Mr Stewart Jackson MP: Resolution Letter

1 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Letter to Councillor Stephen Lane from the Commissioner, 28 October 2008

I have completed my consideration of the complaint you sent me on 6 June, following your letter of 28 May about the content of Mr Stewart Jackson MP’s website funded from Parliamentary allowances.

In essence, your complaint is that the presentation of Mr Jackson’s website and certain of its material promotes the interests of his political party and damages the interests of other parties, contrary to the rules of the House in respect of websites funded from Parliamentary allowances.

I have carefully considered your complaint and the material which you sent me with your letter. I have also consulted Mr Stewart Jackson and the House of Commons authorities.

You complained first about the use of the Conservative party logo on Mr Jackson’s Home Page and on a number of his webpages. As you know, the rules permit party logos as long as they are proportionate and discreet. How this is interpreted is, of course, a matter of judgement, but, taking account of the accepted practice among Members whose website is funded, as is Mr Jackson’s, from the Communications Allowance, I consider that Mr Jackson’s use of the logo is within the permitted range and is not, therefore, a breach of the rules of the House.

Turning to the seven news items or articles to which you drew my attention, I consider that some of the references in each of these items do advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of Mr Jackson’s political party or seek to promote one party at the expense of others. I consider that each of these items, therefore, should not have been placed on a website funded from Parliamentary allowances and, in so doing, Mr Jackson was in breach of the rules of the House.

Mr Jackson has accepted that these items on his website did breach the rules of the House. He has apologised unreservedly for these contraventions. He has removed each of the articles from his website. He has established new systems for checking press releases before uploading. He will seek to ensure in future that his news items and articles which are put on his website comply fully with the rules of the House. I should add that I have no evidence that Mr Jackson intended to breach the rules of the House in putting these items on his website. The rules clearly require interpretation but, having considered this carefully on the basis of the advice of the House authorities, he fully accepts the breaches identified.

Mr Jackson has, therefore, accepted that these items on his website breached the rules of the House. The breach was not, in my judgement, intentional. He has removed the items from his website. He has unreservedly apologised and will seek to ensure there is no recurrence. I consider that this is satisfactory resolution of this matter and I therefore regard your complaint as now closed. I will be reporting the outcome to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

Thank you for raising the matter with me.

I am copying this letter to Mr Stewart Jackson MP.

28 October 2008 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Mr Stewart Jackson MP: Written Evidence

1. Letter to the Commissioner from Councillor Stephen Lane, 6 June 2008

I write with a concern over what I believe to be a misuse of the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) by Stewart Jackson MP, and ask that you investigate this and advise of the outcome and any consequential action.

My complaint is focussed on the nature of the content of the Member’s website: stewartjackson.org.uk, the responsibility of which lies with the Member and is funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision of the House of Commons.

I understand that IEP rules allows for communications to be paid in full or in part from public funds but should be entirely free from any political or campaigning comments. These rules are laid down in the Green Book and are clear in this respect. With my understanding of this, I am of the opinion that in this case the Member has misused the provision and ask you to consider my complaint.

I can offer the following examples from this website as evidence and suggest these to be contrary to the rules, as per my arguments attached:

1. Use of a party logo.

Although currently it may be acceptable if it were discreet, I suggest the intention of the logo’s inclusion is to influence, because it has not just been used as an introduction, but can be found in use throughout the Member’s website.

2. Two ‘News’ items, both dated 13th March 2008:

a) Action needed to stop criminals re-offending and cut crime says Jackson

b) Stewart Jackson—A Bad News Budget for Peterborough

I perceive the content of these as advancing a perspective or argument with the intention of promoting the interest of a political party, and damaging to the interest of another.

3. Two items listed under ‘Articles’:

c) Are We Surprised—25th January 2008

d) Gordon Brown—27th October 2007

A Member’s communication paid in full or in part from public funds should be entirely free from any political or campaigning comments. I believe the content of these two items fall into this arena and should not be allowed.

4. One photograph, found in ‘Gallery’:

“Stewart campaigning to keep local post offices open" The photograph shows the Member in front of what appears to be empty shop premises, holding a placard that reads: ‘CLOSED BY LABOUR’”.

This has the intention of promoting support for the Member, and to damage the interest of another political party. A Member's communication paid in full or in part from public funds should be entirely free from any political or campaigning comments.

After consideration of the above, and if you determine there has been a breach of the rules by a Member of Parliament, I ask that he would receive the appropriate reprimand and be instructed to compensate the public purse accordingly. 3 Complaints rectified 2008-09

I am aware of the current review on Members' allowances by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and hope the outcome will result in more clear and mandatory rules for communicating with constituents, thereby avoiding confusion and a damaging effect on public confidence.

28 May 2008

2. Letter to the Commissioner for Standards from Councillor Stephen Lane, 6 June 2008

Thank you for your reply of 29 May 1 and I am happy to provide the printouts of areas of the website to support my complaint. For ease of reference I have applied a numbered label to these, which can be related to the following list:

1. Use of a party logo.

Unfortunately, I must accept this item is not covered under IEP rules in the Green Book. I understand it is covered under the guidance issued to Members for the use of the Communications Allowance and therefore ask if the same could apply when claimed for under IEP rules.

