Nadine Dorries

House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Nadine Dorries Fourth Report of Session 2010–11 Report and Appendices, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 19 October 2010 HC 539 Published on 21 October 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee on Standards and Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Labour, Coventry South) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Eric Ollerenshaw MP (Conservative, Lancaster and Fleetwood) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/sandp. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mr Steve Priestley (Clerk), Miss Rhiannon Hollis (Second Clerk) and Ms Jane Cooper (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615. Nadine Dorries 1 Contents Report Page Nadine Dorries 3 Introduction 3 The Commissioner’s findings 3 Ms Dorries’ evidence 7 Conclusions 8 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 10 Complaint against Ms Nadine Dorries MP 13 Appendix 2: Letter to the Second Clerk from Nadine Dorries, 18 October 2010 120 Formal minutes 121 Nadine Dorries 3 Nadine Dorries Introduction 1. We have received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the report of his investigation of a complaint made in June 2009 against Nadine Dorries, the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The complainant, Mr Michael Barnbrook, who at the time was a law and order spokesman for the British National Party, told the Commissioner that in his view Ms Dorries had breached the rules of the Additional Cost Allowance by claiming second home expenses in respect of her constituency home, which Mr Barnbrook said was in fact her main home.1 In support of his complaint, Mr Barnbrook drew the Commissioner’s attention to an article published in the Daily Telegraph of 26 June 2009, in which Ms Dorries was described as having said that she spent only spare weekends and holidays away from her constituency home.2 2. The Commissioner’s report of his investigation was submitted to the Committee in the form of a memorandum, which is published at Appendix 1 to this Report. In accordance with the Committee’s usual procedure, we supplied Ms Dorries with a copy of the Commissioner’s memorandum and invited her to give evidence, in person or in writing. Ms Dorries chose to submit written evidence, which is published at Appendix 2. The Commissioner’s findings 3. The complainant told the Commissioner that Ms Dorries had breached the rules by claiming expenses for her constituency home. In the complainant’s view, comments she had made in the press showed that this constituency home was the one where she spent most of her time, and was in fact her main home.3 The Commissioner found that the constituency home was not Ms Dorries’ main home, and did not uphold the complaint.4 Whilst investigating the complaint, the Commissioner also found that Ms Dorries had breached the rules by failing to notify the Department of Resources of two changes to the address of her main home.5 The Commissioner does not regard this breach as serious.6 4. The rules relating to the claiming of second home expenses by Members are set out in the Commissioner’s memorandum.7 In essence, during the relevant period, a Member could claim an allowance for a home which was not his or her main home. Members were required to notify the Department of Resources of any change in the address of either their main or additional home. Until March 2009, the location of a main home would, according to the Green Book, “normally be a matter of fact” and would normally be the place in which the Member spent “more nights than any other.” From 1 April 2009, the location of the main home was “for a Member to determine.” 1 Appendix 1, paragraph 6 2 Appendix 1, paragraph 2 3 Appendix 1, paragraph 6 4 Appendix 1, paragraph 162 5 Appendix 1, paragraph 173 6 Appendix 1, paragraph 175 7 Appendix 1, paragraphs 9 to 24 4 Nadine Dorries 5. According to a best estimate produced by the Commissioner, and based on information Ms Dorries supplied to him, Ms Dorries spent the great majority of her nights in her main home in the Cotswolds.8 Ms Dorries did not confirm that she agreed with the Commissioner’s best estimate, but told him that, during the period in question, she had spent most nights of the week when the House of Commons was sitting, and almost every night when it was not sitting, at her main home.9 In addition, Ms Dorries told the Commissioner that the Cotswolds was the place that she and her family regarded as home.10 The area had always been the centre of their family life.11 She told the Commissioner that the constituency home was used “as a means of maintaining a base in my constituency in order to assist with my duties as an MP”.12 6. That picture of Ms Dorries’ pattern of use of her two homes was broadly confirmed by the evidence of four neighbours who lived near to Ms Dorries’ constituency home. One constituency neighbour told the Commissioner that she “only occasionally” saw Ms Dorries or her car at the house; 13 another told the Commissioner Ms Dorries was “hardly ever” at the house. 14 A third neighbour confirmed the picture, saying that he had seen Ms Dorries “on a maximum of 20 occasions over the last two years”, and that she spent “weekends and holidays elsewhere.”15 7. Two people who knew Ms Dorries in the Cotswolds also corresponded with the Commissioner. One witness, who helped Ms Dorries with moving house and with transporting her children and pets whilst she was away, told the Commissioner that Ms Dorries would spend a few nights a week at the constituency house, and had never asked him for help over the weekend or during the summer—suggesting she was at her main home at those times. 16 Ms Dorries’ general practitioner, who had been her family doctor since 1996, told the Commissioner that Ms Dorries and her family spent most of her time in the area; he saw her and her family regularly and could say “with certainty that their lives are very much based in and around this area.”17 8. The evidence of one neighbour from Ms Dorries’ constituency differs markedly from that of all the other witnesses. This neighbour, called neighbour 1 in the Commissioner’s memorandum, told the Commissioner that the constituency house was “very much the ‘family’ home where [she] lived with her daughter/daughters and the family pets.” He estimated that Ms Dorries spent about 80% of her time at the constituency house.18 9. Ms Dorries told the Commissioner that neighbour 1 had “apparently spent the last six months living in France”, meaning that he had limited opportunity to observe her use of 8 Appendix 1, paragraph 147 9 Appendix 1, paragraph 148 10 Appendix 1, paragraph 34 11 Appendix 1, paragraph 38 12 Appendix 1, paragraph 35 13 Appendix 1, paragraph 69 14 Appendix 1, paragraph 72 15 Appendix 1, paragraph 87 16 Appendix 1, paragraph 118 17 Appendix 1, paragraph 74 18 Appendix 1, paragraph 64 Nadine Dorries 5 the constituency house.19 Two of her constituency neighbours confirmed this point.20 Neighbour 1, however, told the Commissioner he had only recently purchased a house abroad and that during the period being investigated he had been well placed to notice how much Ms Dorries used the constituency house21.

Load more