House of Commons - David Tredinnick - Standards and Privileges Committee

David Tredinnick - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents

Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Michael Mullaney, 29 April 2009

I am writing to you about a Communications Allowance funded leaflet which is being delivered on behalf of Bosworth's Member of Parliament, David Tredinnick.

The leaflet includes a photo on the front page featuring an MEP who is standing for election on June 4th. The leaflet also has named photographs of five Bosworth Conservative County Councillors in Bosworth, despite it being during the nomination period for the County Council elections on June 4th.

Is it breaching the rules of the Communications Allowance to feature so many candidates from one party who are standing for election so soon?

I have enclosed a copy of the leaflet and hope you will be able to look into this matter.

Can I also put in a Freedom of Information request for how much public money it cost to produce and distribute this leaflet across Bosworth constituency?

29 April 2009

2. Mr David Tredinnick's Westminster Report

3. Letter to Mr Michael Mullaney from the Commissioner, 11 May 2009

Thank you for your letter of 29 April with your complaint against Mr David Tredinnick MP about his parliamentary funded Westminster report.

In essence, your complaint is that Mr Tredinnick used his parliamentary funded Westminster Report to promote a political party and people seeking election, contrary to the rules of the House, and may have done so during the closed period for the forthcoming June elections.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow. Having accepted your complaint, I have written to Mr Tredinnick to invite his comments. When I receive his response, I shall consider how best to proceed.

Finally, you asked under Freedom of Information provisions how much had been spent on the production and circulation of this Report. I have therefore forwarded your letter to the House of Commons FOI team for their attention.

11 May 2009

4. Letter to Mr David Tredinnick MP from the Commissioner, 11 May 2009

I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received from Mr Michael Mullaney in respect of your recent Westminster Report.

I attach a copy of Mr Mullaney's letter of 29 April. I have not enclosed a copy of the Report since I assume you will have one. In essence, the complaint is that you used your parliamentary funded Westminster Report to promote a political party and people seeking election, contrary to the rules of the House, and may have done so during the closed period for the forthcoming June elections.

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."

For the purpose of this complaint, I have assumed that this publication was intended to be funded from your Communications Allowance for 2008-09. In that case, the relevant rules are those set out in the booklet published in April 2007 entitled "The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery". If, however, this communication was or is to be funded from your Communications Expenditure for 2009-10, the new Green Book which came into force on 1 April 2009 would apply and I would, of course, be happy to draw your attention to the relevant rules there.

The scope and purpose of the Communications Allowance is set out in paragraph 6.1.1 of Appendix One to the April 2007 rules 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."

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."

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…"

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

"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."

In respect of the timing of this circulation, I refer you to 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."

I would welcome your comments on this complaint, taking account of this summary of the relevant rules. In particular, it would be helpful to know:

1. why you decided to include in your Westminster Report each of the seven photographs featuring local Councillors and an MEP and why you consider (if you do so) that it was necessary to include each of these photographs and the captions identifying the status of the individuals;

2. the political parties to which the MEP and each of the Councillors belong, whether each was standing for election on 4 June and, if they are all from the same party as alleged, why you did not include photographs of elected representatives from any other party;

3. whether you consider, on reflection, that the photographs and their captions were in accordance with the rules of the House in relation to the content of publications funded from the Communications Allowance;

4. how many copies of your Westminster report were distributed, when the distribution began and ended, and whether any distributions occurred on or after 6 May 2009;

5. the costs of the preparation, production and distribution of this report;

6. whether you consulted the Department of Resources about the content of your report, including the photographs and captions.

Any other points you would wish to make to help me with my inquiry, would, of course be very welcome.

I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow. I have written to the complainant to let him know that I have accepted his complaint and am writing to you about it. I would welcome a response within the next three weeks. If there is any problem with this, or you would like to have a word about any other matter relating to the complaint, please contact me at the House.

I look forward to hearing from you.

11 May 2009

5. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 12 May 2009

Thank you for your letter of 11th May concerning the complaint made by Mr Michael Mullaney, the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Party in my Bosworth constituency about my recent Westminster Newsletter. This comes as no surprise to me and I will reply to you within three weeks as requested.

12 May 2009

6. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 29 May 2009

Thank you for your letter of 11th May requesting information in respect of Mr Mullaney's complaint. As mentioned in my earlier letter of 12th May, Mr Mullaney is the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party. He is the only one of my 80,000 constituents who has complained.