2. Use of party logo.

I suggest the intention of this logo is to influence, because it has not just been used as an introduction when it can be found in use throughout the website. In this example it has been attached to a non-political image of Peterborough (The printout has been created from an edited version of the web page because although the logo is visible on-line, it does not appear when printing the actual web page).

3. ‘News’ item dated 13 March 2008: Action needed to stop criminals re-offending and cut crime says Jackson

The item promotes a political party, and its policies, by making reference to this party’s new plans to deal with the subject involved. The Member also writes an argument against another party’s policies on the same topic. I believe the news item intends to campaign for a political party and thereby contravenes the scope of the IEP, as per paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green Book. In addition, it contravenes paragraph 5.13.4, which clearly states that expenditure is not allowable for campaigning on behalf of a political party or cause, nor communications on personal or party political matters.

4. ‘News’ item dated 13 March 2008: Stewart Jackson - A Bad News Budget for Peterborough

It is accepted that Members will have an opinion on every Budget and will comment accordingly. However, this item attacks a Minister’s action, namely Alistair Darling, and highlights an argument that is potentially controversial, depending on individual or political opinion. As such, I believe the subject matter to be unacceptable for inclusion on a website that is intended to report on the work of an elected Member -not to promote a perspective or argument with the intention of promoting the interests of any political party or damaging the interests of any other such party. It contravenes paragraph 5.13.4 of the Green Book.

5. ‘Articles’ item dated 25 January 2008: Are We Surprised

The impression I gained, when reading this item, was the Member intended to create political mischief. The article does not report, nor inform, but is loaded with rhetorical questioning that I believe attempts to advance a perspective or argument, and damage the interest of a party of Government. It contravenes paragraph 5.13.4 of the Green Book.

6. ‘Articles’ item dated 27 October 2007: Gordon Brown

This article is intended to advance the political campaign that was current in the national media at that time. The nature of the article is damaging to the interest of another person or persons, as well as a party of Government, and promotes the interest of another party. I thereby claim it contravenes the scope of the IEP, as per paragraph 5.1.1 of the Green Book. In addition, it also contravenes paragraph 5.13.4.

1 In which the Commissioner asked for printouts of the relevant parts of the website. Not included in the evidence. 4 Complaints rectified 2008-09

7. One photograph, found in ‘Gallery’: “Stewart campaigning to keep local post offices open”

The image would be acceptable if it was intended solely to promote the work of the Member. However, the photograph shows the Member in front of what appears to be empty shop premises, holding a placard that reads: ‘CLOSED BY LABOUR’. This intends to damage the image of another party, and thereby contravenes both paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.13.4 of the Green Book.

At the time of writing my first letter, I asked for your consideration of the above samples. I have since discovered further evidence on the same website to support my claim and offer these to be treated alongside the earlier ones.

8. ‘News’ item dated 4 March 2008: Jackson backs plans for Tax Break for green savings in Peterborough

Here is an article that is promotion of a political party. It outlines the party's future plans and a potential promise of financial incentive, and is obviously intended to influence. It also includes the denigration of another party by criticism. It thereby contravenes both paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.13.4 of the Green Book.

9. ‘Articles’ item dated 28 September 2007: Wizard of Oz

I believe this is intended to advance the political campaigning that was current at the time of the Party Conference Season. These comments would be generally tolerated if raised in another arena, but not in one that is publicly-funded. The nature of the article is damaging to the reputation of another person as well as that of another political party. I contend that it contravenes both paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.13.4 of the Green Book.

In addition to the above, I enquire if the Member has been conducting his business in accordance to the Code of Conduct and Rules of the House, and respectfully ask you to consider if the provision of Paragraph 14 below has been dutifully applied in this case:

“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.”

My complaint remains, as in my original letter, and I contend that public funds have been misused by the Member. Through the evidence I provide herewith, I hope you will agree that the Incidental Expenses Provision has been used for a purpose other than which it is intended. Should my complaint be upheld, I ask that the public purse be repaid in full.

6 June 2008

5 Complaints rectified 2008-09

3. Printouts from Mr Jackson’s website

Printout 1 from Mr Jackson’s website

6 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 2 from Mr Jackson’s website2

2 This was supplied with the pictures blank. 7 Complaints rectified 2008-09

8 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 3 from Mr Jackson’s website

9 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 4 from Mr Jackson’s website

10 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 5 from Mr Jackson’s website

11 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 6 from Mr Jackson’s website

12 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 7 from Mr Jackson’s website

13 Complaints rectified 2008-09

14 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 8 from Mr Jackson’s website

15 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Printout 9 from Mr Jackson’s website

16 Complaints rectified 2008-09

4. Letter to Mr Stewart Jackson MP from the Commissioner, 11 June 2008

I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received from Councillor Stephen Lane about the content of your website funded from Parliamentary allowances.

