House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Mr Brian Binley Fifth Report of Session 2009–10 Report and Appendices together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 January 2010 HC 238 Published on 11 January 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 Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP (Conservative, Kensington & Chelsea) (Chairman) Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Rt hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, East Yorkshire) Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour, Sunderland South) The hon Nicholas Soames MP (Conservative, Mid Sussex) Mr Paddy Tipping MP (Labour, Sherwood) 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. Mr Brian Binley 1 Contents Report Page Mr Brian Binley 3 Introduction 3 The Commissioner’s findings 3 Mr Binley’s rental arrangement 3 Mr Binley’s registration of interests 6 Mr Binley’s evidence 6 The basis for entering into a leasing arrangement 6 The time taken to reply to the DFA 7 The question of where responsibility lies 7 Mr Binley’s conclusion 8 Conclusions 8 Mr Binley’s request to be present at our deliberations 8 The basis for entering into a leasing arrangement 9 The time taken to reply to the DFA 9 The question of where responsibility lies 10 Overall conclusion 10 Recommendation 11 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 12 Appendix 2: Letter from Mr Brian Binley to the Clerk of the Committee, enclosing a statement, 30 December 2009 87 Formal minutes 97 Mr Brian Binley 3 Mr Brian Binley Introduction 1. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has sent us a memorandum, reporting on his investigation of a complaint against Mr Brian Binley, the Member for Northampton South. The Commissioner’s memorandum is reproduced in full at Appendix 1. 2. We have also received written evidence from Mr Binley, which is reproduced at Appendix 2. 3. The complaint against Mr Binley was that he claimed against the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) for a property in Pimlico, London, which he rented from a company— BCC Marketing Services Ltd—in which he and his wife have an interest.1 With effect from July 2006, the rules of the House have prohibited Members from claiming for the costs of leasing accommodation from a company in which the Member—or the Member’s partner or family member—have an interest.2 4. Mr Binley was first elected in May 2005. He rented the Pimlico property between February 2006 and April 2009. The property was bought by BCC Marketing Services Ltd in December 2005 for Mr Binley’s use as a Member of Parliament.3 Mr Binley is the company’s non-executive chairman, receiving a salary of £8,000 per annum; he and his wife each own 20% of the company. Mr Binley’s son, who is the company’s managing director, owns a further 20%.4 The Commissioner’s findings Mr Binley’s rental arrangement 5. As the Commissioner states in his memorandum, Mr Binley rented the Pimlico flat from BCC Marketing Services Ltd from February 2006 to 25 April 2009, during which period he renewed the lease annually and claimed the full rental cost of £1,500 a month against his Additional Costs Allowance. In total, Mr Binley’s claims against his ACA in respect of this property amounted to £58,500.5 6. The Commissioner notes that in November 2005 Mr Binley sought the advice of the then Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) about his plans to claim against his ACA for the cost of renting a flat from his company. It appears that Mr Binley was told that the proposed arrangement was permissible, although unfortunately neither Mr Binley 1 Appendix 1, paragraph 1 2 Appendix 1, paragraph 10 3 Appendix 1, paragraph 106 4 Appendix 1, paragraph 75 5 Appendix 1, paragraph 107 and WE9 4 Mr Brian Binley nor the DFA confirmed this in writing at the time.6 The Commissioner has concluded that the arrangement was within the rules as they were in 2005.7 7. Mr Binley signed a twelve-month lease on the flat and started using it in February 2006. However, in March 2006, the DFA wrote to Mr Binley, informing him of proposed changes to the rules on ACA, which meant that the Department was no longer able to approve Mr Binley’s proposed arrangements.8 Mr Binley told the Commissioner that he challenged this ruling in May 2006, on the basis that at the time he had entered into the arrangement it had been within the rules. The Commissioner has questioned why it should have taken Mr Binley two months to respond and has described the failure to keep a copy of the letter of 25 May 2006 as “unfortunate.”9 8. The DFA replied in June 2006, stating that it was prepared to allow Mr Binley to continue claiming ACA on the property until the end of the 2006–07 financial year. The Commissioner describes this as un “unequivocal” statement, which set a “wholly reasonable deadline.”10 The letter concluded “You will therefore need to make alternative arrangements by the end of the 06/07 financial year.”11 9. The Commissioner has found no record of any further exchanges on this matter between Mr Binley and the House authorities between June 2006 and February 2008, when Mr Binley met the Director of Operations at the Department of Resources (successor to the DFA). He concludes: … there is no evidence that Mr Binley took any significant action on this decision by the Department until he raised it again with them some 20 months later. He told me in oral evidence that he should have pursued it more effectively. I accept that judgement. … On the basis of the evidence, I cannot find that there was any sort of recognisable appeal process undertaken by Mr Binley against the Department’s decision in respect of his particular case over the period from June 2006 to February 2008.12 I consider it unacceptable that Mr Binley should have taken no significant action to respond to the Department’s decision of June 2006 until February 2008. He did not leave his flat by the end of March 2007 as the Department had ruled. Instead, he continued to make claims against his allowances for the rent of his flat, claims which he knew were not in accordance with the rules. The fact that he did not agree that the renting rules should have been changed mid-Parliament and that he wanted to 6 Appendix 1, paragraphs 108 and 119 to 122 7 Appendix 1, paragraph 122 8 Appendix 1, paragraph 109 9 Appendix 1, paragraph 123 10 Appendix 1, paragraph 124 11 Appendix 1, WE5 12 Appendix 1, paragraph 125 Mr Brian Binley 5 campaign to get this practice stopped, does not in my view provide any justification for ignoring the Department’s decision and continuing with his claims.13 The Commissioner also points out that the Department of Resources continued to pay Mr Binley’s claims after the deadline it had imposed had expired and that it failed to bring the matter to a head.14 The sums paid to Mr Binley from the ACA in respect of the Pimlico flat after April 2007 totalled £37,500.15 10. During the course of his meetings with House officials in 2008, Mr Binley acknowledged that the arrangements for renting the Pimlico flat were outside the rules, but argued that because the rules had changed after he had made the arrangements he should be allowed to continue to claim for the cost of renting the flat until the end of the current Parliament.16 The Department told Mr Binley that his arrangement must end by 31 March 2009 and that after that date the House would no longer meet his ACA claims for the property.