Thank you for your further letter of 27 October regarding the complaint made by Mr C J Clayton.

I am in no doubt that the information I was given by either Dan Gorman or Andy Gibson in the Fees Office was that if my Westminster Report was considered to be part of a campaign or party political activity, they would reduce my claim accordingly from the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP).

The Fees Office were quite clear as to what the rules were, and the basis on which they would make repayment under the IEP. Acting on that advice, I have referred Westminster Report from time to time to the Fees Office for reimbursement, if not in total then in part. It would be quite unjust now and certainly against the rules of natural justice to criticise or chastise me for acting on such guidance, which I did and have done for some years.

You say you think the appropriate course would be to make a report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, so as to allow the Committee to clarify the position. The basis on which you are proceeding with this is you believe if only one line in an eight page report can be interpreted as campaigning or party political activity, the entire publication is negated with regard to reimbursement under the IEP. In essence you believe the existing rules need revising, but I am at fault for not appreciating that.

You state in your final paragraph that you intend to prepare a draft of the factual sections of your report and let me see a copy before finalising your conclusions. Do I take it that no report or reference has yet been made to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? If that is the case, could you give me some idea as to the timetable?

1 November 2004