I attach a copy of Mr Lane’s letter of 28 May, together with a copy of his subsequent letter of 6 June with printouts of the material about which he is complaining.

In essence, the complaint is that the presentation of your website and certain of its material promotes the interests of your political party and damages the interests of other parties contrary to the rules of the House in respect of websites funded from Parliamentary allowances.

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

The current rules in respect of Members’ websites funded from the Communications Allowance are set out in Appendix Three to the publication on the Communications Allowance and the Use of House Stationery issued in April 2007. Paragraph 2 of Appendix Three provides as follows:

“It is important that you follow the rules on content as listed below. You are responsible for ensuring that these rules are fully observed. If they have not been, you will be asked to repay costs involved, and you may also expose yourself to allegations of misuse of the allowances. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) can provide advice on the rules and content of your website.”

Paragraph 5 provides:

“The CA may be used to pay for setting up and/or maintaining a website only if its purpose is to inform or communicate with constituents about your work as a Member and/or to provide contact details. It must not be used to fund party political activity or campaigning. You may not use the Communications Allowance to pay for individual web pages or parts of websites, where other parts of the site are paid for from other sources.”

Paragraph 7 provides as follows:

“You must not use your website ... to advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any person, political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any other such person, party or organisation.”

Paragraph 14 provides:

“The content of your website or online presence should not seek, directly or indirectly, to compare a Member's party favourably with another, promote one party at the expense of another or seek to undermine the reputations of political opponents. In this context, the selective use of statistics should also be avoided ...”

Paragraph 20 refers to the use of party emblems and logos as follows:

“The use of party logos should be restricted to proportionate and discrete use. You may reproduce the House emblem (the crowned portcullis) on your website only if it satisfies the rules above.”

Paragraph 21 provides: 17 Complaints rectified 2008-09

“Photographs or videos on your website of yourself or other Members wearing party rosettes can be acceptable, but should be proportionate and should not appear close to or during an election period. Photographs or videos displaying or including party campaign slogans or campaigning material are not acceptable in publications funded by the Communications Allowance.”

Paragraph 24 provides:

“There is a minimum requirement for you to display, prominently, on the homepage of your website, a statement that it is funded from Parliamentary allowances and that complaints about content should be made initially to the Director of Finance and Administration, House of Commons.”

Before April 2007 websites could be maintained under the Incidental Expenses Provision in accordance with the rules set out in the Green Book on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions. Paragraph 5.13.4 of the Green Book for July 2006 provided that establishing and maintaining websites was allowable expenditure. But campaigning on behalf of a political party or cause or communications on party political matters was not allowable expenditure.

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

1. whether and why you believe the presentation and entries referred to by the complainant are in accordance with the rules;

2. what claims you have made against the Incidental Expenses Provision or the Communications Allowance for the establishment and maintenance of your website, and what those costs covered for each of the last three years;

3. whether any members of your staff paid for from Parliamentary allowances have been involved in the set up, maintenance or drafting of your website, and if so, what has been the cost of this for each of the last three years;

4. why there is apparently no reference on your home page of your website to the submission of complaints about content; and why the funding reference has not been updated since April 2007 to reflect the arrangements for the Communications Allowance;

5. whether you have at any time consulted the then Department of Finance and Administration or now the Department of Resources about the presentation and content of your website and, if so, what the details of that consultation were.

I enclose a note setting out the procedures I follow in the consideration of complaints. I have written to Councillor Lane to let him that I am inquiring into his complaint. If you would like a word about any of this at any time, please contact me at the above address or telephone me.

I would be grateful for your help on this matter.

11 June 2008

5. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Stewart Jackson MP, 18 June 2008

Thank you for your letter of 11th June 2008, regarding the complaint made by Cllr Stephen Lane.

For the avoidance of doubt, I categorically deny any wrongdoing in respect of a breach of House rules and, in particular, misuse of funding provided by means of the Incidental Expenses Provision; with the sole exception of Paragraph 24 of the Appendix 3 of the Communications Allowance and Use of Stationery Guidelines issued in April 2007, which I believe that I may inadvertently have breached.

I would also like to make it clear that although I do not and have never had day to day administrative and managerial oversight of my publicly funded website, which is shared between my office staff and the website provider(s), with the vast bulk undertaken by the latter, I take full responsibility for its contents. 18 Complaints rectified 2008-09

I would draw your attention to the fact that this is the second complaint received to your office regarding my conduct from essentially the same source, the Independent City Councillors representing the North Werrington ward on Peterborough City Council, in my constituency.

I note that you had cause to remark in a recent report, inter alia:

“....(the) political dimension.....can lead to political parties and those associated with them seeking to use the complaints process as another institutional means of pursuing their objectives ....”

I would respectfully suggest that this complaint should be viewed within this context and is both malicious and unfounded.

