Introduction

1. We have received a memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, reporting on the outcome of his investigation of a complaint against Mr Stephen Byers, the Member for North Tyneside. The memorandum is appended to this Report.[1]

2. The complaint against Mr Byers was made by Mr Paul J Moat of Wallsend, Tyne and Wear.[2] Mr Moat's complaint was threefold.[3] First, he complained that a story on the front page of Mr Byers' April 2009 newsletter promoted the local Mayor, who was standing for re-election in the June elections. Secondly, he alleged that the newsletter had been distributed outside Mr Byers' constituency. Thirdly, he asserted that the newsletter had been delivered together with local council material. All this, if true, was potentially in breach of the rules relating to use of the Communications Allowance.

The Commissioner's findings

3. The Commissioner did not accept that part of the complaint from Mr Moat that related to the timing of distribution of the newsletter, because it was distributed outside the 28-day period during which additional restrictions apply.[4]

4. The Commissioner has received no evidence to support the complainant's allegation that Mr Byers' newsletter was distributed outside the North Tyneside constituency—although he twice invited the complainant to provide such evidence.[5] He has therefore dismissed that part of the complaint.[6] He has also dismissed that part of the complaint relating to alleged distribution of the newsletter together with a local council publication, again due to lack of any evidence that supports the allegation.[7]

5. In relation to the front-page article in the newsletter, entitled Mayor Harrison's Homes Plan, about which Mr Moat complained, the Commissioner comments as follows:

It consists of three short paragraphs and contains one clear fact—the fact that the Mayor had announced his plan to build over a thousand new homes in North Tyneside. But the rest is editorial copy identifying as an issue of increasing importance the provision of affordable homes for rent in the area and expressing approval of the actions of the elected Mayor. As the Department [of Resources] have pointed out, the article makes no reference to anything Mr Byers had done as the constituency Member of Parliament.[8]

The Commissioner concludes:

I consider that Mr Byers' article advanced perspectives which had the effect if not the intention of promoting the interests of a person he supported, namely the elected Mayor, and that, as a result, the article constituted party political material. The article was therefore in breach of the rules.[9]

6. When he wrote to Mr Byers following receipt of the complaint from Mr Moat, the Commissioner asked Mr Byers about the content of another of the short articles that appeared in the four-page newsletter.[10] This article was headed Hospital Waiting Times Cut and included the following statements:

In 1995 the Conservative Government introduced a waiting time target of 18 MONTHS and failed to meet it.

In 1997, 284,000 patients were waiting over six months for their operations. The position today is that waiting lists have been reduced to such an extent that most people are now dealt with within 18 WEEKS.

In his reply to the Commissioner, Mr Byers accepted that the waiting times article had been included in breach of the rule against selective use of statistics and comparing one party favourably against another, although the breach was inadvertent as he had been unaware that the rules were as restrictive as they are. He apologised for this.[11]

7. The Department of Resources subsequently drew the Commissioner's attention to a third article in the newsletter, under the headline Winning the Fight Together. This was an article on the economy, which, the Department felt, "emphasises the Government's response to the financial crisis, which Mr Byers applauds, but says little about Mr Byers' own activities in Parliament or locally."[12] The Commissioner has told us that:

on balance, and taking the article overall, I conclude that it provides sufficient information about Mr Byers' own involvement in dealing with the consequences for his constituents of the financial crisis for this article not to fall foul of the rule against the inclusion of party political material.[13]

8. In summary, the Commissioner has concluded that two articles in Mr Byers' April 2009 newsletter breached the rules for publications funded from the Communications Allowance. It is the Commissioner's view that the breaches were not such as to taint the entire publication, in relation to which Mr Byers claimed £3,796 from his Communications Allowance for printing and distribution.[14] In the Commissioner's judgment, the breaches were "significant" rather than "serious".[15]

Mr Byers' evidence

9. In accordance with our usual practice, we provided Mr Byers with a copy of the Commissioner's memorandum shortly after we received it on 26 November. We invited Mr Byers to send us written evidence before our consideration of the memorandum. Mr Byers submitted his written evidence on 30 November.[16]

10. Mr Byers has told us that he does not wish to repeat the points he has already made to the Commissioner during the course of the inquiry. In particular, he states that his views about the three articles considered in the Commissioner's memorandum are clearly set out in the evidence attached to the memorandum.

11. Mr Byers' views about the two articles which the Commissioner has found to be in breach of the rules may be summarised as follows:

• The article entitled Mayor Harrison's Homes Plan, which was accompanied by a photograph of Mr Byers with elected Mayor John Harrison, was "a factual statement." Its purpose was to inform his constituents about the progress being made on what was probably the most pressing issue in his constituency at the time, one on which he had been campaigning locally. Mr Byers told the Commissioner that this was at one with the official guidance that the purpose of such publications must be to inform constituents about the Member's work as a Member.[17]
• Mr Byers accepts that the use of statistics in the article entitled Hospital Waiting Times Cut breached the rules and he has apologised for this breach.

12. Mr Byers is thus contesting one of the Commissioner's conclusions. He has also raised two procedural points, which we need to consider.

Questions of procedure

13. Two procedural questions were raised by Mr Byers in the course of the Commissioner's inquiry and in his memorandum to us. The first relates to the Commissioner's conduct of the inquiry; the second to the actions of the complainant.