The background to the publication may be slightly unusual in that I am an opponent of the Communications Allowance and had not intended to use it at all. However, earlier this year I had been attacked in the press for not having a high enough profile in the media. For example, one constituent wrote "We never ever hear about what Mr Tredinnick is up to". … Whilst I do think this criticism is a little unfair, nevertheless I decided to act and produce a newsletter to inform constituents of my activities. It was my firm intention that the newsletter be within the scope of the rules as set out in The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery (2007) which I consulted carefully and I submit that the newsletter does meet the required criteria.

In answer to your specific questions

1) When making visits in my constituency it is my normal practice to have with me one or more councillors representing the ward in which I am paying a visit. In the newsletter the councillors are named because it better illustrates the photograph and my work as an MP. Dealing with local matters almost always involves interaction with elected County, Borough and Parish Councillors. Nowhere in the newsletter are the councillors described as candidates, if they are standing for election. Nowhere in the newsletter is their political affiliation given.

2) The MEP and Councillors are Conservatives. 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 1 tried to include them.

3) Yes. There is "No party political or campaigning material ..... in any part" of this publication (6.12.1.) It does not as required in 6.12.4 encourage people to join a political party "promote or campaign on behalf of anyone seeking election". It gives a factual account of meetings held about local issues when Councillors were present with me. It does not "criticise or campaign against anyone seeking election or otherwise seek to undermine the reputation of political opponents". It does not advance "perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any political party" which I "support" or "damage the interests of any other such party or organisation". Simply it gives a factual account of my activities with other elected representatives.

4) Approximately three quarters of the 40,000 leaflets printed were delivered by 6th May. No leaflets have been distributed since 6th May. I intend to deliver the remainder after the June 4th elections.

5) The costs of printing were £2,211.00 and distribution £1,680.

6) 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.

I have the following additional points to make:-

No party logos have been used (para 16). The views conform to para 26 "You may state your opinions on a range of issues that affect your constituents." They are only my views. Secondly, it is "clear that they are personal views and not just statements of support/opposition for a particular policy."

There are no links to party websites.

On the style and content of the newsletter I would add the following:-

It was 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 main story on the front page "Listen to the People" might appear to promote aggressively but is actually pretty bland, merely asking the Council to listen. It does not criticise politicians and the issues — traveller sites and housing allocation — 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.

Of the two main stories on the inside, "Post Office Campaign" and "More Police", the former 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 second story "David's backing for more police" is my campaign and has nothing to do with Councillors and they are not mentioned.

All the mini-stories (the captions under the photographs on this page) name (where I have names), the other individuals regardless of whether they are Councillors or not. Where Councillors are mentioned their specific wards are mentioned too for greater accuracy.

On the back page 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. The box at the bottom right gives my contact details. It does not give my political affiliation.

I hope that these answers are helpful to you and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

29 May 2009

7. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 1 June 2009

I would welcome your comments and advice on a complaint I have received against Mr David Tredinnick MP about the content of his recent Westminster report funded from the Communications Allowance.

I attach a copy of the complainant's letter of 29 April, together with a copy of the report in question; my letter to Mr Tredinnick of 11 May and his response of 29 May. In essence, the complaint is that Mr Tredinnick used his parliamentary-funded Westminster report to promote a political party and people seeking election, contrary to the rules of the House, and may have done so during the closed period for the forthcoming June elections.

I would welcome your comments on this complaint and on Mr Tredinnick's response. In particular it would be helpful to have your guidance on whether you consider the number of photographs identifying councillors and, often, their wards is within the rules for the Communications Allowance. It would also be helpful if you had any record of the discussion which Mr Tredinnick reports he had with the Department of Resources and for confirmation about whether the report was submitted to the Department in advance. Any other points you would like to make which you think would be helpful to me in resolving this complaint would, of course, be very welcome.

Mr Tredinnick does not identify which of the councillors photographed are standing for the June elections, and I will ask him about this and let you have his response.

If you could let me have advice on this complaint within the next three weeks, I would be most grateful.

Thank you for your help with this.

1 June 2009

8. Letter to Mr David Tredinnick MP from the Commissioner, 2 June 2009

Thank you for your letter of 29 May responding to this complaint about the content of your parliamentary-funded Westminster report.

It was most helpful to have this. I am now writing to the Department of Resources for their comments and advice on your response.