By way of background, I have maintained a Parliamentary website since June 2005. My predecessor did not maintain one nor produce a regular report of her activities and upon election in May 2005, I sought to rectify this. Many of my constituents find the website interesting and informative and I have hitherto not received a complaint from a member of the public about its contents nor indeed from the Department of Finance and Administration (or Resources). In the last period for which we have collected data, 16th May to 16th June 2008, we received 463 unique hits.

However, it is pertinent to this complaint to make it clear that there was a substantial time lag between the original provider of my website services [first supplier] and the current provider[second supplier] relinquishing and assuming responsibility for the website, respectively. The latter maintained the site from 19th June 2005 to 12th February 2008, with [second supplier ] taking over on the latter date. In the interim, there was a protracted contractual dispute with the former which lasted from 17th October 2007 to 12th February 2008. The reason for mentioning this is that it is apposite in respect of your question number 4, to which I will refer later in this letter.

For simplicity, I will endeavour to answer the specific questions you raise in the final page of your letter.

1. a) Conservative Party symbol—This symbol did not appear on my original website and has only been a feature of the newer website. I would contend that it is not prominent on either the homepage or other pages—indeed one has to scroll down the page to view it—and is, I believe merely informing my constituents and others—in an unobtrusive and low key manner—of the Party Whip which I take at Westminster. I believe this to be proportionate, discreet and reasonable and could not reasonably be construed as a campaigning tool, for instance “Peterborough Conservatives” etc.

I believe therefore that it complies with Para.20 of the Appendix Three of the April 2007 Communications Allowance guidelines.

b) News Items dated 13th March 2008—The substance of the press release on prisoner releases (“Action needed to stop criminals re-offending and cut crime says Jackson” ) is both topical, local (referring to Peterborough) and whilst making reference to Conservative proposals, is a first person viewpoint from myself as the local Member of Parliament; the word “Labour” being absent. In addition, it is an issue I have raised a number of times with Ministers and in the House.

Similarly, the Press Release entitled “Stewart Jackson—A Bad News Budget for Peterborough,” is an informative reaction to the Budget statement delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that day. As a significant event in the political year, my constituents would expect me to make a value judgement in my capacity as the local Member of Parliament with a local perspective and this I did. Significantly, neither the words “Conservative” or “Labour” are used in the website page quoted.

I would therefore respectfully suggest that I am not in breach of either Paragraphs 7 or 14 of the guidelines.

In the absence of further advice, both these articles were removed from the website on Friday 13th June 2008. Furthermore, I have put in place a system whereby the previous practice of e-mailing Press Releases to media as well as the website provider (for loading) be reviewed on an article by article basis by me with immediate effect, so that no suggestion of improper publication of material or impropriety reoccurs.

c) Newspaper articles (as first published in the Peterborough Herald and Post) 19 Complaints rectified 2008-09

I wrote a fortnightly column (“Commons Sense”) for the Peterborough Herald and Post between October 2006 and April 2008. At the suggestion of a constituent, I published them on my Parliamentary website.

The bulk of these 300 word columns were related to local goings on, were apolitical, community focused pieces — often with a humorous twist. They were popular and that is why since the demise of the Herald and Post, I have since carried on writing for their rival the Peterborough Evening Telegraph.

That said, the raison d'etre of the column was “a view from Westminster” theme—an overview of national as well as local political and government issues.

With respect to the article entitled “Are we surprised?” dated 25th January 2008, no mention is made of the words Labour or Conservative, in this opinion piece. I therefore contend that it does not breach Para. 14 of the guidelines, insofar that it does not seek to promote my party or directly undermine the reputation of other parties. It is an opinion piece but, I believe, cannot be construed as party political campaigning

I do concede that the use of the word “Labour” in the article “Gordon Brown” dated 27th October 2007 might be regarded narrowly to be in breach of Para. 14 but equally it should be seen within the context of unprecedented speculation regarding a possible General Election the following month.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, both articles have been removed from the website as at 13th June 2008.

Gallery photo

Finally, I do concede that the one photograph cited by Cllr Lane and published in the “Gallery” section of the website could be interpreted as of a party political nature, save that it taken in 2003, when I was NOT a Member of Parliament; and was inadvertently transferred over to the new website from the old, where possibly by reference to the April 2007 guidelines, it would not have been included in a significant portfolio of different photographs in the section. That said, the image is not readily accessible and is relatively unobtrusive; and it is a moot point as to whether the placard is either “campaign material” or a “campaign slogan” per se, rather than just a visual aid.

Again, pending your adjudication, this image has now been removed from the website.

With regard to the other questions you raise:

2. A total of £8,473.84 has been claimed against the Communications Allowance and the Incidental Expenses Provision since May 5th 2005—comprising £1880.00 to [first supplier] and £6593.74 to [second supplier] (£4187.71 in 2005/2006; £1897.94 in 2006/2007 and £2388.19 in 2007/2008).

3. No member of my staff has been directly involved in the set up, maintenance and drafting of my Parliamentary website; although they have had an oversight and project management role in respect of contract compliance; regulatory issues and other liaison duties with the website providers.

