House of Commons - David Tredinnick - Standards and Privileges Committee

David Tredinnick - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Complaint against Mr David Tredinnick MP

Complaint against Mr David Tredinnick MP

Introduction

1. This memorandum reports on my investigation into a complaint that Mr David Tredinnick, Member for Bosworth, used Parliamentary allowances to print and distribute a newsletter for party political purposes.

The Complaint

2. On 7 May 2009 I received a letter[12] from Mr Michael Mullaney of Hinckley, Leicestershire, in which he complained about a leaflet—David Tredinnick's Westminster Report - News from the Member of Parliament for Bosworth—which he said was funded from parliamentary allowances. Mr Mullaney forwarded a copy of this report[13] and commented that it included, on the front page, a photograph of a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who was standing in the European Parliamentary election on 4 June, and also included named photographs of five Bosworth Conservative County Councillors, despite it being delivered during the nomination period for the county council elections on 4 June 2009. Mr Mullaney asked whether it was a breach of the rules for the Communications Allowance to feature so many candidates from one party who were standing for election so soon.

3. I replied to Mr Mullaney on 11 May, accepting his complaint.[14] I noted that, in essence, his complaint against Mr Tredinnick was that he had used his parliamentary funded Westminster Report to promote a political party and people seeking election, contrary to the rules of the House, and might have done so during the closed period for such publications ahead of the June elections.

Relevant Rules of the House

4. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in paragraph 14 as follows:

"Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services."

The relevant rules at the time of publication are those set out in the booklet published in April 2007 entitled The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery. These rules apply both to the Communications Allowance and the provision which replaced it in April 2009, Communications Expenditure. The scope and purpose of the allowance for Members' communications are set out in paragraph 6.1.1 of Appendix One to the April 2007 booklet as follows:

"The Communications Allowance (CA) is available to meet the cost of Members engaging proactively with their constituents through a variety of media. It can be used for the production of unsolicited communications within the parameters set out in this Section.

"The CA may only be used to help Members inform their constituents about what they have been doing and to consult them on issues of importance to them locally. It cannot be used to meet personal costs or the costs of party political activities or campaigning. The main areas of expenditure available from the CA are outlined below. It is each Member's responsibility to ensure that all expenditure funded by the CA is wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on their Parliamentary duties."

5. Paragraph 6.2.1 includes the following section:

"6.2.1. Principles and Propriety

…

The content of any communications paid from the allowances must not seek to compare the Member's party favourably with another, promote one party at the expense of another or seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents."

6. Paragraph 6.12.1. includes the following:

"No party political or campaigning material is allowable in any part of a publication funded, in whole or in part, from the allowances. Members wishing to produce a joint publication with an MSP, MEP or AM must ensure the entire content is free of such material. If you wish to include material which is not allowed under these rules, you must fund the whole cost from another source."

7. Paragraph 6.12.4 provides as follows:

"You must not use your CA funded publications or websites:

…

to encourage people to join a particular political party

…

to promote or campaign on behalf of any person seeking election
to criticise or campaign against anyone seeking election or otherwise seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents
for the purpose of advancing perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any other such party or organization…"

8. Appendix Two to the April 2007 rules provides further guidance on producing newsletters and other publications. Paragraphs 19 and 20 provide as follows:

"The Department of Finance and Administration is responsible for interpreting and enforcing rules relating to Parliamentary allowances, as set out in the Green Book and in this publication. If you are satisfied that your publication conforms to the above rules, you may meet the costs from your Communications Allowance in the normal way. Members are not required to submit publications to DFA prior to printing. However, the Department does offer advice and guidance on the content of newsletters and Members are encouraged to make use of this service.

"If you want advice on the proposed content of any publication, you may approach DFA whose experienced staff will undertake a full review on your behalf. The Department will aim to complete this within 3 working days. Please allow time for this process before going to print. While the Department will always offer advice in good faith, responsibility for ensuring compliance with the rules remains unchanged. In the event of a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will wish to know whether advice was sought."

9. The question of the timing of the circulation of newsletters in advance of the June 2009 elections was dealt with in the letter of 2 March 2009 from the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources to all Members, in which he explained "…you may not distribute any material paid for from Communications Expenditure from 6 May 2009 to 4 June 2009 inclusive."

My Inquiries

10. I wrote to Mr Tredinnick on 11 May to invite his comments on the allegation.[15] I asked him why he had decided to include in his Westminster Report each of the seven photographs featuring local councillors and an MEP and why he considered (if he did so) that it was necessary to include each of those photographs and the captions identifying the status of the individual; to which political parties the MEP and each of the Councillors belonged; whether each was standing for election on 4 June and, if they were all from the same party as alleged; why he had not included photographs of elected representatives from any other party; whether he considered, on reflection, that the photographs and their captions were in accordance with the rules of the House; how many copies of his Westminster Report had been distributed; when the distribution began and ended, and whether any distributions occurred on or after 6 May 2009; the costs of the preparation, production and distribution of the report; and whether he had consulted the Department of Resources about the content of his report, including the photographs and captions.