There was one point, however, which you did not cover in your letter and on which I would be grateful for your help. My second question asked, among other things, whether the MEP and each of the councillors identified were standing for election on 4 June. You did not pick this up in your reply and it would be very helpful to have this information. If I could receive it within the next week, that would enable the Department of Resources to have that information while they are considering their advice to me.

Thank you again for your help with this.

2 June 2009

9. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 10 June 2009

Thank you for your letter of 2nd June about whether or not the MEP and Councillors identified in my newsletter were standing for election on 4th June. I am sorry it has taken me a while to reply.

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. I had worked extensively with all of them.

I should also add that Councillor Janice Richards was standing for election to the County, but is pictured in the newsletter in her capacity as a Borough Councillor. The other Borough Councillor, Councillor O'Shea was not standing for the County Council.

I would be interested to know if anyone else has complained about the newsletter other than the Liberal Candidate, Mr Mullaney. I have not received any complaints myself.

10 June 2009

10. Letter to Mr David Tredinnick MP from the Commissioner, 11 June 2009

Thank you for your letter of 10 June responding to mine of 2 June about whether the councillors and the MEP photographed in your recent newsletter were standing in the June elections.

I was most grateful to receive this response. I have passed it to the Department of Resources so that they can take account of it as necessary in the advice and comments I have invited them to give me. When I have their response, I will be back in touch.

In answer to your question about other complaints, this is the one complaint I have received about your newsletter.

11 June 2009

11. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 11 June 2009

This is to let you have the response Mr Tredinnick has given me about whether the councillors pictured in his recent newsletter were standing for the council elections in June.

I wrote to you on 1 June inviting your advice on this complaint about the content of Mr Tredinnick's recent Westminster report. I noted in that letter that I was asking Mr Tredinnick to identify which of the councillors photographed in his newsletter were standing for the June election. I now attach Mr Tredinnick's letter to me of 10 June which gives his response. All the county councillors mentioned in the newsletter were standing for election, as was the MEP, and one of the borough councillors was also standing for the county elections.

I would be grateful if you could take account of this information in your advice, which I look forward to receiving. Thank you for your help.

11 June 2009

12. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 2 July 2009

Thank you for your letters of 1 and 11 June 2009 concerning the complaint against Mr Tredinnick.

The complaint centres on the content of a Parliamentary report paid for from the Communications Expenditure and circulated by Mr Tredinnick in a period just prior to 6 May 2009 when the 'closed period' began.[46]

In the report there were a number of photographs and references to sitting County and Borough Councillors and a Conservative MEP, all but one of which were standing for re-election in June 2009.

This Department did not see Mr Tredinnick's report prior to publication or distribution. Nor have we seen any other publication of his before this one, no doubt for the reason he gives. Mr Tredinnick submitted a claim for the distribution costs, dated 30 March 2009, and for the 'Westminster Report', dated 31 March 2009, during April 2009. These match the figures quoted by Mr Tredinnick in his letter. The distribution area identified on the relevant invoice covers five postal districts although there is no indication of when delivery was due to take place.

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.

The Green Book, in reference to the content of publications, states, "You must take care when using photographs not to promote other elected office-holders or candidates for office. Captions must be neutral and kept within the context of the publication." (Page 46, paragraph 2.5.4.3.)

The Department accepts that Members will often be accompanied by other elected representatives from their own Party when they attend functions or make visits around their constituencies, and that they will frequently be photographed in such company. 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.

I have asked the team who review all such reports to look at Mr Tredinnick's report. They have confirmed that they are content with the text of articles in the report. However, they 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.

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.

Does it also breach the House rules? And should Mr Tredinnick repay the full cost? I would say on balance it does break the House rules. 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.

These two statements are not incompatible in that 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.

Now that similar publications have to be approved by the Department a reoccurrence is very unlikely.

2 July 2009

13. Letter to Mr David Tredinnick MP from the Commissioner, 14 July 2009

I have now heard back from the Department of Resources commenting on this complaint about your newsletter funded from your 2008-09 Communications Allowance.

I attach a copy of a letter dated 2 July 2009 from the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources, together with a copy of my letters to him of 1 and 11 June 2009.

As you will see, the Director of Operations concludes that, on balance, including so many references to your party colleagues in this publication did break the rules of the House. But, in the Director's view, "it would be harsh to require him to repay the costs."

