I do not wish to repeat the points I have already made to the Commissioner during the course of his inquiry. In particular, my views about the three articles under consideration are clearly set out.

There are two matters that I wish to draw to the Committee's attention. First, in what circumstances, if any, can the Commissioner widen his Inquiry beyond those specific issues that have been complained of?

My 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 he has chosen to go beyond this and investigate articles about which no complaint has been made.

The danger and unfairness of this approach are clear in this case. The original complaint concerned the article on housing; the Commissioner raised questions about the NHS article and then six months after the Inquiry began the Director of Operations raised issues concerning a third article.

I do think it would be helpful if the Committee would clarify the exact powers the Commissioner has.

I feel I must also draw the Committee's attention to the conduct of the complainant. Procedural Note 2 on "Complaining Against an MP" makes it clear at paragraph 16 that the Committee, "deprecates the making of statements to the press by complainants while an inquiry is in progress. Publication or disclosure of evidence or correspondence to anyone other than the Commissioner or Committee without the Committee's agreement would be a contempt of the House."

In fact the complainant did disclose evidence and correspondence. As a consequence the press were contacted (see Newcastle Journal 5 May 2009 page 7).

This is a clear contempt of the House which was compounded by the complainant's failure to respond to the Commissioner's letter to him of 9 July.

I hope the Committee will consider looking into this matter.