4. With regard to the issue of the contents complaints pro forma on my new website, although this is not the subject of Cllr Lane’s complaint, I do concede that this was a regrettable omission—caused by confusion as a result of the protracted changeover of website providers; and a misunderstanding of the obligations concomitant with Paragraph 24 of the guidelines, not assisted by a contractual dispute with the previous website providers.

I sincerely apologise for this administrative oversight and can confirm that it has now been rectified following your recent letter.

5. Finally, I cannot definitively confirm that advice was NOT sought from the Department of Finance Administration; but likewise, also am not in a position to confirm on what occasions it was sought by my staff, on an informal basis, as contemporaneous records were not kept.

As I understand it and I seek your guidance on this wider matter, it is incumbent upon the Department itself to monitor Members’ websites; unless Members themselves specifically seek advice on the interpretation of the guidelines with regard to a particularly moot point. 20 Complaints rectified 2008-09

In conclusion, I hope that I have persuaded you that I acted in good faith in respect of my Parliamentary website and categorically deny any wilful misuse of Parliamentary allowances.

If you require any further information or clarification of this letter, I trust that you will contact me as appropriate.

In the meantime, I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

18 June 2008

6. Letter to Mr Stewart Jackson MP from the Commissioner, 24 June 2008

Thank you very much for your letter of 18 June responding to Councillor Lane’s complaint.

It was very helpful indeed to have such a full and prompt response. I propose now to seek guidance from the Department of Resources on the complaint and on your response. Before doing so, however, it would be very helpful indeed if you could let me have a response to the 8th and the 9th example which Councillor Lane included in his letter to me of 6 June. That related to a news item of 4 March 2008 and an article of 28 September 2007. That will ensure that I have your response to each of the examples cited by Councillor Lane.

I am most grateful for your help on this matter.

24 June 2008

7. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Stewart Jackson MP, 25 June 2008

Thank you for your further letter dated 24th June 20083.

I apologise for omitting to make reference to the two additional items raised by Cllr Lane, which you have, of course, now brought to my attention and am now happy so to do.

My comments are as follows:

1. News Item dated 4th March 2008

As I made clear in my previous letter, it has been the practice since 12th February 2008, for press releases sent to media outlets to be copied to [supplier] for inclusion on the website, without appropriate checking. This situation has now been rectified, as I previously indicated. Pending your adjudication, the article has also been removed from the website.

I accept that on this occasion, the words “Conservative” and “Labour” should not have been included in this piece; however, I would defend my right to comment on this policy—positively—given that Peterborough is an Environment City (one of only four in the UK), has a strong collective commitment in terms of the voluntary sector and local governance to issues related to sustainability and quality of life and I therefore believe that my constituents would expect me to express an opinion on this policy.

2. Article Dated 27th September 2007

This article was previously published as my fortnightly column in the Peterborough Herald and Post.

These articles are not a major part of the website and this one, in particular, should be seen in the broader context of its topicality, the dozens of other pieces on various subjects, such as, for instance, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, the great British weather, the future of our local health service, MPs’ allowances and the city centre regeneration in Peterborough, to name but a few.

3 Not included in the evidence. 21 Complaints rectified 2008-09

I would reiterate the point that I have never received a complaint regarding these articles other than from political opponents with a vested interest.

I do hope that this clarifies these matters comprehensively and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

25 June 2008

8. Letter to the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner 26 June 2008

I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received against Mr Stewart Jackson about the content of his website funded from Parliamentary allowances.

I enclose [relevant material].

I attach also a summary of the items complained of, an extract from the relevant rule (as I understand it) and a summary of the Member’s response. That may be helpful in marshalling your comments, although I know you will wish to look at both the complaint and the response in full.

I would welcome your views on whether, and if so how far, you consider that the entries complained of may have been a breach of the rules of the House in relation to Members’ websites funded from Parliamentary allowances. Any comments on the actions Mr Jackson has already taken would be helpful.

Any other comments you would like to make to help me with this inquiry would also be most welcome. I look forward to hearing from you.

26 June 2008

9. Letter to the Commissioner from the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 23 July 2008

Thank you for your letter dated 26 June, in which you refer to a complaint made against Mr Stewart Jackson MP about the content of his website.

You asked specifically whether I consider the entries complained of may have been a breach of the rules of the House in relation to Members’ websites funded from Parliamentary allowances. As you note in your letter, Mr Jackson has also taken action to remove the relevant material from the website.

It might help if I start by referring to the procedures of the Department in reviewing websites. In accordance with the instructions of the Members Estimate Committee, enshrined in the booklet, The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery, Members must submit a copy of the front page of their website with any claim. Staff in the Department then review that front page when a claim is received. This was done in Mr Jackson’s case and the claim was cleared for payment. We do not go beyond the front page unless there are breaches of the rules evident on the front page. In such a case, we will review the whole website and inform the Member that while we will pay the claim, we will not pay future claims unless any issues are resolved. If, however, the front page breaches the rules substantially we will refuse to pay the original claim. We have to date only done this on three occasions.