I would welcome your comments on the Director's advice, in particular on whether you accept his conclusion that the inclusion of, in effect, seven photographs identifying colleagues from your political party was a breach of the rules. I would welcome also your comments on the Director's view that the infringement was small.

When I receive your response, I shall consider further how best to proceed. My options at that stage are either to dismiss the complaint (despite the advice from the Department); to seek to rectify the complaint on the basis that you accept a breach and have offered recompense for it; or to submit a memorandum to the Committee. If I were to prepare a memorandum, you should not draw any inferences about my likely conclusion. I should add, of course, that, unless offered by the Member as part of a rectification procedure, the question of any appropriate repayment of cost would be a matter for the Committee and not for me.

In the meantime, it would also be very helpful if you could confirm that the full 40,000 leaflets were dispatched and that the total cost was, therefore, £2,211 for printing and £1,680 for distribution, as stated in your letter of 29 May. Could you also let me know how many leaflets you had distributed by 6 May and how many, and when, you have had distributed since the June elections?

I appreciate that it has taken some time for me to receive the Department's response, but if you were able to let me have a reply within the next two weeks, I would aim to take this matter forward during the recess. Thank you for your help.

14 July 2009

14. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 22 July 2009

Thank you for your letter of 14th July and the enclosed letter from the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources dated 2nd July.

My comments on the Director's advice is as follows:-

1) Text of the Report

I accept the finding … that the text of the report is carefully judged so as not to be party political.

2) Text of articles in the Report

I accept the finding … that [the Director's] team are content with the text of articles in the report.

3) The seven photographs identifying colleagues from my political party

I seek your further advice on this matter, please.

In my original submission I wrote in para 6 that

"I did consult the Department of Resources 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."

The reason I sought that specific advice was that in "The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery", (DFA & Serjeant at Arms, April 2007)the set of rules in force at the time when I wrote the newsletter and when it was published, there was no specific advice about the use of photographs, other than para 16 which advises on photographs of Members wearing party rosettes which does not apply to any of my photographs.

In respect of the photographs, in his letter [the Director] cites the Green Book 2009 ruling on page 46, para 2.5.4.3

"You must take care when using photographs not to promote other elected office holders or candidates for office. Captions must be neutral and kept within the context of the publication."

As this Green Book and that advice had not been published when I wrote and published my newsletter I respectfully submit that this new ruling cannot be applied and, therefore, I do not think I can, at this stage, without your further guidance, accept that the inclusion of these photographs was a breach of the rules.

4) Photographs of Councillors relative to whole

I submit that the number of photographs of Councillors with me in the course of my Parliamentary work — approximately one third or 11 out of 31 in total — was not excessive.

5) The Director of Operations' conclusions

In the light of point 3 above (photographs) I wonder whether [the Director] would still hold the view that

"on balance it [the newsletter] does break the rules."

I seek your guidance in this matter please.

6) Repayment of costs

I accept [the Director's] view that on this occasion it would be harsh to require me to repay costs.

7) The closed period

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 … and I seek your clarification on this matter please.

In respect of the distribution of the newsletters, my agent (who organised this) is currently on leave. As soon as he returns I will write to you again with the information you require.

I hope these points are helpful and look forward to your comments in due course.

22 July 2009

15. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 3 August 2009

I would welcome some further help on a complaint against Mr David Tredinnick MP about the photographs he used in his parliamentary-funded Westminster report.

You let me have your advice on this complaint in your letter to me of 2 July. As you will know from my letter to you of 14 July, I copied your letter to Mr Tredinnick and invited his comments. I have now received his comments in his letter of 22 July. I attach a copy.

I would welcome your comments on points 3 and 5 of Mr Tredinnick's letter. As you will see, he considers that the April 2009 Green Book, to which you referred in your letter, does not apply in this case since his newsletter was produced before those rules came into force. Assuming you accept that, he asks whether you still take the view that, on balance, the newsletter broke the rules. If so, it would be helpful if you could identify the relevant rules.

I would be grateful if you could let me have a response on these points by the end of the month. Any other comments you may wish to make on Mr Tredinnick's letter would, of course, be equally welcome. Thank you for your help.