14. Mr Byers notes in his memorandum of evidence that the original complaint about his newsletter concerned the article on housing. He points out that the Commissioner, in his first letter to Mr Byers, raised questions about another article, on the NHS, and that "six months after the inquiry began" the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources raised issues concerning a third article. Mr Byers has told us that his understanding is that the House has given the Commissioner the authority to investigate those matters about which a complaint has been received. In this case, states Mr Byers, the Commissioner "has chosen to go beyond this and investigate articles about which no complaint has been made."[18]

15. Mr Byers continues, "The danger and unfairness of this approach are clear in this case." He asks "in what circumstances, if any, can the Commissioner widen his inquiry beyond those specific issues that have been complained of?" He concludes "I do think it would be helpful if the Committee would clarify the exact powers the Commissioner has."[19]

16. Mr Byers has also drawn the Committee's attention to the conduct of the complainant, Mr Moat. According to Mr Byers, Mr Moat disclosed evidence and correspondence. "As a consequence the press were contacted (see Newcastle Journal 5 May 2009 page 7)." Mr Byers suggests that "This is a clear contempt of the House." Finally, Mr Byers expresses his hope that "the Committee will consider looking into this matter." [20]

Conclusions

17. We need to deal first with Mr Byers' request that we consider two procedural questions: the power of the Commissioner to consider possible breaches of the rules that go wider than the original complaint; and the alleged unauthorised disclosure by the complainant in this case of correspondence and evidence associated with the Commissioner's inquiry.

18. Under Standing Order No 150(2)(e), the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a duty "to receive, and if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints" about Members and to report to this Committee.[21] Our interpretation of this provision is that for the Commissioner to accept a complaint for investigation, it must be specific—in the sense that a complaint must not be vague or too general. We have never interpreted the Standing Order as requiring the Commissioner to ignore a related breach of the rules that comes to light in the course of his investigation of a complaint. In our view, the public interest would not be served by such an interpretation.

19. This is not the first time that a Member has challenged a Commissioner's interpretation of his remit; there have been several other cases in recent years. For example, in our Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, we concluded that:

On the question of whether it is appropriate for the Commissioner to comment on matters which emerge in the course of his investigation of a complaint, but are not raised directly in that complaint, it has been the practice of successive Commissioners to do so, and of successive Committees to reach decisions on them. We believe this to be right in principle. Public confidence in the complaints process would undoubtedly be eroded if, in the face of clear evidence of a breach of the Code, the House declined to take action on the technicality that the conduct concerned, although it emerged in the course of an inquiry into a complaint, was not the direct subject of the complaint.[22]

We note that this general approach is also fully in line with the recent recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been accepted by this Committee, that the Commissioner should in future be free to investigate suspected breaches in the absence of a complaint.[23]

20. As for Mr Byers' comments about "the danger and unfairness of this approach", in our experience the Commissioner always provides Members with opportunities to comment and to explain their actions. We also note that notwithstanding his procedural objection, Mr Byers has accepted that the article drawn to his attention by the Commissioner was a breach of the rules, and he has apologised for it. We fully support the Commissioner's decision to include in his investigation two articles that appeared in the same newsletter as the article that was the subject of the original complaint.

21. We turn now to the second question raised by Mr Byers, concerning an alleged contempt of the House. Because of the seriousness of this allegation, we intend to invite Mr Byers to submit further evidence. We will then decide whether we need to make a further Report to the House. For the present, we simply observe that the question of whether Mr Moat was in contempt of the House has no bearing whatsoever on the matter that is before us, which is whether Mr Byers breached the rules.

22. We agree with the Commissioner's findings on this case as set out in his memorandum to us. We conclude that Mr Byers breached the rules on publications funded from the Communications Allowance, in that he included material in two articles in his April 2009 newsletter that was clearly party political in nature.

Recommendation

23. We agree with the Commissioner's view that the party political material in Mr Byers' newsletter, which constituted about one eighth of the whole, amounted to a significant breach of the rules. While we welcome Mr Byers' apology in respect of the breach that was drawn to his attention by the Commissioner, we are disappointed that he has not accepted the Commissioner's upholding of the original complaint. We recommend that Mr Byers apologise in writing for the breach of the rules that was the subject of the original complaint and that he repay the sum of £500 in recognition of the two breaches in his April 2009 newsletter.

2   Appendix 1, paragraph 2 Back

3   Appendix 1, WE1 Back

4   Appendix 1, paragraph 5 Back

5   Appendix 1, paragraph 26 Back

6   Appendix 1, paragraph 51 Back

7   Appendix 1, paragraph 52 Back

8   Appendix 1, paragraph 54 Back

9   Appendix 1, paragraph 54 Back

10   Appendix 1, WE3 Back

11   Appendix 1, paragraph 19 and WE4 Back

12   Appendix 1, paragraph 30 Back

13   Appendix 1, paragraph 54 Back

14   Appendix 1, paragraph 55 and 46 Back

15   Appendix 1, paragraph 58 Back

16   Appendix 2 Back

17   Appendix 1, WE4 Back

18   Appendix 2 Back

19   Appendix 2 Back

20   Appendix 2 Back

21   The full text of the Standing Order is available at www.parliament.uk Back

22   Eighth Report of Session 2006-07, Conduct of Mr Martin Salter and Mr Rob Wilson, paragraph 16 Back

23   See the Second Report of Session 2009-10, Implementing the Twelfth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, paragraph 14 Back