11. Mr Tredinnick acknowledged my letter on 12 May[16] and replied substantively on 29 May.[17] He said he had opposed the Communications Allowance and had not intended to use it at all, but had decided to produce a newsletter following media criticism, which in his view was "a little unfair", that he did not have a high enough media profile. He had "consulted carefully" the rules set out in The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery. It was his "firm intention" that the newsletter be within the rules.

12. In response to my specific questions, Mr Tredinnick commented that dealing with local matters "almost always involves interaction with elected county, borough and parish councillors". When making visits in his constituency it was his "normal practice" to have with him one or more of the councillors representing the ward. In the newsletter the councillors had been named because that "better illustrates the photograph and my work as an MP". Nowhere in the newsletter were the councillors illustrated who were standing for election described as candidates, nor were political affiliations given.

13. The MEP and the councillors illustrated were all Conservatives. Mr Tredinnick commented, "I have almost never been associated in any way with councillors from other parties. Councillors from other parties would not expect to be included in any publication I produce and would object if I tried to include them."

14. Mr Tredinnick said that there was no party political or campaigning material in the publication. In his view, it did not encourage people to join a political party, or promote or campaign on behalf of anyone seeking election, nor did it criticise or campaign against anyone seeking election, or otherwise seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents. Mr Tredinnick also stated that the publication did not advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any party which he supported or to damage any other party or organisation. He commented, "Simply it gives a factual account of my activities with other elected representatives."

15. 40,000 leaflets had been printed, at a cost of £2,211. Approximately three-quarters had been delivered by 6 May. Mr Tredinnick said that none had been distributed since then, and he intended to deliver the remainder after the 4 June elections. Distribution costs were £1,680.

16. On consultation with the Department of Resources about the content of the publication, Mr Tredinnick commented, "I did consult the Department of Resources about what was allowed and specifically asked about whether or not I could produce photographs of myself with other elected representatives and refer to them in the captions. I was told that I could. Unfortunately I do not recall the individual I spoke to."

17. Mr Tredinnick added that his Westminster Report used no party logos, contained no links to party websites, and did not give his political affiliation. It had been "a deliberate policy to use as many photographs as possible, illustrated with short captions, as experience and surveys show that most people will not read long articles". The leaflet contained his personal views, and not just statements of support or opposition for a particular policy. The main story, Listen to the People, asked the Borough Council to listen to constituents' views on travellers' sites and housing allocation which "concern constituents of all political persuasions; I am articulating my views based on constituents' views. I could forward to you literature from the three main political parties in my constituency criticising these policies in one form or another."

18. Of the two main stories on the inside pages (Success for Post Office Campaign and David's Backing for More Police) the post office campaign "required united action from elected politicians at national, county, borough and parish level. It would have been disingenuous and inaccurate to have portrayed it as my campaign only." The story behind David's Backing for More Police was "my campaign and has nothing to do with councillors and they are not mentioned." Mr Tredinnick said that all the mini stories named the individuals concerned in captions under photographs, where he had names, whether or not they were councillors. Where councillors were mentioned "their specific wards are mentioned too for greater accuracy."

19. The back page of the newsletter included two captioned photographs of Mr Tredinnick in the House, one of him speaking in the Chamber raising a constituency matter, and the other with Rt Hon David Cameron (the Member for Witney) following a meeting at the House with business people from Hinckley and Bosworth. It also included six small uncaptioned photographs[18]. Mr Tredinnick commented, "the large photographs show me at work in the House and the copy describes the range of activities in which I engage. The small photographs illustrate that range of activities." He added, "The box at the bottom right gives my contact details. It does not give my political affiliation."

20. I wrote to the Director of Operations at the Department of Resources on 1 June to ask for the Department's comments and advice on the complaint.[19] In particular I sought guidance on whether the number of photographs identifying councillors and, often, their wards was within the rules. I also asked for any record of the discussion with the Department which Mr Tredinnick had reported, and for confirmation about whether his Westminster Report had been submitted to the Department in advance.

21. I replied to Mr Tredinnick on 2 June.[20] I asked him to confirm whether the MEP and each of the councillors identified was standing for election on 4 June. Mr Tredinnick responded on 10 June. He told me, "Of the County Councillors standing for election, only those candidates who were already elected councillors were shown in the newsletter. Other first time council candidates were not shown. The County Councillors mentioned in the newsletter were all standing again, as was Roger Helmer MEP... Councillor Janice Richards was standing for election to the County, but is pictured in the newsletter in her capacity as a Borough Councillor."[21] I forwarded this letter to the Director of Operations.

22. The Director of Operations replied by a letter dated 2 July.[22] The Department had not seen Mr Tredinnick's report prior to publication or distribution. Mr Tredinnick had, during April 2009, submitted claims dated 31 March for the printing costs of the report and 30 March for the distribution costs. These matched the figures he had quoted in his letter.

23. On Mr Tredinnick's discussions with his Department, the Director commented, "We do not have a record of the conversation between Mr Tredinnick and a member of my staff about the use of photographs in his report. No member of staff recalls giving the advice mentioned by him and, whilst accepting Mr Tredinnick's account, I would be disappointed if any such advice had not been couched in rather more careful terms."