3 August 2009

16. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 4 August 2009

I refer to my letter of 22nd July in which I said I would let you have further information about the delivery of the leaflets. The full 40,000 leaflets were delivered to the distribution company. I confirm that the total cost was £2,211 for printing and £1,680 for distribution. 30,000 were delivered before the 6th May deadline and delivery of the remaining 10,000 to the remaining villages resumed on 6th July. I understand that the deliverers are down to the last few hundred leaflets, which are the most difficult to deliver as they will be going to remote farms in the rural areas.

I apologise for the delay in getting back to you. Both I and my agent were away last week.

4 August 2009

17. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 7 September 2009

Thank you for your letters of 3 and 6 August concerning the above. You have asked for any further comments I might have about the use of photographs in Mr Tredinnick's Parliamentary report in the light of his reply to you.

Mr Tredinnick suggests that because the specific reference to the use or content of photographs included in the April 2009 new Green Book postdated his newsletter, then he did not breach the rules as they existed at the time. His general point is that he should be able to rely on the published rules at the time and his conversation with an unnamed member of staff.

Whilst I accept that the rules and guidance in the booklet The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery did not contain specific references to the use of photographs with other elected representatives, I do not believe this in itself means that no breach of the rules has occurred. 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. This premise is made clear in Appendix 2 of the Communications Allowance booklet, specifically in paragraphs 2, 9 and 20.

As with most books of rules, the published Green Book has 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 its advice over time, usually in line with the consideration of issues by Committees of the House. The Department has 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. 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.

In this instance our judgement remains 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.

As you yourself observed in the report on the Conduct of Sir Robert Smith, when Members, and indeed this Department, are deciding on content, "There is a fine and not always distinct line to be drawn and the judgement of which issues and which illustrations to include can be difficult." (Page 18, paragraph 53, HC 646). This complaint is a case in point.

I trust this covers the issues that you have raised.

7 September 2009

18. Letter to Mr David Tredinnick MP from the Commissioner, 9 September 2009

I have now heard back from the Department of Resources with their further comments on this complaint about the photographs which you included in the Westminster report which you distributed earlier this year.

As you will know from my letters to you of 3 and 6 August, I sought the Department's views on the letter you sent me on 22 July responding to their initial advice of 14 July. I enclose copies of my letters to the Department of 3 and 6 August and a copy of their response of 7 September.

As you will see, the Department's judgement remains that they would have recommended not using photographs of sitting councillors as extensively as you did, and that, while the April 2007 booklet on the Communications Allowance did not contain specific references to the use of photographs with other elected representatives, they do not believe that this in itself means that no breach of the rules has occurred.

I would welcome your comments on the Department's letter. Subject to those comments, I am considering submitting a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges about this complaint. In that case, I would show you the factual sections of my memorandum so that you can comment on their accuracy, and the Clerk to the Committee would subsequently give you an opportunity to comment on the whole memorandum, including my conclusions, before it is submitted to the Committee for their consideration.

It would be very helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter, with any comments you may wish to make on the Department's advice, by the end of this month. I do not at present think that there are any issues which I need to discuss with you at a meeting. But if you would like an interview before I conclude this matter, please let me know.

Thank you for your help on all this.

9 September 2009

19. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 23 September 2009

Thank you for your letter of 9th September enclosing your correspondence with [the] Director of Operations at the Department of Resources, about the above complaint and asking for my comments.

Following his earlier comment that this was a borderline case, [the Director] quotes your report on Sir Robert Smith, saying "There is a fine and not always distinct line to be drawn and the judgment of which issues and which illustrations to include can be difficult". He believes this complaint is a case in point. I contend that I did take reasonable steps to follow the rules as they were at the time.

The rules in the then Green Book were quite clear and I believe I abided by them. 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. When I telephoned the Fees Office 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. The official did not say "because the rules are about to change, you should take this action" nor did the Fees Office send out an email on the lines of "Because of an impending change of rules will all Members please check their publications with us".

[The Director] says that whilst my 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." Although I entirely appreciate that you must investigate any complaint regardless of who submitted it, in view of [the Director's] reference to members of the public, I believe it is worth mentioning that the only complaint came from my Liberal-Democrat opponent at the next General Election, which would indicate a political motivation. I have not received any complaints from constituents myself.

At the time I prepared the leaflet in question I had received a number of inquiries from constituents, including letters in the local press, asking for details of my work in the constituency. The best way of providing the information requested was to produce a constituency wide leaflet.

