the candidate but not the MP.
Yet he is putting out a leaflet, distributed into the 2 wards that he is not an MP for; namely the Bournville and Selly Oak wards which gives the clear impression to the electorate in those 2 wards that he is their MP.
It has also been paid for using his parliamentary communications allowance.
The latest example is entitled STEVE MCCABE MP Parliamentary Report 2009. It also contains on the cover the parliamentary logo. The leaflet details the things he is up to. It is a 4 page 4 colour document. No mention of Labour and no mention that he is only a candidate.
In my view he is misleading the electorate in the 2 wards where this leaflet is being distributed.
My interest is not only as a voter in the Bournville Ward but I am also the parliamentary candidate for the Conservative Party in the Birmingham Selly Oak constituency.
I would be grateful if this could be investigated as quickly as possible.
15 May 2009
4 Complaints rectified 2009-10
2. Mr Steve McCabe MP, Parliamentary Report 2009
5 Complaints rectified 2009-10 6 Complaints rectified 2009-10
7 Complaints rectified 2009-10 8 Complaints rectified 2009-10
3. Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 20 May 2009
Thank you for your letter of 15 May with your complaint against Mr Steve McCabe MP about the circulation of his recent parliamentary report for 2009.
In essence your complaint is that Mr McCabe circulated his parliamentary report funded from the Communications Allowance to people outside his current constituency, contrary to the rules of the House. I have not accepted your suggestion that Mr McCabe should have identified his political party or identified himself as a prospective candidate for the new constituency of Birmingham Selly Oak, since such material would not be acceptable in a parliamentary report or newsletter funded from the Communications Allowance.
I enclose a note which sets out the procedures I follow. I am writing to the Member to let him know that I have accepted your complaint and inviting his comments on it. When I have received his response, I shall consider how best to proceed.
20 May 2009
4. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 20 May 2009
I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received from Councillor Nigel Dawkins about the circulation of your Parliamentary report for the Spring of 2009.
I enclose a copy of Mr Dawkins’ letter of 15 May. I have not enclosed a copy of the Parliamentary report which he attached in the letter since I presume you have it already. In essence, Mr Dawkins’ complaint is that you have circulated your Parliamentary report funded from the Communications Allowance to people outside your current constituency, contrary to the rules of the House. I have not accepted Mr Dawkins’ suggestion that you should have identified your political party or yourself as a prospective candidate for the new constituency of Birmingham Selly Oak, since such material would not be acceptable in a Parliamentary report or newsletter funded from the Communications Allowance.
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.”
For the purposes of your Parliamentary report, and given its reference to the Communications Allowance, I am assuming that the Parliamentary report was funded from your Communications Allowance for 2008‐09. In that case the rules which apply are set out in the April 2007 booklet entitled “The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery”. If, however, you intend to fund or have funded this report from your Communications Expenditure for 2009‐10, then the new Green Book which came into effect on 1 April 2009 would apply. If that is the case, and you would like me to identify the relevant rules in the new Green Book. please let me know.
The April 2007 rules set out in the booklet, “The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery” provided in Appendix 1 a new Section 6 to the Green Book for July 2006. Paragraph 6.1.1 sets out the scope and purpose of the Allowance as follows:
“6.1.1. Scope and purpose of the allowance
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. 9 Complaints rectified 2009-10
It cannot be used to meet personal costs or the costs of party political activities or campaigning. The main areas of expenditure available from the CA are outlined below. It is each Member's responsibility to ensure that all expenditure funded by the CA is wholly, exclusively
and necessarily incurred on their Parliamentary duties.”
Appendix 2 provides more detailed rules, including the following principles including:
Paragraph 6:
“The purpose of the publication must be to inform constituents about your work as a Member, consult
with constituents or local groups, or provide information about how to contact you.”
Paragraph 7:
“No party political or campaigning material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, wholly or in part, from the allowance.”