24. The Director went on to say that the Green Book stated that Members must take care when using photographs not to promote other elected office-holders or candidates for office. Captions had to be neutral and kept within the context of the publication.[23] The Department accepted that Members would often be accompanied by and photographed in the company of other elected representatives from their own party when they attended functions or made visits around their constituencies. He commented, "Mr Tredinnick defends his report by pointing out that he was only reflecting the work undertaken by himself or with colleagues, and that this was not part of a campaign or attempt to make party political points. I would agree that the text of the report is carefully judged so as not to be party political.".

25. The Director had asked the officials who reviewed all such reports to look at the report. They had confirmed that they were content with the text of the articles in the report. On the photographs and their accompanying captions, he commented, "[the officials] are clear that they would have asked Mr Tredinnick to reduce the use of photographs and captions that included other elected representatives to avoid the publication appearing to be one in collaboration with local politicians of the same party and hence giving the appearance of a party publication". He continued, "I am in no doubt that Mr Tredinnick was unwise to include so many references to party colleagues in his publication not least because it leaves him vulnerable to a complaint of promoting the work of other elected representatives very close to a politically sensitive period."

26. The Director considered that "on balance" Mr Tredinnick's report did break House rules. However, he added, "But, bearing in mind Mr Tredinnick's evidence to you and looking at the report in the round, I would take the view that on this occasion it would be harsh to require him to repay the costs… there will always be occasions where, say, the infringement is small or of a technical nature, or where the 'harm' caused is extremely limited. I think this is one such occasion."

27. I wrote to Mr Tredinnick on 14 July, inviting his comments on the response of the Director of Operations.[24] I asked in particular whether he accepted the Director's conclusion that the inclusion of, in effect, seven photographs identifying colleagues from his own political party was a breach of the rules, and on the Director's view that the infringement was small. I also asked Mr Tredinnick to confirm that all 40,000 leaflets had been dispatched and that the full cost was therefore as stated in his letter of 29 May;[25] how many leaflets had been distributed by 6 May; and how many had been distributed since the June elections, and when. I also set out the various ways in which I might proceed, in the light of his response, in relation to the complaint.

28. Mr Tredinnick replied on 22 July.[26] He accepted both the Director's conclusion that the text of the report was carefully judged so as not to be party political, and his officials' conclusion that they were content with the text of the articles in the report. On my question about what he described as "the seven photographs identifying colleagues from my political party", Mr Tredinnick did not think he could accept, without further advice from me, that the inclusion of these photographs was a breach of the rules. He had consulted the Department of Resources as to whether he could produce photographs of himself with other elected representatives and refer to them in captions, and, as he had said in his letter of 29 May,[27] the Department had told him that he could. He had sought this specific advice because the guidance in the published rules in force at the time, set out in The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery, issued in April 2007, gave no specific advice about the use of photographs, other than a paragraph advising on photographs of Members wearing party rosettes, which did not apply to any of his photographs.

29. Mr Tredinnick went on to note that the Director had based his arguments against the extent of his use of photographs with other elected representatives, and the references to them in the captions, on a provision of the 2009 Green Book. Mr Tredinnick considered that this "new ruling" could not be applied to his newsletter as it had been written and published before the 2009 Green Book (and consequently the advice cited by the Director) had been published. Mr Tredinnick also maintained that "the number of photographs of councillors with me in the course of my parliamentary work…was not excessive". As to the Director's overall assessment of the scale of his newsletter's infringement of the rules, Mr Tredinnick commented, "In the light of [Mr Tredinnick's point that the April 2009 rules did not apply to his publication] I wonder whether [the Director] would still hold the view that 'on balance it [the newsletter] does break the rules'".

30. Mr Tredinnick accepted the Director's view that it would be harsh to require him to repay the costs of the newsletter. As to the timing of the distribution of his publication, Mr Tredinnick commented, "As the closed period when a publication cannot be distributed is clearly defined and specific, I have some difficulty with the suggestion that I should have taken account of the period before the closed period."

31. As Mr Tredinnick had raised questions about the views of the Director of Operations, and the Green Book rules on which these may have been based, I wrote again to the Director on 3 August.[28] I sought his views in particular on Mr Tredinnick's argument that, since his newsletter was produced before the rules in the April 2009 Green Book entered into force, they did not apply. I asked whether, if this argument were accepted, the Director would still take the view that, on balance, Mr Tredinnick's newsletter broke the rules and, if so, which were the relevant rules.

32. Mr Tredinnick had been unable when he wrote in July to give me the information I had requested regarding the distribution arrangements for the newsletter as his agent, who had organised this, was on leave. He wrote again on 4 August[29] confirming the printing and distribution costs he had already given,[30] and saying that 30,000 of the 40,000 leaflets had been distributed prior to the 6 May deadline. Delivery of the remaining 10,000 leaflets had resumed on 6 July and he understood that the deliverers were down to the last few hundred.

33. The Director of Operations replied on 7 September.[31] He accepted that the published rules and guidance in force at the time Mr Tredinnick was preparing his newsletter did not contain specific references to the use of photographs of Members with other elected representatives, but he did not believe that this in itself meant that no breach of the rules had occurred. He commented, "The pre-April 2009 Green book is very clear that party political content is not allowed and that Members should seek guidance from the Department." [32] He added that, as with most books of rules, the published Green Book had tended to lag behind the most recent interpretations and advice. Thus "although the rules and guidance were not updated until April 2009, the Department was required to modify its approach and advice over time, usually in line with the consideration of issues by Committees of the House."

