Conclusions
50. The issues I am to resolve are whether Mr Byers
was in breach of the rules of the House in allegedly distributing
his April 2009 newsletter outside his current constituency, and
whether the content of that newsletter breached the rules.
51. I am satisfied that Mr Byers had no intention
of distributing his newsletter outside his current constituency.
There is no evidence that it went to the whole of the two wards
mentioned by the complainant, or indeed outside Mr Byers' constituency
at all. It is disappointing that the complainant did not respond
to my request to substantiate this part of his allegations. But
the evidence in Mr Byers' favour is very persuasive. My conclusion
is that the newsletter was not distributed outside Mr Byers' current
constituency.
52. Equally, there is no evidence that Mr Byers'
newsletter was distributed along with other material. The evidence
points clearly to the newsletter having been distributed to Mr
Byers' constituents as a single document.
53. I
conclude, therefore, that the distribution of Mr Byers' newsletter
was fully within the rules of the House. I do not, therefore,
uphold this part of the complaint.
54. I need also to consider whether the contents
of the newsletter, including three of the articles, were in breach
of the rules because of their party political content. The articles
in question, and my conclusions on them, are as follows:
1. The article headed "Mayor Harrison's Homes
Plan". Mr Byers described this article as a factual statement.
I disagree. 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
have pointed out, the article makes no reference to anything Mr
Byers had done as the constituency Member of Parliament. I fully
accept Mr Byers' statement that he has in fact been closely and
personally engaged in local housing issues, but I do not believe
it is reasonable, as he suggested, that readers should be expected
to know this already. The object of the Communications Allowance
is to permit Members to tell constituents about their activities
and in my judgement this article, for whatever reason, does not
do so. As the headline suggests, the story is about the Mayor
and his plans. It identifies the fact that the Mayor is directly
elected (which does not seem to me germane to the story). And
while I note Mr Byers' evidence that, at the time it was written,
the Mayor had not been nominated as an election candidate, I consider
that Mr Byers should have been sensitive to this possibility and
recognised the potential danger of appearing to endorse the work
of an elected person who would shortly be expected to stand for
re-election. In any event, 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. I
make no adverse finding about the accompanying photograph; I
accept the Department's advice that it was acceptable under the
rules at the time.
2. The article headed "Hospital Waiting Times
Cut". Mr Byers immediately accepted he should have
avoided using statistics in the way he used them in the newsletter.
I agree. The use of these statistics was clearly in breach of
the rules about the selective use of statistics, in particular
because they compared one administration unfavourably with another.
These rules were properly intended to prevent public funds being
used to make such party political points under the guise of a
statistical comparison. Mr Byers was wrong to present his article
in this way. Mr Byers told me that he did not realise the rules
on the use of figures were as restrictive as he considers them
to be. But he fairly accepts that ignorance is no defence. He
has readily apologised and has undertaken to ensure that this
does not happen again.
3. The article headed "Winning the Fight Together".
The Department of Resources was concerned that this article emphasised
the Government's response to the financial crisis, which Mr Byers
applauded, but said little about his own activities in Parliament
or locally. Mr Byers does not accept this conclusion. I note that
the article starts with a paragraph saying that Mr Byers would
focus his attention in the coming months on the economy, "keeping
people in jobs and ensuring support for our communities during
this difficult period." The third
paragraph reminds constituents of his contact details and that
the Member was there to help them. I recognise the Department's
concern, but 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.
55. Finally, I have considered whether the two breaches
I have identified are sufficient to taint the whole of the publication.
I have concluded that they are not. Taken together, I do not consider
that this newsletter was so party political in its content and
presentation as to suggest that Mr Byers should not have sought
funding from the Communications Allowance. But the two articles
I have identified should have been substantially modified and,
in my judgement, Mr Byers was in breach of the rules for including
them in his publication. While, under the rules at the time, he
was not required to consult the Department of Resources in advance,
the rules did encourage Members to do so. Had Mr Byers acted on
that encouragement and shown his newsletter in advance to the
Department, it is very likely that these breaches would have been
avoided.
56. I make the following concluding points:
1. The Committee will wish to come to its own view
on whether it was right for me to raise with Mr Byers the content
of two of his articles in addition to the one specifically identified
by the complainant. I set out my views in my letter to Mr Byers
of 27 October.[43] I
do not seek gratuitously to widen the scope of my inquiries. But
I consider that it would have been wrong for me, and the Department,
to have ignored other possible breaches of the rules in the content
and presentation of the newsletter simply because the complainant
had not identified them. It is not reasonable, in my judgement,
to expect complainants to have such a detailed understanding of
the rules of the House and their interpretation.
2. Mr Byers has also raised questions about the conduct
of the complainant in apparently releasing to the press the content
of my letter to him.[44]
I have not made inquiries into this matter which, of course, goes
to the privileges of the House.
57. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Byers was not
in breach of the rules of the House in the arrangements he made
for the distribution of his April 2009 newsletter. I do not therefore
uphold that part of the complaint. I have found that Mr Byers
was in breach of the rules, however, because, in my judgement,
the content of two of the articles included in that newsletter
constituted party political material. I do not consider that the
content of these two articles overall tainted the whole publication,
but it was a failure on Mr Byers' part to have included them.
I therefore uphold the complaint that Mr Byers breached the rules
of the House in respect of the content of his article on the Mayor's
homes plan. The content of the article on the waiting time statistics
did not form part of the complaint, but was nevertheless also
in breach of the rules. Mr Byers has apologised for this second
breach.
58. Mr Byers' decision not to seek the advice of
the House authorities in my judgement led him into including two
articles in his newsletter which had no place in a parliamentary-funded
publication. It was a misjudgement which was, in my view, significant
but not at the most serious level for this sort of publication.
26 November 2009
John Lyon CB
24 