And in the Procedural Section the following paragraph:
Paragraph 20:
“If you want advice on the proposed content of any publication, you may approach DFA whose experienced staff will undertake a full review on your behalf The Department will aim to complete this within 3 working days. Please allow time for this process before going to print. While the Department will always offer advice in good faith, responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules remains unchanged. In the event of a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will wish to know whether advice was sought.”
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 constituent 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 Members constituency until that time.”
I would welcome your comments on this complaint in the light of this summary of the relevant rules. In particular, it would be helpful to know:
1. the circumstances in which your parliamentary report was circulated (if it was so circulated) outside your current constituency;
2. the extent of that circulation, including whether it was circulated to residents in the Bournville and Selly Oak wards;
3. whether you accept that any such circulation was outside the rules of the House and, if so, how any error occurred and what you will you do to prevent a recurrence;
4. how your parliamentary report was distributed both within and if it was so distributed outside your constituency;
5. whether the costs of distribution outside your constituency were met from parliamentary funds; 10 Complaints rectified 2009-10
6. the number of copies of your parliamentary report which were circulated within your constituency, and the number of any circulated outside your constituency and the respective costs of both circulations;
7. whether you had discussions with the Department of Resources about the distribution of your parliamentary report, and if so the substance of those discussions.
Any other points you would wish to make to help me in considering this complaint would, of course, be very welcome.
I enclose a note which sets out the procedures I follow. I have written to the complainant to let him know that I have accepted his complaint and am writing to you about it. It would be most helpful if you could let me have a response to this matter within the next three weeks. If there is any difficulty about this, or you would like to have a word about any other aspect of the complaint, please contact me at the House.
I would welcome your help on this matter.
20 May 2009
5. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Nigel Dawkins, 22 May 2009
Thank you for your letter of the 20th May regarding my complaint against Steve McCabe MP.
I note that you do not accept one of my two complaints namely that Mr McCabe should have clearly identified himself as a candidate on his literature rather than as the sitting MP.
Perhaps you misunderstood the point I made. Irrespective of the source of the leaflet surely it is incumbent upon him as an MP to ensure that any material he distributes does not misrepresent his status. By distributing his Annual Report in those 2 wards he was clearly giving the impression that he was the MP for those two wards which is not true. I have complaints from residents who were actually confused as to who was their actual MP.
I accept that the material he was distributing in those two wards, his annual report paid for by his parliamentary allowance, could not have been used to correctly identify his true status, which of course comes back to my other complaint which is that he should not be distributing the annual report in those two wards.
However, in my opinion, there are clearly two transgressions that need to be investigated.
22 May 2009
6. Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 28 May 2009
Thank you for your further letter of 22 May about your complaint against Mr Steve McCabe MP in respect of the circulation of the parliamentary report outside his current constituency.
I propose to show your letter to Mr McCabe so that he can respond to your suggestion that circulating his annual report outside his constituency boundaries gave residents in those areas a false impression that he was their sitting Member of Parliament.
Thank you for writing
28 May 2009
7. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 28 May 2009
I attach a further letter of 22 May from Councillor Nigel Dawkins about his complaint in respect to the circulation of your parliamentary report for the spring of 2009. I attach also a copy of my response to him of 28 May.
I wrote to you initially about this complaint on 20 May. It would be helpful if you could in your response to that letter let me have your response to Councillor Dawkins's suggestion that circulating your annual report outside 11 Complaints rectified 2009-10 your current constituency boundaries gave residents in those areas a false impression that you were their sitting Member of Parliament.
I look forward to hearing from you.
28 May 2009
8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Steve McCabe MP, 18 June 2009
Thank you for your letters of the 20th and 28th May 2009 following receipt of complaints from the above.