34. The Director went on to say that the Department had for some time advised Members against the use of photographs and captions which could give the impression of promoting the work of other elected representatives of the same party, especially when elections were pending. He added, "This latter point is important insofar as whilst Mr Tredinnick's report was issued prior to the closed period, there is no doubt that even at such an early stage some members of the public are very sensitive to the possible use of public money for political purposes. This makes the likelihood of a complaint greater even though the interpretation of the rules might remain largely unaffected."

35. The Director said that his Department's judgement remained that, "had we seen the report prior to publication and allowing for the proximity to the County Council elections, we would have recommended not using photographs of sitting councillors as extensively as Mr Tredinnick did. Had Mr Tredinnick insisted on using these particular photographs we would have asked for some modifications to be made. For example, we might have suggested excluding the councillors' names from the captions to avoid raising the profile of certain elected representatives; similarly, the inclusion of four photographs of Councillor Richards would seem to give her undue prominence and we would have asked Mr Tredinnick to reduce the number of times Ms Richards appeared". He noted my comment in a previous case that there is a fine and not always distinct line to be drawn when taking decisions on the content of Members' publications, and that the judgement of which issues and which illustrations to include can be difficult.[33] He commented, "This complaint is a case in point."

36. I wrote to Mr Tredinnick on 9 September, inviting his comments on the Director's letter.[34] Mr Tredinnick replied on 23 September.[35] He maintained that the rules in the then Green Book were "quite clear and I believe I abided by them" and that he took "reasonable steps" to follow them. He added, "I do not feel that I have included political content as there is no mention of the political affiliation of anyone in the leaflet or any attempt to promote a political party." He had spoken to officials on the telephone:

"I remember saying, 'Am I right in saying that there must be no mention of political parties or affiliation?' Answer, 'Yes'. 'As long as I abide by that rule and publish before the pre-election period, will that be OK?' Answer, 'Yes'. No mention of photographs was made."

Mr Tredinnick also said that no mention was made of any impending change in the rules.

37. On the Director's comment about the high level of sensitivity on the part of some members of the public to the possible use of public money for political purposes, Mr Tredinnick commented that he had not himself received any complaints from constituents about his newsletter. The complaint I had received had come from his prospective Liberal Democrat opponent, "which would indicate a political motivation".

38. Mr Tredinnick said he had prepared his leaflet in response to enquiries asking for details of his work in the constituency. A high proportion of the issues on which constituents contacted their Member of Parliament involved local government. He had wanted to show his involvement in a number of local issues and also to illustrate the fact that the most effective way to help constituents was to work closely with their elected local representatives. He commented, "To have omitted Councillors or their names would not have put this point across." In this context, he did not feel that including councillors in seven out of twenty four photographs was disproportionate. He added, "None of the photographs were taken for the purpose of inclusion in the leaflet, and they were taken before any county council candidates were adopted."

39. On the specific case of Councillor Richards, Mr Tredinnick commented that she was featured in three photographs in her capacity as an active elected member of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, and the photographs "illustrate issues that many constituents from her ward had raised with me". The fourth photograph was "part of the printer's art work on the back—there is no caption and those people featured in it are almost indistinguishable—so I do not feel this one counts".

40. Mr Tredinnick wrote to me again on 20 October,[36] shortly before we met for our interview, making clear that he regarded Mr Mullaney's complaint as party political. He added, "Furthermore, I think it was made as a tit for tat response to a complaint made by a former Conservative Councillor about the veracity or not of Lib Dem literature". In support of this assertion, he enclosed with his letter a copy of a Decision Notice relating to this complaint issued by the Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council on 8 April 2009, and a memorandum prepared by his agent.

41. I met Mr Tredinnick on 22 October 2009. [37] He started by reiterating his contention that "this whole complaint is party political". Having decided to produce a leaflet using the Communications Allowance as a response to criticisms of a lack of visibility in his constituency, he had left the writing to his agent, who was paid partly from House funds and was acting in his House capacity when producing the newsletter. The agent chose the stories, "had all the photos" and had "put the leaflet together". Mr Tredinnick's intention was "always to use pictures otherwise nobody reads it. One picture is worth a thousand words". He had had doubts about one picture on quality grounds, that showing Councillor Richards and Roger Helmer MEP (taken at a protest meeting in Earl Shilton about plans for a travellers' site there), but had decided to include it "because it was a big issue at the time". Other pictures were of meetings to which he had been "summoned". He had a big constituency "so I rely on councillors for their knowledge on the ground".

42. Mr Tredinnick said that, looking back, politically there had always been an issue in his constituency over the allocation of traveller sites. The borough council had drawn up plans which allocated almost half the travellers to Earl Shilton, and there was "uproar". He described the allocation of traveller sites as "the key issue at that point". He had told his agent to go ahead and get the newsletter out before the deadline (the closed period for the county council and European Parliament elections), and that he would check the rules.