The Department accepts that websites are different in scope and content from that of a parliamentary newsletter and will be accessed by people who make a conscious decision to look at the site. Historically, websites have not attracted any great scrutiny and because the content evolves and changes rapidly we have adopted the pragmatic approach to our review process described above. In general this approach has worked well: Members have usually made the necessary amendments or opted to fund websites from their own money.

In Mr Jackson’s case, we received a claim and in accordance with our practice, reviewed the front page. As we did not find anything on that front page which broke the rules, we paid the claim. This does not imply that the whole website was suitable at that time, just that the front page was suitable. I have now looked at the articles complained against in the complainant's letter of 6 June 2008 and make the following comments. 22 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Complaints 1 and 2: Use of party logos

As you are aware, party logos are currently allowed, provided they are ‘proportionate and discrete’ (that should be ‘discreet’, of course). Although the complainant asks whether this applies under IEP, in fact Mr Jackson’s website is funded from the Communications Allowance, not the IEP as stipulated on his front page. We normally advise Members to change their funding statement if we are aware that it is incorrect, although we would not consider this to be a formal breach of the rules. Regardless of whether the logo was designed to influence those using the website, in neither case is it in a prominent position on the page and I do not consider it to be more prominent than logos used by other Members.

Complaint 3: News item dated 13 March 2008: action needed to stop criminals re-offending and cut crime says Jackson

As noted by Mr Jackson in his reply to you, this article is no longer on the website. However, rather than being restricted to relating the facts of the situation, Mr Jackson relates it to policies unveiled by the Conservative Party (in paragraph 1) and in the same article criticises the role of the Labour Party (in Mr Jackson’s comments at the end of the article). In my opinion this therefore breaches the rule given in the booklet (page 27) that Members must not use their website “to advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any person, political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any such person, party or organisation”.

Complaint 4: News item dated 13 March 2008: Stewart Jackson—a bad news budget for Peterborough

This article criticises the Government and the Chancellor on the budget and therefore I consider it breaches the same rule as under complaint 3 above.

Complaint 5: Articles dated 25 January 2008: Are we surprised

Although this article refers to the Home Secretary being afraid to walk the streets, it does not directly criticise the Government and, although the language is a little strong in places, I do not consider that it breaches the rules.

Complaint 6: Article dated 27 October 2007: Gordon Brown

I consider that this article breaches the rule on page 27 in that it attempts to damage the interests of a person (ie the Prime Minister) and the Government.

Complaint 7: Photograph showing Mr Jackson with a placard stating “closed by Labour”

This breaches the rule on page 29, para 21, that “photographs...displaying party campaign slogans or campaign material are not acceptable...”

Complaint 8: News item dated 4 March 2008: Jackson backs plans for Tax break for green swings in Peterborough

This article promotes the policies of the Conservative Party and particularly the Party's proposals for "Green individual savings accounts".

Complaint 9: News item dated 28 September 2007: The Wizard of Oz.

This also breaches the rules on page 27, para. 7, by specifically criticising the Prime Minister.

In most respects therefore I consider Mr Jackson to have broken the rules relating to websites. However, websites evolve quickly and the relevant articles have now been removed. Clearly it is for you to take a view on Mr Jackson's website, but I believe that the process we have in place at present allows us to deal with issues of this nature in an acceptable way. If we had reviewed the full website, we would have written to Mr Jackson asking him to remove the non-compliant articles and explaining that we would not pay any future claims unless his website became compliant. I would be happy to take this approach in this instance. 23 Complaints rectified 2008-09

23 July 2008

10. Letter to Mr Stewart Jackson MP from the Commissioner, 29 July 2008

I have now received the attached letter of 23 July from the Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources in response to the complaint against you about the content of your Parliamentary funded website.

As you will see, the Acting Director considers that, with the exception of the logo and of your article of 25 January 2008 (Are we surprised) the items identified by the complainant were a breach of the rules in respect of websites funded from Parliamentary allowances. The Acting Director has noted, however, that you have taken down the articles complained of.

Before considering this matter further, I would welcome your comments on the Acting Director’s response. I should say that there is in my mind a question about your article of 25 January 2008 in respect of the following quotation:

“Are we surprised that fewer people are voting, when a government elected on a promise to trust the people with a referendum renege on their word—but only when the votes are counted?”

I will need to take a view about whether that is in accordance with paragraph 7 and paragraph 14 to Appendix Three of the April 2007 booklet.

I will then need to consider the way forward. It remains open to me in the light of your response to dismiss the complaint (against the advice of the Department) or to decide to put a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There is a further option, however, which I thought I should draw to your attention. Under Standing Order 150(3) I am able to determine a complaint without a formal report to the Committee if the Member agrees to making appropriate financial reimbursement. For this to happen, the Member would have to accept his breach of the rules. And the Committee would expect the Member to have apologised.

I should say I have not reached a considered view on any of these issues, but I thought you should be aware of the possible options for resolution at this stage.

