1. We have considered a memorandum by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards relating to the complaint against Mr Anthony Steen, Member for Totnes, by Mr Christopher Clayton, one of his constituents. The Commissioner's memorandum is appended to this Report.

2. The essence of Mr Clayton's complaint is that material included in the Spring 2004 issue of Mr Steen's "Westminster Report", a publication, part-funded out of Mr Steen's Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP), detailing his parliamentary and constituency activities, included a statement which constituted 'party political activity or campaigning'. Such statements are not allowed to be included in publications of this nature which are funded, in whole or in part, out of a Member's IEP.

3. Mr Steen, for his part, does not consider that the material complained of can be construed as 'party political activity or campaigning'. He sees it as 'political comment' and maintains that the two can be clearly distinguished.[1] He also maintains that the statement complained of is factually accurate and that the article specifically related to Torbay Council and its failure to return £100 to individual council taxpayers in the 2004-05 financial year.

4. While we accept that Mr Steen has on a number of occasions publicly criticised Torbay Council over high levels of increase in council tax,[2] the article concerned nowhere says that it relates specifically to that Council.

5. In our view, many readers are likely to have formed the view that Mr Steen was making general criticisms of a policy closely identified with the Liberal Democrats alone of the three major national parties. That impression could only have been reinforced by the prominent display, in a colour closely associated with the political party supported by Mr Steen, of a statement criticising the policy in general terms and specifically linking it to the Liberal Democrats. In our opinion, Mr Steen crossed the line from 'political comment' to 'party political activity' by including the two passages critical of the Liberal Democrats, although we accept that he did not intend to break the rules.

6. We therefore agree with the Commissioner that Mr Clayton's complaint should be upheld.

7. The Department of Finance and Administration told the Commissioner that it considered the material complained of by Mr Clayton to breach its guidance on material qualifying for reimbursement from public funds.[3] We understand that there have been a small number of cases since the January 2003 guidance came into effect where Members have been asked to repay sums claimed from the IEP for the costs of printing and publication where inappropriate material has been included. The Department should now look at this case against the same criteria and require Mr Steen to make appropriate reimbursement.

8. The Commissioner has also drawn attention to a number of wider implications of this case.[4] We agree that the guidance needs to be made clearer on what is and is not allowable in IEP funded publications in terms of content, and in particular on the sort of material likely to be adjudged to constitute 'party political activity or campaigning'. We have asked the Commissioner to take the lead in developing improved guidance on these matters, with a view to it being issued under our authority.

9. The definition offered by the Commissioner in paragraph 30 of his report appears to us to offer a sound basis from which such improved guidance might be developed. The revised guidance should also include a specific statement of the consequences of the inclusion of inappropriate material. It might also usefully include a clear statement that Members alone are responsible for the contents of all such publications where IEP funding is involved.

10. Inevitably, in matters such as this, fine judgements may have to be made. We recommend that Members should seek advice on these matters, as on other standards matters, from the Registrar of Members' Interests.

2   See, for example, Official Report, 25 February 2004, Vol 418, col 282 and 17 May 2004, Vol 421, col 741. See also Official Report, 29 April 2004, Vol 420, cols 1028-9 and 19 July 2004, Vol 424, cols 71, 74. Back

3   Appendix, paragraph 12. Back

4   Appendix, paragraphs 36 to 42. Back