43. Mr Tredinnick confirmed his original recollection, as set out in his letter of 29 May,[38] that he specifically asked the Department of Resources whether he could produce photographs of himself with other elected representatives and refer to them in the captions, and was told that he could. He believed that this was in March 2009. His statement in his letter of 23 September,[39] that no mention of photographs had been made, was "a mistake", and I should rely on his "factual recollection" in the earlier letter. Mr Tredinnick knew that he "couldn't include party political material; there were issues with logos and so on", but believed "it was all right to include details of [himself] and other elected representatives". The leaflet included "no House of Commons portcullis, no party logo, there is no reference to party political material in the text". His agent and his other staff had worked for him for a long time, and "we wouldn't have let it out if we hadn't felt it was right".

44. Mr Tredinnick had not considered it necessary to take up the Department's standing offer of a full review of the contents of the newsletter as there was, at the time, no requirement to do so, and he "didn't think there was anything in the text to require it. It wasn't required under the 2007 rules … It was a relatively simple document: the pictures and about a thousand words of text. … It wasn't political or controversial. I deliberately kept it very simple. I didn't think the photographs excessive."

45. The newsletter had been delivered by a local firm of professional distributors. While Mr Tredinnick had wanted it distributed as quickly as possible, the precise timetable had been left to the delivery firm. Mr Tredinnick had "wanted to get it out … while the issues were fresh. I instructed [the delivery company] to cut off distribution at midnight before the closed period. Distribution started again in rural areas later. By then some issues were out of date." He denied that he had rushed out as many copies as possible before the closed period, commenting "We were not fighting to get under the wire. It is good practice to get a leaflet out while issues are topical. There was no mad panic and we didn't hire thousands of people to distribute it." He considered that the risk of people misunderstanding his purpose in including the pictures of councillors would have arisen if he had gone past the cut-off date, which he did not do.

46. On the specific choice of photographs, Mr Tredinnick commented, "I hadn't overloaded the leaflet with pictures of councillors: they amounted to about one third of the pictures. There were shots of me with farmers and cheesemakers as well". He maintained that the photographs of councillors met criteria I had suggested in a previous case, namely, "when the elected people are clearly and consistently jointly engaged on a local activity".[40]

47. Mr Tredinnick had been aware that seven of the eight politicians he had pictured were standing for election in June. The county council had six wards in his constituency and "the county councillors are the most senior representatives after me and they are involved in all these issues with me. It would have been inaccurate to leave them out." He was also aware that the five county councillors featured constituted all but one of the Conservative county councillors representing divisions covering his constituency. He maintained that the lack of photographs including councillors from other parties was a consequence of the political situation in his area, where there is "a Liberal/Conservative dingdong". He continued, "There is no love lost between us … I don't have pictures of me working with Lib Dem councillors. I don't work with the Lib Dems. They don't have pictures of themselves with me in their leaflets". He added, "There is an irony in that the policing scheme I describe was agreed through the town centre partnership proposed by the Lib Dem council. So that article is a plug for them. Local people would know that".

48. Mr Tredinnick went on to explain that he had understood that he could be shown working with councillors, and commented, "I did this in good faith. I thought I had got this about right." He had included pictures only of serving councillors, and not candidates standing for election for the first time, because "it would have been party political. It is against the rules". He considered it "perfectly reasonable" to record his activities with councillors, but was "uneasy" about showing people with whom he had not worked. Except in a few instances, he "normally worked with councillors".

49. Mr Tredinnick said that all the events shown in the newsletter had been attended by him in his capacity as the Member of Parliament. He commented, "They were not party political events, any of them." The newsletter was "an attempt to record what I have been doing. As for the details, it does not include so much as a political e-mail address, anything about the Conservatives, no links, no torch and no logo."

50. Mr Tredinnick did not accept that, on the issue of traveller sites which he had said involved criticism of the policy from all three main parties, the inclusion of so many photographs of Conservative councillors suggested that the campaigns referred to in the newsletter had been conducted on a party political basis. He commented, "Public meetings were called and I was asked to attend. These meetings were set up by local people. The parish council got hold of me. I wasn't really making a party political point and I didn't accuse anybody." He subsequently said, "There is a distinction. Everything I do is political. But this was not party political. I provided a safety valve for the community, who were very angry. I wasn't directly critical of the council."

51. I asked whether the issues raised in his newsletter had also been issues at the county council elections in June. He commented, "The post offices were all done and dusted. Anger about the traveller sites had eased … some sites had been withdrawn or reclassified as no longer preferred." He added, "It shows how quickly the main issues had gone off the boil by the end of the closed period." In the specific case of the photograph of County Councillor David Sprason at a protest meeting about the Borough Council's plans for a traveller site in his area, Mr Tredinnick commented that Mr Sprason had been present at the meeting "as a county councillor and to support me", and that in the event the site "wasn't much of an issue in that ward for the election."

52. The three pictures of Councillor Richards were all of her in her capacity as a borough councillor and reflected campaigns and issues in which she had been involved in that capacity. Mr Tredinnick accepted that she had indeed been elected to the county council, defeating a sitting member, but denied that the picture illustrating issues of vandalism and anti-social behaviour which showed her holding a broken paving stone could be seen as promoting party political interests and a person seeking election. He commented, "let us come back to the rules. So long as you observe the closed period rules, being shown with someone in an elected capacity is fine."