My Parliamentary Report was prepared solely for distribution within my constituency. This report was approved by the Department of Resources and states clearly that it is paid for from the Communications Allowance. I also prepared an Annual Report for distribution in the Wards of Bournville and Selly Oak which are not part of my present constituency. I am enclosing a copy of both Reports. The Annual Report is similar to the Parliamentary Report but there are a number of important differences. It was paid for by the Labour Party. It carries a different set of contact details which have nothing to do with my Parliamentary office and it carries no details of my advice surgeries which are only for my constituents. I notice that in his first letter (15th May 2009) Councillor Dawkins refers to my Parliamentary Report but in his letter of the 22nd May 2009 he refers to my Annual Report. I am willing to accept that it is possible that Councillor Dawkins, in his haste to accuse, has made a simple mistake and confused the Parliamentary Report and the Annual Report. If he has obtained a copy of my Parliamentary Report and is claiming that I distributed it in Selly Oak and Bournville, I have to consider the possibility that he has failed to check the facts or is deliberately seeking to misrepresent them.
I am enclosing a copy of both Reports, plus the invoice from the printers which shows clearly that there were two separate Reports, plus a copy of the Labour Party cheque which was used to pay for the Annual Report distributed in the Selly Oak and Bournville Wards. I do not yet have the receipt for the bill paid by the Labour Party but have asked the printers to send me a copy which I am happy to forward to you. It must be clear that it would make no sense to create two separate Reports if my purpose was to defraud the taxpayer and distribute my Parliamentary Report outside my constituency.
[Material not relevant to the accepted complaint]
You asked me to answer seven specific questions in your letter of the 20th May 2009. I reply as follows:
1. I have no reason to believe that my Parliamentary Report was circulated outside my constituency. Councillor Dawkins has provided no evidence to the contrary. My Parliamentary Report was delivered by volunteers in order to save taxpayer’s money. It was sorted and prepared at my constituency office. My Annual Report, distributed in the Wards of Selly Oak and Bournville, was also delivered by Labour Party volunteers but it was sorted and prepared at my home in Birmingham.
2. My Parliamentary Report was distributed to about 23,000 homes across my constituency. The Annual Report was delivered to about 15,000 homes in the Wards of Selly Oak and Bournville. They were sorted in delivery rounds of approximately 100 reports or less.
3. I do not accept that my Parliamentary Report was delivered to houses in Bournville and Selly Oak. What point would there be in printing a separate Annual Report for the Wards of Bournville and Selly Oak if I intended to deliver copies of my Parliamentary Report to those Wards?
4. I have no evidence to support Councillor Dawkins claim. He could provide the names and addresses of those he alleges have made complaints. It would then be easy to check if a mistake has been made by asking other residents in the same road if they have received my Annual Report. Atpresent the only fact appears to be that Councillor Dawkins has obtained a copy of my Parliamentary Report and says it was delivered in Selly Oak and Bournville. No one has complained to me about receipt of my Parliamentary Report or my Annual Report.
5. The Parliamentary Report, distributed within my constituency, was paid for from the Communications Allowance as clearly stated on the Report. The Annual Report, delivered in Selly Oak and Bournville Wards, was paid out of Labour Party funds.
6. The cost of the Parliamentary Report was £866.33p. The Annual Report cost £828.67p. About 23,000 copies of my Parliamentary Report were distributed within my constituency. About 15,000 copies of the Annual Report 12 Complaints rectified 2009-10
were delivered in Selly Oak and Bournville.
7. My Parliamentary Report was approved by the Department of Resources prior to printing and at that time I made clear that I intended to claim the cost of printing the Report but not the cost of delivery as this was to be done by volunteers.
[material not relevant to the complaint accepted]
I hope the information I have provided is sufficient to assist you in investigating this matter.
18 June 2009
9. Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 24 June 2009
I would welcome your help on the complaint you sent me on 15 May about the circulation of Mr McCabe’s 2009 parliamentary report.
The evidence I have from Mr McCabe is that he produced a parliamentary report funded from the Communications Allowance and circulated it to his constituents. This was the report which you sent me with your letter of 15 May. Mr McCabe sent a slightly different version headed ‘Annual Report 2009’ to the wards of Bournville and Selly Oak, which, as you know, are not part of his constituency. Mr McCabe’s evidence is that that report was not funded from the Communications Allowance.
