16. Letter
to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP, 12 November
2009
Thank you for your letters of 8 and 27 October.
It would now appear that questions about this particular
Parliamentary Newsletter are being raised by three people - the
original complainant (Mr Moat), [the Director of Operations at
the Department of Resources] and yourself.
For convenience I will deal with the issues raised
by each separately.
1. Mr Paul Moat
The original complaint made to you by my constituent,
Mr Moat raised three specific areas of complaint which he asked
you to investigate. These were: i) that the newsletter was distributed
outside my constituency boundaries, ii) that it was distributed
with other material of a party political nature, and iii) that
the article concerning the Mayor's housing plans breached the
rules governing the Communications Allowance. No other article
was complained about.
With regard to i) and ii) these allegations are totally
without foundation and I hope that the documentation I have provided
and the letter from the distribution company are sufficient.
On a procedural note would it not have been appropriate
for Mr Moat to have been asked at the very beginning for at least
some supporting evidence to back up his allegations? I note that
when you did write to Mr Moat after you had begun your investigation
asking for some evidence he did not even give you the courtesy
of a reply.
Mr Moat is a party political activist in my constituency.
In early May he disclosed details of his complaint and your response
to the local press on Tyneside. The rules and guidance for complaints
to yourself make it clear that such conduct is a contempt of the
House. I would like to know what action will be taken against
him.
With regard to iii) I made my views clear in my original
response to you. I note that [the Director of Operations in the
Department of Resources] accepts that it is not overtly party
political and does not directly promote the Mayor as a candidate
for election. I would also submit that a newsletter is not going
out into a vacuum. Through other means, e.g. newspaper articles,
my campaigning on housing matters is well known. I also deal with
a large number of housing cases as part of my constituency casework.
2. [The Director of Operations, Department of
Resources]
[The Director] raises concerns about an article on
the economy which "emphasises the Government's response to
the financial crisis, which Mr Byers applauds."
I think [the Director] is referring to the article
on the front page in which I state "the
government is right to take whatever action is necessary..."
I would argue that the wording I used is rather more
balanced than might be implied from [the Director's] observation.
My purpose was to communicate to my constituents that help was
at hand and that they should get in contact with me. This is made
clear in the article.
I note that you had no concerns about this article.
With respect to both the above articles on housing
and the economy [the Director] himself points out these are fine
distinctions on which others might fairly reach different conclusions.
3. Parliamentary Commissioner
You raised the article concerning the NHS and selective
use of statistics. As I said in my original response this was
a mistake for which I apologise.
With regard to two further issues. First, I did not
submit the text of the newsletter for approval because at the
time there was no requirement to do so.
Secondly, I feel I must raise with you again the
powers you have to go beyond the original complaint. I have considered
carefully your letter of 27 October. It does appear to me that
you have gone beyond the powers that have been given to you. The
complaint you received from Mr Moat was very clear about the issues
he was referring to you for consideration. You have gone beyond
the matters complained of by considering the articles relating
to the NHS and the economy when no complaint has been received
in relation to them. I cannot see in the Rules that you have such
authority. No doubt this is a matter that the Committee will wish
to consider.
12 November 2009
17. Letter
to Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP from the Commissioner, 12 November
2009
Thank you for your letter of 12 November responding
to my letters to you of 8 and 27 October.
I was grateful to have your comments on those matters
which have been raised in the course of this inquiry. I will
reflect them in the memorandum which I am now preparing for the
Committee on Standards and Privileges.
As you rightly surmise, it will be for the Committee
to form their own view on the questions you raise about the scope
of my inquiry and to consider the point you raise about a potential
breach of parliamentary privilege on the part of the complainant.
I will, therefore, now complete my work on the factual
sections of my memorandum and send them to you so you can comment
as you wish on their accuracy. I will then prepare my conclusions
and submit the full memorandum to the Committee. I will inform
you and the complainant when I do so. The Committee's clerk will
then show you my full memorandum and invite any comments you may
wish to make on it before the matter is considered by the Committee.
Thank you again for your help with this matter.
12 November 2009