53. Mr Tredinnick said that the councillors pictured were all involved with him in the issues featured, and it would have been "inaccurate" to have left out their names, and it would have made him "look out of touch" to have omitted where they represented. He added, "And not everybody knows who represents them". The degree of accuracy in the captions "informs readers that I am in touch with local representatives. It shows I am on the ball. If you took the pictures out it wouldn't show me working with the local community." In areas of his constituency where there were no Conservative councillors, he took his local agent who "would know what was going on".

54. Mr Tredinnick did not think that, from the newsletter, any reader would know he was a Conservative, and commented, "It doesn't say". On the inclusion of a photograph of himself with Mr David Cameron, Mr Tredinnick commented, "The picture is there to show that I am in touch with people who are important, not to show that David Cameron thinks I am a wonderful MP."[41]

55. To the suggestion that his choice of photographs and their captions had the effect of promoting the interests of fellow Conservatives whom he knew were shortly to stand for election, Mr Tredinnick commented, "It was not my intention. That was to record my activities in the constituency. I assiduously avoided any reference to candidature in the coming elections. I did not include reference to political parties, nor any logos." He went on to say, "On party political content, this was a political leaflet but not a party political one." He believed he had acted reasonably, commenting, "With hindsight, in view of the speed at which we were working and the thousand other things we had to do, I think I acted reasonably. I could have checked the pictures, and I would have done it differently, but I checked with the Department on the big issues and I thought these had been cleared. But the pictures were modest, and the complainant is trying to make mischief for me…I wanted to stay within the rules and I thought I had got it right."

56. On 29 October, Mr Tredinnick wrote to me further about his thinking at the time he issued the newsletter.[42] With his letter he forwarded statistics prepared by the House of Commons Library showing changes in the relevant share of the vote in 2005 and 2009. [43] On the intended impact of the newsletter, he commented that it was "broadly intended as a record of my activities in the constituency… If it is felt that I gained a political advantage through the newsletter I would suggest the opposite because in my constituency in the County elections the Conservatives were net losers … We did win one seat in Earl Shilton but we lost two in Burbage Castle to the Liberal Democrats." He maintained that if he had intended the newsletter to be party political " it would have had a quite different focus … it would have pointless covering the safe Conservative divisions of Market Bosworth and Markfield, …[and] unnecessary to cover Earl Shilton because … it was inevitable that Labour would lose that ward. It would have made much more sense to focus the newsletter on the Burbage Castle ward which was the real battleground between the Conservatives and the Liberals." He concluded, "If it is argued that the photographs of me with Janice Richards … helped her, then it can equally be argued that my photos with Mary Sherwin and John Moore … were counterproductive and contributed to their defeat."

Findings of Fact

57. In March 2009, Mr David Tredinnick decided to produce a newsletter for his constituents illustrating his work in the constituency. The newsletter was prepared in March 2009. It was entitled David Tredinnick's Westminster Report: News from the Member of Parliament for Bosworth. 30,000 copies of the newsletter were distributed by a professional distribution company from April 2009 to midnight on 5 May 2009, by which time the distribution was halted because of the start of the closed period for communications funded from parliamentary allowances in advance of the County council and European elections on 4 June 2009. A further 10,000 copies were distributed from 6 July to mid-August. The cost of printing the 40,000 copies of Mr Tredinnick's newsletter was £2,211. The distribution costs were £1,680. These costs were met from Mr Tredinnick's Communications Allowance for 2008-09.

58. As a matter of deliberate policy, Mr Tredinnick had used as many photographs as possible, illustrated with short captions. The photographs and accompanying captions accounted for about two-thirds of the available space. The publication highlighted three main stories on the first three pages (MP says Listen to the People, Success for Post Office Campaign, and David's Backing for more Police). The back page listed the ways Mr Tredinnick acted on behalf of his constituents, together with his contact details. 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.

59. Of the 21 photographs on the first three pages, seven showed Mr Tredinnick with other elected representatives. In total, eight elected representatives were shown, one of whom was pictured three times. All were Conservatives. Seven stood in the June elections.[44] Details of those pictured who stood, their description in the relevant captions in the newsletter, the election they were contesting, and the outcome of the election in each case, are given in the table below:

Name Description in caption Election contested Outcome

Roger Helmer (pictured with Janice Richards) MEP European Parliament Re-elected

Ruth Camamile County Councillor County Council Re-elected

John Moore (pictured with Mary Sherwin) Burbage Castle Division County Councillor County Council Defeated

Ivan Ould County Councillor for Market Bosworth Division County Council Re-elected

Janice Richards (three photographs, one with Roger Helmer) 1) Earl Shilton Borough Councillor (two photographs)

2) Local councillor (one photograph)
County Council Elected (defeated sitting Labour councillor in Earl Shilton Division)

Mary Sherwin (pictured with John Moore) Burbage Castle Division
County Councillor
County Council Defeated

David Sprason County Councillor County Council Re-elected

60. The Department of Resources is content with the text of the articles in the report. But they consider unwise the inclusion of so many references to Mr Tredinnick's party colleagues, particularly when the June elections were pending, when in their view there was a high level of sensitivity on the part of some members of the public to the possible use of public money for political purposes. The Department consider that the Green Book in force at the time Mr Tredinnick produced his publication, although not containing specific references to the use of photographs with other elected representatives, nonetheless made clear that party political content was not allowed, and that Members should seek guidance from the Department. They have no record of any conversation Mr Tredinnick had with the Department and would be disappointed if any advice he had received had not been couched in more careful terms than Mr Tredinnick reported. Had Mr Tredinnick submitted his publication to them in advance, the Department would have asked him to reduce the use of photographs and captions that included other elected representatives to avoid the publication appearing to have been produced in collaboration with local politicians of the same party, and hence having the appearance of a party publication. Overall, the Department takes the view that, on balance, Mr Tredinnick's report did breach House rules, but the scale and nature of the infringement was small and the harm very limited.