I would be grateful if you could let me have any evidence, including the names and addresses of recipients, that demonstrates that Mr McCabe’s parliamentary‐funded report (as opposed to his annual report) was circulated in the wards of Bournville and Selly Oak.
I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow in inviting evidence from witnesses. As you will see, your evidence is personal and confidential to this inquiry and subject to parliamentary privilege. If, however, I were to prepare a memorandum to the Committee on Standards of Privileges in respect of this matter, then I would expect to include your response in the evidence I submit with the memorandum and the Committee would expect to publish it along with my memorandum and its own report. If, however, I resolve the matter without a memorandum to the Committee, I will retain your response for my records. I should emphasise that I have come to no view at this stage about whether a memorandum to the Committee would be required.I would be very grateful if you could let me have a response to this letter, if possible within the next two weeks.
24 June 2009
10. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 13 August 2009
This letter is to let you know I am now writing to the Department of Resources to seek their advice and comments on this complaint about the distribution of your Parliamentary Report.
I wrote to you on 24 June to let you know that I was writing to the complainant, Councillor Dawkins, to invite him to give me any evidence he had that your Parliamentary report was circulated outside your constituency. Despite a reminder, I have not received a letter from him. I think I must take it, therefore, that he does not have evidence to give me to show that your Parliamentary Report was circulated outside your constituency. I am, therefore, now writing to the Department of Resources for their comments. I hope they will let me have a response by the end of the first week in September and will be back in touch as soon as possible after I hear from them.
13 August 2009
11. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 13 August 2009
I would welcome your comments and advice on a complaint which I have received against Mr Steve McCabe MP about the circulation of his Parliamentary Report for the Spring of 2009. 13 Complaints rectified 2009-10
I enclose [relevant material]. I have written to Councillor Dawkins to let him know that I am proceeding on the basis that he has no evidence to show me that Mr McCabe’s Parliamentary Report (as opposed to his Annual Report) is distributed outside his current constituency.
In essence, the complaint is that Mr McCabe circulated his Parliamentary Report funded from the Communications Allowance to people outside his current constituency, contrary to the rules of the House.
I would welcome your comments and advice on this complaint. As you will see, Mr McCabe appears to have produced two versions of his Newsletter—one for his current constituents and one for campaigning purposes. His evidence is that only the former was paid for from his Communications Allowance. It would be helpful if you could confirm that the Department approved Mr McCabe's Parliamentary Report prior to its printing, that no Parliamentary funding was sought by Mr McCabe for his Annual (as opposed to his Parliamentary) Report and if you could let me have any comments on his arrangement of circulating largely the same material outside his current constituency.
It would be very helpful if you could let me have a response to this in the first week of September. Thank you for your help.
12. Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 13 August 2009
I am writing to let you know that, since I have not received a formal response to my letter to you of 24 June, I am proceeding on the assumption that you have no further evidence which you are able to offer to assist me with the inquiry into your complaint about the distribution of Mr Steve McCabe MP’s Parliamentary report, funded from his Communications Allowance..
I wrote to you on 24 June inviting you to let me have any evidence that demonstrated that Mr McCabe’s Parliamentary‐funded Report (as opposed to his Annual Report) was circulated in the wards of Bourneville and Selly Oak. My office sent you a further copy of this letter with a reminder on 24 July and asked you to respond by 5 August. I understand that you telephoned my office on 6 August, and that you were asked to write to me formally to set out your position. I have however received no formal response to my letter. I am therefore proceeding on the basis that you do not have evidence to give me to show that Mr McCabe’s Parliamentary Report (as opposed to his Annual Report) was circulated outside his current constituency.
I will write to you again when I have concluded my consideration of your complaint.
13 August 2009
13. Letter to the office of the Commissioner from Councillor Nigel Dawkins, 16 August 2009
Thank you for your last letter. Let me just confirm what I did say in our telephone conversation 2 weeks ago. I accept that Steve McCabe has produced 2 versions of his annual report. He has been distributing the wrong version in the wards in which he is not the MP. I accept, though that he could well offer up the excuse that the two versions were sometimes erroneously mixed up. I therefore do not see any point in pursuing this any further.
