1 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Jim Dowd MP: Resolution Letter Letter to Mr David Eastham from the Commissioner, 22 December 2008 I have now concluded my consideration of your complaint against Mr Jim Dowd MP about the circulation of his Parliamentary report to you and others outside his constituency boundary. In essence, your complaint was that Mr Dowd had used funds from the House of Commons Communications Allowance to circulate a report to people living outside his constituency. I have consulted Mr Dowd and the House authorities about this matter. Having made my enquiries, I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegation that the circulation of Mr Dowd’s newsletter outside his current constituency boundary was intended by him to secure advantage with potential voters in the new constituency, or that Mr Dowd deliberately used Parliamentary resources to circulate his report beyond his constituency boundary. I am satisfied that it was not Mr Dowd's intention that his Parliamentary report should be so circulated. The circulation outside his constituency was made in error by his distribution company against Mr Dowd's instructions to that company. Mr Dowd recognises that as a result there has been an inadvertent and comparatively minor breach of the rules of the House. Mr Dowd did not intend to breach these rules and he is sorry that the error occurred. He is taking steps to try to ensure that it does not happen again. I consider that this is a satisfactory resolution of this matter, and I have therefore closed the complaint on this basis. I shall report the outcome informally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am copying this letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP. 22 December 2008 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Jim Dowd MP: Written Evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Eastham, 21 September 2008 I would like to make a formal complaint about the use of the Communications Allowance by Jim Dowd MP, who is the MP for Lewisham West. The enclosed ‘Parliamentary Report’ was delivered to the houses in my street on 14th September, and clearly states that it ‘had been paid for out of Parliamentary Allowances’. Mr Dowd is not the MP for the area where I live, however; it is in fact Ms Jacqui Lait. Yet the ‘Report’ was delivered to my house and my street, and I assume to many thousands of others in Penge, which will be part of the new parliamentary constituency of Lewisham West & Penge. I understand that Mr Dowd intends to contest this new seat at the next General Election, and I am concerned that he is seeking advantage by using the Communications Allowance to communicate with potential voters in the new constituency, instead of using it to communicate with his current constituents. Surely this is a blatant and serious misuse of public money? I hope that this issue will be properly investigated, and I look forward to receiving a full report of the actions you will be taking in regard of this matter. 21 September 2008 3 Complaints rectified 2008-09 2. Mr Jim Dowd MP’s Parliamentary Report 4 Complaints rectified 2008-09 5 Complaints rectified 2008-09 6 Complaints rectified 2008-09 7 Complaints rectified 2008-09 3. Letter to Mr Jim Dowd MP from the Commissioner, 24 September 2008 I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received from Mr David Eastham about the circulation of your Parliamentary Report for summer 2008 funded by your Parliamentary allowances. I attach a copy of the complainant’s letter of 21 September. 1His letter enclosed a copy of your Parliamentary Report, but I am not enclosing that with this letter since I am sure you have copies in your office. In essence, Mr Eastham’s complaint is that you used funds from your Communications Allowance to circulate a report funded from that allowance to people living outside your constituency, contrary to the rules of the House. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in paragraph 14 as follows: “Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.” The rules for the use of the Communications Allowance are set out in a booklet entitled ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery’ published in April 2007. Appendix One provides a new section of the Green Book to cover the Communications Allowance. Section 6.1.1 provides: “The Communications Allowance (CA) is available to meet the cost of Members engaging proactively with their constituents through a variety of media. It can be used for the production of unsolicited communications within the parameters set out in this Section. The CA may only be used to help Members inform their constituents about what they have been doing and to consult them on issues of importance to them locally. It cannot be used to meet personal costs or the costs of party political activities or campaigning.” Appendix Two to the April 2007 publication provides rules and guidance on producing newsletters and other publications from the Communications Allowance. Paragraph 10 of Appendix Two provides: “Parliamentary newsletters and other publications can be distributed to all constituents or a targeted local grouping, for example local head teachers, or residents affected by a development scheme.” Paragraph 12 provides: “The cost of envelopes and postage or freepost facilities can be met from your Communications Allowance.” On 6 November 2007, Mr Speaker made the following statement in the House: “As Members, we are aware that the boundary commissioner is looking constantly at constituency boundaries. All Members have a duty to look after the constituents who elected them. Those boundaries do not change until the next election, so we must obey the convention by not involving ourselves with another Member's constituency until that time.” I would welcome your comments on this complaint, taking into account of the rules and Mr Speaker's statement. In particular, it would be helpful to know: 1. the circumstances in which your Parliamentary Report came to be circulated outside your constituency (if it was so circulated); 2. what was the geographical scope of any circulation outside your constituency, and how many copies of your Parliamentary Report were distributed outside your constituency boundaries; 1 WE 1 8 Complaints rectified 2008-09 3. what was the total cost of printing and distribution for your Parliamentary Report which you have claimed or will claim from your Communications Allowance; 4. what proportion of your printing and distribution costs were accounted for by any circulation of your Parliamentary Report beyond your constituency boundary; 5. whether any of your staff paid for from Parliamentary funds were engaged in the preparation or any distribution of your Parliamentary Report outside your constituency, and if so, what level of staff was involved and for how long; 6. whether you discussed or sought advice from the Department of Resources on the distribution of your Parliamentary Report. Any other comments or points you would like to make would of course be very welcome. I enclose a note which sets out the procedures which I follow. I am writing to the complainant to let him know that I have written to you about the complaint. I appreciate that we are still in the recess, but if it were possible for you to let me have your comments within the next four weeks, that would be most helpful. If there is any difficulty about this, do let me know. In any event, if you would like a word, please contact me at the House. I would be very grateful for your help on this matter. 24 September 2008 4. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Jim Dowd MP, 22 October 2008 Thank you for your letter concerning the above and our subsequent, brief telephone conversation. I am now in a position to provide a full response to your enquiry. As you state that you are already in possession of a copy of my report I have not enclosed one. However, I do attach a copy of a letter sent to my Parliamentary Assistant, who is based (as are all my staff) at the constituency office, from the distribution company that was used for the unaddressed, door-to-door delivery. [...] co-ordinated the technicalities of the preparation, production and circulation of the report although this was obviously conducted under my direction and the content was entirely mine. As is plain from [company] s letter, they were under instruction to circulate the report only in the wards of the current Lewisham West constituency and a seeming failure of communication led to the mistake, for which they accept responsibility. Following discussions, we are confident that steps will be taken to ensure that the error is not repeated in future deliveries. As you will see from the contents of the report itself, the features it contains relate solely to issues in Lewisham West and my work in Parliament. There is no reference at all to the London Borough of Bromley nor any part of it. Neither does it mention the Parliamentary boundary change which will result, at the next General Election, in the creation of the Lewisham West and Penge constituency and it most certainly does not refer, directly or indirectly, nor make any allusion whatsoever to my position as the Labour Party candidate for the new constituency.