61. Mr Tredinnick's evidence is that the Department of Resources had told him that it was permissible for him to include in his newsletter photographs of himself with other elected representatives. He did not submit the publication to the Department prior to publication because there was at that time no requirement to do so, and, given the content, he saw no need to do so. The number of photographs involving councillors was not in his view disproportionate given the high proportion of issues on which he was contacted that involved local government, and it illustrated the fact that the most effective way for him to help constituents on local issues as their Member of Parliament was to work closely with elected local representatives of like mind. Identifying the councillors in the ways he had done better illustrated both the photographs and his work as a Member of Parliament. The closed period for distribution was clearly defined and specific, and he had fully respected this. There was nothing about the publication which identified him as a Conservative, nor did it indicate whether any of those featured were to be candidates in the June elections. Had he intended the publication to be party political, it would have had a quite different focus. In his view, he took reasonable steps to follow the rules as set out in the Green Book in force at the time the publication was prepared, and in his opinion, the publication as a whole, including the photographs and captions, fully complied with the published rules of the House then in force.

Conclusions

62. The issue I am to resolve is whether Mr Tredinnick was within the rules for the funding of Parliamentary newsletters to include in his newsletter seven photographs showing him with local Conservative party councillors.

63. The first matter I need to address is to confirm which rules should be applied to this publication. The point is material because the April 2009 rules for the Communications Expenditure provide specifically that Members must take care when using photographs not to promote other elected office holders or candidates for office. There is no such specific provision in the previous rules.

64. Mr Tredinnick's newsletter is on the cusp of the two sets of rules. It was prepared before the new rules came into force: it was distributed after. I consider it is wholly reasonable however for the rules in relation to the Communications Allowance to apply to this case. This is both because the newsletter was drafted before the new rules came into force on 1 April 2009 and because its funding came from Mr Tredinnick's Communications Allowance for 2008-09.

65. The basic provisions of both the old and the new rules are, however, very similar since the detailed guidance given in April 2007 remained in force under the April 2009 rules. The April 2007 rules make clear that newsletters funded from parliamentary resources must not promote or campaign on behalf of a person seeking election, or have the intention of promoting the interests of any political party or organisation supported by the Member. No party political or campaigning material is allowable.

66. I need now consider whether Mr Tredinnick's use of the photographs of councillors and an MEP, with their captions, was in breach of those rules.

67. My conclusion is that they were. I accept the Department's judgement that, had they been asked to view the whole publication in advance, they would have advised reducing the use of photographs and captions including other elected representatives, so as to avoid the publication appearing to be one produced in collaboration with local politicians of the same party and hence giving the appearance of a party publication. I agree also with the Department's conclusion that Mr Tredinnick was unwise to include so many references to his party colleagues in his publication.

68. The Department was also correct in noting from one of my previous reports that there is a fine and not always distinct line to be drawn in deciding on whether the issues and illustrations included in newsletters promote the party political interests of the Member. As I said then, the judgement on which issues and which illustrations to include can be difficult. But, while there are difficult judgements always to be made, I do not consider that, taken overall, Mr Tredinnick's choice of photographs for his newsletter are particularly close to the border between party political material and acceptable presentation.

69. Mr Tredinnick has emphasised a paragraph in my previous report which, he has suggested, states that including photographs of elected representatives of the same party as the Member is acceptable when the elected people are clearly and consistently jointly engaged on a local activity. The full sentence reads: "While care needs to be taken over including elected representatives from other institutions of the same party as the Member, it is in my view acceptable to do so when the elected people are clearly and consistently jointly engaged on a local activity." [45] The question which Mr Tredinnick's reference requires me to answer is whether, in the context of his publication, Mr Tredinnick took sufficient care in including elected councillors and an MEP in his photographs.

70. On the basis of all the evidence I have seen, I do not consider that Mr Tredinnick took sufficient care in the choice of these photographs. The result was that the newsletter had the effect, if not the specific intention, of promoting the interests of the political party which Mr Tredinnick supported. Mr Tredinnick selected seven photographs of elected Members out of the 21 included in his newsletter (excluding the back page montage where three of the six photos showed some of those councillors again and the two main photographs are of himself, one with Mr David Cameron MP, the leader of his party). Mr Tredinnick's evidence to me was that the photographs were an essential part of the story he wanted to tell of his work in the constituency. They were central to the whole publication. In such circumstance, the choice of photograph is particularly important, since it was the photographs which were intended to carry the message.

71. 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. I do not suggest that her victory in the June election was a consequence of Mr Tredinnick's newsletter, but it was an unwise choice which, in my judgement, had the effect of promoting the interests of Mr Tredinnick's political party and of promoting someone whom he knew would shortly be seeking election.