It would, therefore, be very helpful if you could let me have your comments, if possible within the next six weeks although I recognise that we are now in the recess. If you would like a word about any of this, please let me know.

I am copying this letter for information to the Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources.

29 July 2008

11. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Stewart Jackson MP, 26 August 2008

Thank you for your further letter of 29th July 2008.

I have read both your letter and the letter attached to it from [...] the Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources (dated 23rd July 2008) with great care.

I wonder if I may be permitted to raise a query, for clarification, in relation to one or two matters contained in these letters?

[The Acting Director] seems to have taken little cognisance of the details contained in my two comprehensive letters to you, explaining the circumstances and facts used in mitigation with respect to the website (25th and 18th June 2008, respectively). That said, he does make the point, very fairly, that “offending” articles have now been removed and active guidance by my office on the appropriateness or otherwise of material to be posted—particularly my newspaper column and press releases—is now being sought on an ad hoc basis.

Additionally, it seems evident that there is a degree of confusion and discrepancy between the review process used by the Department in “vetting” a Member’s website, prior to acceptance of a claim for payment via the Communications Allowance; and the procedures used in respect of, for instance, a Member's newsletter. 24 Complaints rectified 2008-09

The implication is that it is appropriate for the Department to “vet” each page of a newsletter, irrespective of the fact that a Member may assume it to be in order but in the case of a website, only the home page is examined.

Whilst this might seem satisfactory and part of a “pragmatic approach”, it clearly raises difficulties if the Member is not advised in a timely and appropriate way—as he or she would be in the case of a newsletter—that any part of the website content is deemed inappropriate to be funded by the public purse.

I would respectfully suggest that this matter needs further attention, not least to prevent Members being subject perhaps to malicious and vexatious complaints in the future.

On a wider point, it is clearly an invidious situation that the Department for Resources is both party to the process of vetting Members’ use of the Communications Allowance in discharging its fiduciary duties as laid out in the Green Book as well as the booklet “The Communication Allowance and the use of House Stationery”; but at the same time (in this case at least) is invited to comment as the de facto case for the prosecution!

With respect to the two other substantive points in your letter:

I have, I believe, commented fully on the article dated 25th January 2008 entitled “Are we surprised?” —it can be found on p.4 of the schedule attached to your letter of 26th June and is covered in my letter to you of 18th June. Mr Patrick also considered that it did not breach the rules. I cannot understand why this particular item has arisen again in a separate letter; so perhaps you could clarify this issue for me?

Finally, as I have already apologised for any inadvertent breach of the appropriate rules, then clearly it is a matter entirely for you to decide to invoke Standing Order 150(3) in respect of this complaint.

Having said that, in inviting you to do so, naturally encumbers me with an open ended financial burden the size of which I am none the wiser of.

[Personal details about Member’s availability during recess]

26 August 2008

12. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 16 September 2008

I would be grateful for the Department’s further advice on this complaint against Mr Jackson in respect of the logo and some of the content of his Parliamentary funded website.

I was grateful to receive the Acting Director’s letter of 23 July with his initial advice on this complaint. I attach a copy of my letter of 29 July to Mr Jackson with which I enclosed the Acting Director's letter. I attach also a copy of a letter of 26 August with Mr Jackson's response.

Before going back to Mr Jackson, it would be very helpful to have your views on the more general points which he makes about the review process adopted by the Department.

Mr Jackson also questions your role in the handling of complaints. I propose to point out to him that this is not an adversarial process and that the Department is not expected to adopt a prosecutorial role in commenting on complaints against Members. But I do need your advice on complaints, and I need to know whether, and if so, how you may have been involved in any matter which becomes a subject of the complaint.

Any comments you would like to make on this or any other matter related to this complaint would, of course, be very welcome.

Mr Jackson returns to the House on 26 September, so it would be very helpful if I could have a response by 24 September so I can prepare a letter on his return. I am grateful for your help with this. 25 Complaints rectified 2008-09

16 September 2008

13. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 18 September 2008

Thank you for your letter of 16th September about the complaint by Councillor Lane concerning Stewart Jackson’s use of the Communications Allowance. You asked for my comments.

Mr Jackson has apologised for the breach of the rules, but my sense is that he does not readily accept the judgements made in this case, notwithstanding the additional information he now has as a result of your inquiries. He seems to dismiss [the Acting Director]s comments on the content of his website on the basis that [the Acting Director] ‘seems to have taken little cognisance’ of the details contained in his letters. I note that even today some of his ‘offending’ articles are still on his website (e.g. Gordon Brown—October 2007), which is at odds with Mr [the Acting Director]’s observation in his letter to you of 23 July that ‘the relevant articles have now been removed’.