However I would still like the second issue investigated which I originally raised with you.
Steve McCabe is the candidate for Birmingham Selly Oak at the next election. Birmingham Selly Oak only contains 2 wards from the existing Hall Green because of boundary changes. Therefore in 2 wards in Birmingham Selly Oak Steve Mccabe is the candidate but not the MP.
Yet we find him distributing his annual report into the 2 wards that he is not an MP for, namely the Bournville and Selly Oak wards. The difference between the 2 versions of his annual report are negligible, as you have already determined. The content itself is identical. A document written to inform constituents about the work of their sitting MP should not be distributed to areas where he is not the MP. It would be reasonable to conclude that the purpose of such a distribution must be to somehow mislead the electorate by clearly giving the impression he is the MP for those 2 wards.
This must be behaviour which, on the face of it, needs to be investigated. 14 Complaints rectified 2009-10
Thank you for your help in this matter.
16 August 2009
14. Letter to Councillor Nigel Dawkins from the Commissioner, 2 September 2009
Thank you for your two letters of 16 August to my office making a number of complaints against Mr Steve McCabe MP.2
Let me respond to each of the points you made.
First, as you know, I am inquiring into your complaint against Mr McCabe that he circulated his parliamentary report outside his current constituency in the wards of Bournville and Selly Oak. Your letter of 16 August repeats your belief that his parliamentary report (as opposed to his annual report) was circulated outside his constituency. In my letter to you of 24 June, I asked whether you could give me any evidence to substantiate that statement. I wrote to you on 13 August to let you know that, since you had not done so, I was proceeding on the basis that you did not have such evidence to show me. That is still the position. Since the matter has proceeded as far as it has, I think it would be fair for me to conclude my work on it, which I will now do. Since my conclusions may be relevant to the point you make in the same letter of 16 August about sending information about a Member's work to people who are not their constituents, I will not comment on that further at this stage.
[material not relevant to the complaint accepted]
I hope that this clarifies the situation. I will write to you again when I have concluded my consideration of your original complaint.
2 September 2009
15. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 11 September 2009
Thank you for your letter dated 13 August 2009 referring to the complaint made against Mr Steve McCabe MP. You asked for advice on the complaint that Mr McCabe circulated his Parliamentary Report funded from the Communications Allowance to residents outside his current constituency. The complainant has as yet presented no evidence of such a circulation.
Mr McCabe has said that he produced two different versions of a newsletter, one for circulation in his constituency (his Parliamentary Report) and another for party political purposes (his Annual Report). You asked a number of questions about these. I can confirm that Mr McCabe’s researcher submitted his Parliamentary Report to the Department on 24 March 2009. We considered the report on 25 March and requested that two amendments be made. Both amendments were made, and the report was approved on 25 March. Mr McCabe did not submit his Annual report to us, nor were we aware of the existence of this report.
I note that the Annual Report is virtually identical to his Parliamentary Report. However, the Department of Resources, in general does not have any role to play in respect of a publication that is funded privately. The use of the House emblem does not appear in the Annual Report. There is, arguably, a theoretical question as to whether staff time used to produce the Parliamentary Report has in effect also supported the production of a political publication and whether this has a value. However, any such value would be difficult to quantify and likely to be small and I would not see any merit in pursuing this point.
There is one curious feature of this case in which you might wish to seek further evidence from Mr McCabe. On page 3 of his letter of 18 June he says that the costs of the two reports were £866.33 and £828.67 and that the Labour Party paid for the second of these amounts. He also produced a copy of a cheque in evidence. However, Mr McCabe claimed for the full amount, namely £1,695, which was paid by the Department direct to the printers on 15 May 2009. I have no record of the House having received a reimbursement of £828.67 which, from the
2 The second of the letters relates to a case that was not accepted for investigation 15 Complaints rectified 2009-10 documents you have sent me, would seem to be due. Mr McCabe may want to check his administrative records on this matter.