72. Mr Tredinnick has suggested that there should be no heightened sensitivity about the content of a newsletter even if it is distributed right up to the start of the closed period before an election. I do not agree. There is bound to be increasing political sensitivity in the run up to an election period. That sensitivity does not start at the beginning of the closed period. It starts some time before, depending often on the political climate and local circumstances. Members should be expected to be aware of such political sensitivities in preparing communications funded from parliamentary allowances. Not to do so is to risk falling foul of the rule against including party political material in parliamentary funded publications.

73. While the precise point after which party political sensitivity may increase is, as Mr Tredinnick has suggested, hard to define, there is no doubt in my view that by the time Mr Tredinnick's newsletter was being distributed in April and May 2009, such political sensitivities are likely to have already started, particularly on the sort of local issues identified in Mr Tredinnick's report. Mr Tredinnick knew that the politicians he had pictured intended to stand in the June election. It was that knowledge which should have alerted him to the danger of using so many captioned photographs of them in his publication.

74. I have not considered the hypothetical question of whether the publication would have been in breach of the rules had it been distributed further away from an election period. I do not do so because the context of each publication is all important. But it should not be assumed that the newsletter would necessarily have been acceptable if it had been distributed at another time.

75. In summary, therefore, my judgement is that Mr Tredinnick was clearly in breach of the rules in his use of these photographs. This is because:

1. seven of the 21 captioned photographs of Mr Tredinnick in his constituency included photographs of him with seven local Conservative party councillors and one Conservative MEP: the proportion of photographs showing these elected members was too high;

2. six of the seven councillors and the MEP were to stand in the relevant June elections;

3. in four cases, and in four of the seven photographs, the ward of the councillor was identified. This was not in my judgement necessary in order to explain the involvement of the Member of Parliament. I note that Mr Tredinnick said in his oral evidence that "not everyone knows who represents them." In a communication illustrating the work of the Member of Parliament, I do not think it is necessary for the reader to know which local councillor represents their area;

4. all the issues identified in the photographs related to local issues which could have been expected to have some relevance to the forthcoming local election campaign;

5. three quarters of the distribution for the newsletter (30,000 copies) was dispatched before, but not long before, the closed period for the June elections: it is right for Members to be especially sensitive to possible political promotion so near to an election.

76. I have considered also whether the inclusion of these photographs was sufficiently serious as to taint the whole publication. On this, I take a different view from the Department. Mr Tredinnick's newsletter depended on the photographs for its impact. Taken together, they were central to his newsletter and to the message he wished to get across about the work he was doing as a Member of Parliament and the way he was undertaking that work. I accept that the newsletter overall did enable Mr Tredinnick to show his constituents what he had been doing and the particular causes and interests which he had been working on with his local authority colleagues. I accept also Mr Tredinnick's evidence that it would have been possible for his newsletter to have been more politically focussed. And I accept that there is no proven correlation between the newsletter and the election results.

77. But, given the centrality of the photographs and the high preponderance of identified Conservative elected politicians throughout the publication, I believe that 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. It demonstrated how the Member of Parliament worked with local Conservative councillors to campaign on local issues. That in my judgement was not the sort of presentation which should have been funded from parliamentary resources.

78. I make the following additional points:

1. I do not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Tredinnick had the specific intention of promoting his political party in this publication, but I consider that he did not take sufficient care to ensure, in all the circumstances, that the publication did not have that effect. He was, therefore, in my judgement, in breach of the rule prohibiting publications which have the intention of promoting the Member's political party.

2. Mr Tredinnick has fairly argued that the depiction of so many councillors from his own party in these photographs simply reflected the way he works in his constituency. It is for the Member, of course, to conduct his constituency work in the way he or she thinks fit. But, where, as in this case, the Member's constituency work appears to be closely aligned with his or her local party, the Member needs to choose between presenting his or her work in a less party political manner, or funding the newsletter from other than parliamentary resources.

3. Mr Tredinnick relied on a telephone conversation with the Fees Office which neither he or the Department of Resources recorded. This is an uncertain way of securing authoritative guidance from the House authorities on a matter which, as events have shown, could risk the Member being subject to a substantiated complaint. It is helpful that, under the current rules for the Communications Expenditure, Members are required to get approval from the Department before committing to expenditure above £1,000 for their production and design costs. Had Mr Tredinnick more fully accepted the encouragement in the April 2007 rules to use the Department's advice service on the content of his publication and obtained a full review, it should have been possible to have avoided this breach of the rules.

79. I conclude, therefore, that Mr Tredinnick breached the rules of the House in distributing a newsletter which contained a substantial number of captioned photographs of local Conservative party councillors and an MEP in a way which had the effect of promoting the interests of his political party by promoting politicians who were shortly to stand for election. I therefore uphold this complaint.

John Lyon CB 19 November 2009
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

12 WE 1 Back

13 WE 2 Back

14 WE 3 Back

15 WE 4 Back

16 WE 5 Back

17 WE 6 Back

18 Five of the six small photographs consisted of details from larger photographs on other pages. The sixth was a photograph of the Palace of Westminster. Back

19 WE 7 Back

20 WE 8 Back

21 WE 9 Back

22 WE 12 Back