Introduction

1.  We have received a memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, reporting on the outcome of his inquiries into a complaint against David Tredinnick, the Member for Bosworth. The memorandum is appended to this Report.[1]

2.  The complaint against Mr Tredinnick was made by Mr Michael Mullaney, who has been selected to contest Mr Tredinnick's seat for the Liberal Democrats at the next General Election. Mr Mullaney complained that a four-page Westminster Report leaflet circulated by Mr Tredinnick funded from his Communications Allowance breached the rules for such publications, because it included photographs of named Conservative politicians, most of whom were standing for re-election at the time the leaflet was distributed.[2]

3.  The rules that applied to Communications Allowance at the time stated that:

No party political or campaigning material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or in part, from the allowances.[3]

All Members had been informed in March 2009 that they should not distribute any material funded from their Communications Allowance between 6 May and 4 June inclusive.

4.  The essence of Mr Mullaney's complaint was that Mr Tredinnick's Westminster Report, funded from his Communications Allowance, contained party political and campaigning material and that it may have been distributed during the "closed period" ahead of the June 2009 elections.[4]

The Commissioner's findings

5.  The Commissioner notes that Mr Tredinnick made extensive use of photographs throughout his four-page newsletter:

Across the first three pages, there were a total of 21 captioned photographs of Mr Tredinnick, in all but one case accompanied by others, illustrating his activities as the local Member of Parliament. The back page carried two further pictures of Mr Tredinnick, one of which showed him with Rt Hon David Cameron MP, and six smaller, uncaptioned photographs of which all but one were repeats of photographs appearing in the first three pages of the publication.[5]

The photographs and accompanying captions took up about two thirds of the newsletter. The newsletter cost £2,211 to print and £1,680 to distribute.[6] Mr Tredinnick claimed these sums from his Communications Allowance.

6.  The Commissioner concludes:

Three of the four photographs Mr Tredinnick used on the first page of his newsletter showed four elected Conservative councillors and a Conservative MEP. Two out of four showed no one other than the Member and these Conservative politicians. I consider the use of these photographs on the front page gave undue prominence to other elected politicians from Mr Tredinnick's own party. I consider that Mr Tredinnick was also particularly unwise in including three photographs (plus a repeat in the back page montage) of a borough councillor whom he knew would shortly be standing for election to the county council and who was up against a sitting councillor from another party.[7]

He also concludes that, although the newsletter was distributed shortly before the beginning of the closed period leading up to the June elections, Mr Tredinnick should have been more aware of the political sensitivity of the photographs of local candidates at such a time.[8]

7.  In the Commissioner's judgment,

given the centrality of the photographs and the high preponderance of identified Conservative elected politicians throughout the publication, … the overall effect was to tip the whole document into a publication which promoted the interests of Mr Tredinnick's political party. It was, in that sense, a party political document.[9]

The Commissioner has upheld the complaint.[10]

Mr Tredinnick's evidence

8.  Mr Tredinnick has accepted that he was in error and has apologised.[11] He has pointed out that the rules in force at the time his newsletter was produced did not make specific reference to use of photographs, and that the complaint against him was made by a political opponent.

Conclusion

9.  We agree with the Commissioner that Mr Tredinnick's Westminster Report newsletter funded from his Parliamentary Communications Allowance was in breach of the rules, because in its use of photographs of local politicians who were shortly to stand for elective office it had the effect of promoting their interests and those of his party. We accept that this use of photographs was on such a scale as to taint the whole newsletter, although apart from the captions the written content of the newsletter was within the rules.

10.  In our view, Mr Tredinnick was also unwise to include in the newsletter a photograph of himself with his party leader. Although the Commissioner has not commented on this photograph in his conclusions, we are of the view that a photograph of a Member with his or her party leader has, unavoidably, a party political context, which in many cases is likely to render it inappropriate for use in a publication which is funded by Parliament. We note that the photograph of Mr Tredinnick with Mr David Cameron was taken following an event in 2006 attended by business people from Mr Tredinnick's constituency. However, none of these local people was included in the photograph.

11.  So far as Mr Tredinnick's two points made in mitigation are concerned, on the first we conclude that he should have sought full advice about his proposed use of photographs before distributing his newsletter, by submitting it to the Department of Resources for approval. On the second, we are of the view that so long as a complaint is neither frivolous nor vexatious, its origin is irrelevant to determining whether a breach has occurred and what penalty should be applied.

Recommendation

12.  We welcome Mr Tredinnick's acceptance of the Commissioner's conclusions and his apology. We recommend that Mr Tredinnick repay £1,945, which is half the cost of printing and distributing the newsletter.

2   Appendix 1, WE1 Back

3   Appendix 1, paragraph 6 Back

4   Appendix 1, paragraph 4 Back

5   Appendix 1, paragraph 58 Back

6   Appendix 1, paragraph 57 Back

7   Appendix 1, paragraph 71 Back

8   Appendix 1, paragraphs 72 and 73 Back

9   Appendix 1, paragraph 76 Back

10   Appendix 1, paragraph 78 Back

11   Appendix 2 Back