11 September 2009
16. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 11 September 2009
I am writing to let you have a copy of the Department of Resources’ advice on this complaint in respect of the distribution of your Parliamentary Report, inviting any comments you may wish to make and to seek your help on a matter in respect of payments which the Department raised.
When I wrote to you on 13 August, I let you know that I had written to Councillor Dawkins and was writing to the Department of Resources.
I attach for information copies of two letters I received from Councillor Dawkins on 16 August, one referring to your use of ‘Freepost’, and one relating to the current complaint. I enclose also a copy of my letter of 2 September responding to both these letters. Any comments you may wish to make on what Councillor Dawkins says in relation to this complaint would, of course, be very welcome.
I attach also a copy of my letter of 13 August to the Department of Resources, and a copy of their letter of 11 September in response.
As you will see, the Department raise two points. First, they ask a “theoretical question” about whether any staff time was used to produce the Parliamentary Report which also, in effect, supported the publication of your Annual Report.
Secondly, they note from their records that they appear to have paid the full sum for the printing of both reports (£1,695) and have not received reimbursement of £828.67 which, your evidence shows, was paid to Heron Press UK by the Labour Party on 14 April 2009.
I would be very grateful for your comments on the Department’s reference to possible use of your staff’s time and to the apparent problem in relation to the account settled by the Department on 15 May 2009.
If you could let me have your response by the end of the month, that would be most helpful. Thank you for your help.
11 September 2009
17. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from printer, 22 October 2009
In reference to your letter dated 15th October3 I am pleased to inform you that we have located the overpayment which was sent to us in error.
Unfortunately our company does not use cheques we only operate by internet banking. To enable us to refund the sum of £828.67 would you please supply the sort code, account number and a reference you would like us to use so that your accounts dept can trace the refund back to you.
22 October 2009
18. Letter to printer from Mr Steve McCabe MP, 5 November 2009
Thank you for your letter of the 22nd October 2009.
To refund the sum of £828.67p to the House of Commons Department of Finance the sort code is [...] the account number is [...] and the reference would be McCabe.
3 Not included in the evidence 16 Complaints rectified 2009-10
I would be grateful if you could let me know when this transaction has been completed.
5 November 2009
19. Letter to the Commissioner from Steve McCabe MP, 3 November 2009
Thank you for your letter of the 11th September 2009, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding which has been due to pressure of Parliamentary work.
I reject Councillor Dawkins’ complaint that I distributed my Parliamentary Report in the Wards of Selly Oak and Bournville. He has offered no evidence to support his allegation and I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to show that there were two reports. I also reject his suggestion that I sought to mislead people as is clear from the Annual Report; I am a local Member of Parliament just as he is a local Councillor.
I can confirm that I have in the past bought a Freepost service from the Labour Party for use in connection with my Parliamentary duties. I no longer use this service and now have a Freepost address at my constituency office. His allegation is untrue and once again he has provided no evidence. After making his complaint to you, Councillor Dawkins also contacted my office and demanded that I personally answer his allegations.
With respect to the letter from [the Director of Operations, Department of Resources]; my researcher sought clearance from the department on the content of my Parliamentary Report. I prepared that report and used a volunteer to complete work on my Annual Report. Both reports were delivered by volunteers. In the case of the Parliamentary Report this saved the taxpayer money as I was entitled to claim for the cost of delivering. My time and staff time has also been used in dealing with the complaint.
I have written to [the printer] and asked them to reimburse the Department of Finance and Administration for the overpayment they have received. This appears to be due to an administrative error on the part of the department but I am grateful to [the Director of Operations] for pointing it out. I shall ask the department to write to you to confirm that they have been reimbursed for the overpayment by [the printer].
I hope that my response will enable you to conclude this investigation. [material not relevant to the complaint accepted]
3 November 2009
20. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 4 November 2009
Thank you for your letter of 30 October responding to mine of 11 September about this complaint in respect of the circulation of your parliamentary report.
