House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Mr Denis MacShane Second Report of Session 2012–13 Report and Appendices, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 31 October 2012 HC 635 Published on 2 November 2012 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) Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Julie Hilling MP (Labour, Bolton West) 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 Eve Samson (Clerk), Margaret Mckinnon (Second Clerk) and Miss Christine McGrane (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 Denis MacShane 1 Contents Report Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Mr MacShane’s claims 5 The relevant rules of the House 5 Claims for computer equipment 6 Claims relating to invoices from the European Policy Institute 7 Status of the European Policy Institute 8 The nature of the claims covered by EPI invoices 9 The way in which claims were made 11 Cooperation with the inquiry 12 3 The Commissioner’s findings 14 Cooperation with the Commissioner’s inquiry 14 Claims for computer equipment 14 Claims relating to invoices from the European Policy Institute 15 The way in which the claims were submitted 16 4 Conclusion 19 Computer Equipment 19 Claims relating to the European Policy Institute 19 Mitigation 21 The appropriate penalty 22 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 25 Appendix 2: Letter from Mr Denis MacShane to the Clerk of the Committee 140 Appendix 3: Letter to Mr Denis MacShane from the Clerk of the Committee 144 Formal Minutes 145 Mr Denis MacShane 3 1 Introduction 1. This Report deals with matters arising from a complaint against the Rt Hon Denis MacShane made on 29 June 2009, relating to expense claims made between 2005 and 2008. As the Committee has reported to the House, on 12 October 2010 the Committee agreed that the conduct of Mr MacShane should be reported to the Metropolitan Police Service, and the inquiry should be suspended until the question of possible criminal proceedings had been resolved.1 On 12 October 2010 the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards wrote to the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis. This was summarised in his memorandum: I told the Commissioner that I had been considering a complaint in relation to claims Mr MacShane had made between 2004 and 2008 in respect of research and translation services apparently provided by the European Policy Institute. I noted that I had also been considering a complaint in relation to Mr MacShane’s claims for computers. I said that, during the course of my inquiries, I had seen invoices produced for the claims in respect of the services provided through the EPI which I believed might have been produced in a way which could raise questions of possible criminality.2 The evidence gathered in the course of the Commissioner’s inquiry was not shared with the police. It had been gathered for another purpose, under different conditions from those applying in criminal investigations. It was and remains subject to Parliamentary privilege, as does this Report. 2. It was not until 3 July 2012 that the Metropolitan Police Service informed the Commissioner that they would take no action as a result of their inquiries.3 As he had previously indicated to us he would in such circumstances, the Commissioner resumed his inquiry into whether Mr MacShane had breached the Code of Conduct, which was a matter for the Committee and the House. 3. The decision as to whether conduct is criminal and as to whether proceedings should be brought is one for the police and the CPS. The separation of courts and Parliament is a fundamental constitutional principle. It is enshrined in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which provides that proceedings in Parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in the courts. It underlies the sub judice rule, which prevents the House dealing with matters awaiting adjudication by the courts. It is not for us to decide whether or not criminal conduct has occurred. We are concerned with breaches of the Code of Conduct, and a criminal investigation cannot, by definition, determine whether or not a breach of the Code has occurred. We approach each case on its own merits, and have discontinued past cases when former members have been imprisoned, or have had criminal proceedings 1 First Special Report of Session 2010–11, Mr Denis MacShane, HC 527 2 Appendix 1, paragraph 110 3 Appendix 1, paragraph 112 4 Mr Denis MacShane discontinued.4 In this case, a serving Member of the House faces allegations of significant breaches of the Code. We endorse the Commissioner’s decision to resume the inquiry. 4. The procedures we follow are inquisitorial, rather than adversarial, but fairness is paramount. Accordingly we were concerned by paragraph 114 of the Commissioner’s memorandum, which states: Having received no response to my letter of 4 July, my office spoke to Mr MacShane on 30 July. My office reported to me that Mr MacShane had said that he had not yet responded to my letter because he had been advised by the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to answer via his lawyer. The Chair’s account was that Mr MacShane had approached him in the Tea Room, saying that he had sent the Commissioner’s correspondence to his lawyer and that he would write to Mr Speaker. In response the Chair had said that as far as he was concerned it was a matter for the Commissioner. We considered that if there were a dispute about the facts of this encounter the Chair should stand aside from the inquiry, and asked Mr MacShane for more details of this alleged advice. Mr MacShane gave a fuller account: The conversation with the Chairman of the Committee took place in the September session of Parliament. It was brief. I said I just did not know how to take the matter forward given the depression I was in. My solicitor will confirm (if necessary by letter to the Committee) that following my conversation with Mr Barron I telephoned him to say that Mr Barron had said I had better go through my solicitor. I am absolutely clear in my mind that was an exchange between us and my solicitor will confirm that was what I told him. There was no advice or suggestion from Mr Barron other than it would be a good idea to talk to my solicitor and it was my decision to go to my solicitor. This did not relate to the July phone calls from the Commissioner’s office but was a tea room conversation in September. I apologise to Mr Barron if I have given the impression that he was telling me how to respond to the Commissioner. This is absolutely not the case, simply that Mr Barron agreed that handling the matter via a solicitor might be advisable in the sense that I needed some outside advice.5 Given this clarification, we saw no reason why the Chair should stand aside from the inquiry. 5. The Commissioner’s memorandum is appended to this Report, and we refer readers to it for a full account of his investigations. Mr MacShane was supplied with a copy of the memorandum, and given the opportunity to give evidence.