I have reviewed the details of this case and in my view [the Acting Director] was correct in supporting the contention of the complainant in respect of complaints numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

I note the points Mr Jackson makes about the policy and procedures followed by the Department of Resources. In fact, our procedures for both websites and newsletters emanate from decisions made by the House and the Members Estimate Committee. Currently there is an asymmetry between DR’s consideration of websites and newsletters: all website home pages are scrutinised by staff here before any payment from the allowances is authorised, whereas there is no requirement for Members to submit newsletters and payments are frequently made on provision of an invoice only. However, this anomalous position will be rectified from 1 April 2009—in accordance with the decision of the House on 3 July—at which point the content of all Members’ newsletters costing over £1000 will have to be cleared first with the Department. Other changes that will come into effect in April include a prohibition on the use of party logos whether or not they are discreet.

As for the current practice in respect of websites, [the Acting Director]’s argument in his letter of 23 July was that websites often grow organically and speedily, they are easily amended and corrected, they are potentially very large indeed and they are seen only by people who choose to access them. This explains why the DR does not routinely consider every entry on a website and why generally where breaches of the rules are found the Department does not seek to deny a Member’s claim, or recover the costs of claims already paid, as long as any offending entries are removed speedily.

Finally, I concur with your points on your procedures and DR’s necessary involvement in these.

I would be happy to discuss.

18 September 2008

14. Letter to Mr Stewart Jackson MP from the Commissioner, 23 September 2008

Thank you for your letter of 26 August responding to mine of 29 July about this complaint in respect of the content of your Parliamentary funded website.

Your letter raised a number of queries about the letter of 23 July from the Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources. I have, therefore, shown it to the Director of Operations. I attach a copy of my letter to him of 16 September and of his response to me of 18 September.

As you will see, the Director has reviewed the details of this complaint and has endorsed the Acting Director’s view that examples 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were in breach of the rules. He has commented also on the policy and procedures followed by the Department in respect of websites, compared with its policy on newsletters, both now and from next April following the decision of the House on 3 July.

The Director also agrees with the comments in my letter of 16 September about the Department’s role in the handling of complaints. As you will see from that letter, my consideration of complaints is not an adversarial process. 26 Complaints rectified 2008-09

There is, therefore, no prosecutorial authority and the Department of Resources is not expected to adopt that role in commenting on complaints against Members. I need their advice on complaints and I need to know whether and if so how they may have been involved in any matter which becomes subject to a complaint. That is a role I believe they have exercised in this case.

Finally, you will see that while the Director has noted your apology, he senses that you may not have readily accepted the judgements made in this case. He has also noted that some of the articles remain on your website.

It is, of course, for me as the Commissioner to come to my own view on each complaint, having established the facts and having considered carefully comments from the Member concerned and, where appropriate, the House authorities. I am not bound by the advice of the Department of Resources.

You asked why questions about the article “Are we surprised?” had arisen again in my letter. I raised with you this article because, for the reasons I set out in my letter to you of 29 July, I was not clear whether the sentence I quote in that letter is in accordance with the rules on political content set out in the relevant paragraphs of the April 2007 booklet. The purpose of my writing to you was to give you an opportunity either to explain why you thought it was in accordance with the rules of the House, or to accept that, on reflection, it was not appropriately phrased. Once I have your response, I may need to seek the views of the Director of Operations on the points which you may make.

I should make clear the options available to me once I have your reply. It is entirely open to you to take issue with the conclusions drawn by the Director of Operations (and to argue that the article “Are we surprised?” is not a breach of the rules in respect of political content). It would then be for me to consider all the evidence and to come to my own conclusion on the complaint. I would put that conclusion formally in a Memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which it would publish with its own Report on the complaint. I would show you in advance the factual sections of my Memorandum and, in due course, the Committee would show you my conclusions.

If, on the other hand, you decided to accept the view of the House authorities that your website had breached the rules of the House in respect of its content, and you had removed the relevant articles from the website, apologised and made clear that you would avoid your website content breaching the rules of the House in the future, then it would be open to me to consider whether informal resolution might be appropriate recognising the rectification actions you had taken, or whether I should nevertheless prepare a formal Memorandum to the Committee. That is something I would decide once I received your response to this letter. If I were to decide to accept rectification, I would report the outcome to the complainant and the Committee, but I would not submit a formal Memorandum to the Committee which would therefore not publish its own report.

I would, therefore, be grateful to know whether or not you accept that the complaints numbered 3 to 10 in the summary I sent you on 26 June were a breach of the rules of the House in respect of Parliamentary funded websites and if so, what actions you have taken or are taking to rectify the situation. It would be very helpful to have a response to this matter, if possible by 21 October. If there is any difficulty about this or you would like a word on it, please do get in touch with me at the House.

23 September 2008

15. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Stewart Jackson MP, 8 October 2008

Thank you for your further letter of 23rd. September and the enclosed correspondence from [Director of Operations].

I appreciate the helpful advice and guidance contained therein.

For the avoidance of doubt and in order to conclude matters, I accept that my website breached House rules and I unreservedly apologise for these contraventions and I will seek, under your guidance, to rectify any outstanding infringements of the rules, as you deem appropriate, under further written guidance and advice.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly so that a resolution in respect of this matter can be expedited speedily. 27 Complaints rectified 2008-09

8 October 2008