I am grateful for this further information. I have reviewed all the evidence which I have received and believe I am now ready to reach a conclusion.
The options which I have are either to dismiss the complaint if I consider that there had been no breach of the rules of the House; prepare a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges if I consider that there are issues which the Committee need to consider – that memorandum is then published with the Committee’s report; or, if the Member accepts that there has been a breach of the rules and has made appropriate recompense, and if the breach is comparatively less serious, then I can resolve the matter without reporting it to the Committee in a formal memorandum. The Committee would, however, expect the Member to have apologised for the error. In such cases, I write to the complainant and close the complaint on that basis.
In respect of this complaint, the evidence is that your parliamentary report was not circulated outside your constituency. But the printing of your annual report (which was drafted in similar but not identical terms), which was circulated outside your current constituency, was mistakenly funded from parliamentary allowances, as well as being funded by the Labour Party. That would appear to be a breach of the rules of the House, albeit that it was not intentional on your part.
If you accept this conclusion, then I would be ready to consider using the rectification procedure to resolve the matter. It would be necessary for you to accept that, while the Labour Party paid the printers direct by cheque, you 17 Complaints rectified 2009-10 inadvertently claimed for the cost of printing both reports. But, as I understand it, you are making immediate arrangements with the House authorities for the printers to reimburse the House authorities for this bill. It may be fair to point out that neither you nor the Labour Party benefited from this mistake. But it would be helpful to have a little more explanation of how it occurred and how you might avoid a recurrence.
I see in your letter that you suggest that the overpayment was an administrative error on the part of the Department. The Department’s letter, however, suggests that you submitted the claim for the cost of printing both reports and I am reaching my conclusions on that basis.
I hope that it will be possible to resolve this matter shortly. I would, therefore, very much welcome your response to the proposals in this letter within the next two weeks. If you agreed to rectification, I would show you the text of the letter to the complainant in draft so that you could satisfy yourself about its factual accuracy.
If you would like a word about any of this, please let me know.
I am copying this letter, with yours of 30 October, to the Department of Resources and would welcome confirmation from them that the overpayment has been recovered.
Thank you for your help.
4 November 2009
21. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 11 November 2009
Thank you for your letter of 4 November about the above.
I can confirm that Mr McCabe’s office has been in touch with the Department to alert us that we will be receiving a repayment from [the printer]. This has not been received as of today but I will notify your office when it arrives.
Mr McCabe’s penultimate paragraph makes reference to a seeming error by this Department. I can, however, confirm that the amount paid to [the printer], was as contracted by Mr McCabe. A Comms2 form for £1,695 was completed and authorised by Mr McCabe and this was duly paid.
11 November 2009
22. Letter to Mr Steve McCabe MP from the Commissioner, 12 November 2009
I last wrote to you on 4 November about the resolution of this complaint in respect of the circulation of your parliamentary report.
You will know from that letter that I copied it and your letter of 30 October to the Department of Resources. I now attach a copy of their response of 11 November.
I do not think this affects the substance of my letter to you of 4 November. I hope however that [the printer] will send the cheque to the Department of Resources as soon as possible.
I look forward to hearing from you in response to my earlier letter.
12 November 2009
23. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Steve McCabe MP, 9 December 2009
Thank you for your letters of the 4th and 12th November 2009 and your recent phone call. 18 Complaints rectified 2009-10
I am enclosing the BACS remittance note4 from [the printer] and a copy of my letter to [Director of Operations] plus a copy of the e‐mail which explains that the printers did promise to let us have two separate bills.5
I accept that the administrative error was my fault and I apologise for this error.
9 December 2009
24. Email to the Department of Resources from the office of Mr Steve McCabe MP, 21 May 2009
This report was cleared and there is a separate variant for the Selly Oak area.
These are the two variants but not sure if these were the final versions—get the two copies from [name of staff member].
There will also be two bills from the printer.
21 May 2009
4 Not included in the evidence. 5 WE 24