A high proportion of the issues on which constituents contact their Members of Parliament involve local government. I wanted to show my 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. To have omitted Councillors or their names would not have put this point across.

I do not feel that including Councillors in seven out of twenty four photographs is disproportionate. 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.

With regard to Mrs Janice Richards, she features in her capacity as an elected member of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council. Her inclusion in three photographs is because she is an active Borough Councillor in an area suffering from a number of problems, in which I was involved. The photographs illustrate issues that many constituents from her ward had raised with me. The fourth photograph is 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.

I hope this is helpful

23 September 2009

20. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 20 October 2009

Thank you for your letter of 14th October setting out your questions for Thursday. Further to my last letter reconsidering all the issues, I must make it clear that I regard this complaint as party political. 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.

I enclose a memorandum [not reproduced] which I asked my agent to prepare and also a letter from Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council [not reproduced] for your consideration.

20 October 2009

21. Agreed Note of the Commissioner's interview with Mr David Tredinnick MP, 22 October 2009

JL Present
Mr John Lyon (JL)
Mr David Tredinnick (DT)
Notetaker
Introduction
Thank you for coming in.
This is [the notetaker]. She will take a note of our discussion and show it to you so you can be satisfied as to its accuracy. It will not be verbatim but it will be reasonably full.
The note would be included in the memorandum I will submit to the Committee on the complaint and you can expect it to be published with the Committee's Report.
You have my letter of 14 October about the procedure, suggesting the main areas I wanted us to cover. Other matters may arise during the course of the interview.

DT I have sent you a letter about the background: that the complaint came from a Councillor who is also prospective parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats standing against me at the next General Election. His associate is in trouble over a complaint. My contention is that this whole complaint is party political.

JL Thank you, I have replied to your letter. Are you content for me to go ahead?

DT Yes.

Preparing the newsletter

JL Could I ask you first to describe the processes that you followed in preparing your newsletter? For example, how did you decide on the format?

DT The situation was that I had received a number of complaints that my visibility in my constituency was not high enough. I took exception to this, and said to my agent, "Let's put a leaflet out, using the Communications Allowance." I left writing it to him. He chose the stories.
My intention was always to use pictures, otherwise nobody reads it. One picture is worth a thousand words.

JL How did you decide what stories to feature?

DT I thought I had been fairly clear about this in my written responses. Even the Director of Operations raised no objections to my text.
Looking back, politically there has always been an issue over the allocation of traveller sites. It was the key issue at that point. The borough council drew up the local structural plan and the local development framework. The council had allocated almost half the travellers to Earl Shilton. There was uproar. In my constituency I have the largest traveller community in any constituency in the Midlands - perhaps in the country. I said to my agent "Go ahead, I will check the rules. Get the newsletter out before the deadline."

JL Specifically, how did you choose the photographs and draft the captions?

DT My agent had all the photos. He put the leaflet together.
There was only one I had some doubt about; that was the one showing me with Janice Richards and Roger Helmer, at the bottom left of the first page. My doubt arose from the quality of the photograph. But I said that on balance I thought we should put it in anyway, because it was a big issue at the time.
Other pictures were of meetings. I was summoned to these. Villages were in uproar. Normally I go accompanied by councillors. I have 100,000 people in my constituency - it is a big constituency, so I rely on councillors for their knowledge on the ground.

JL I note that you talked to someone at the Department of Resources about this. The Department have no record of this contact and you do not recollect who you spoke to. Can you help me on when this telephone conversation took place?

DT It was after an email that I received asking "Why don't we see more of our MP?" That was dated 4 March. So it would have been March when I spoke to my agent and rang the Department.

JL Your letter of 29 May says you specifically asked the Department whether or not you could produce photographs of yourself with other elected representatives and caption them. Your letter says that you were told that you could. Your letter of 23 September, however, says that: "no mention of photographs was made". Can you help me to reconcile these two statements?

DT I picked up the inconsistency myself. I clearly made a mistake. You should rely on my earlier letter. That was my factual recollection.
I said I would ring the Fees Office and check it out. I knew I couldn't include party political material; there were issues with logos and so on, but I believed it was all right to include details of myself and other elected representatives.
Forgive me any mistakes in my recollection: this happened in May and it is now October.

DT You say in your letter of 23 September that you asked specifically whether it was right that there must be no mention of political parties or affiliations, and that the Department confirmed this. Would this suggest that the political implications of your photographs were in your mind at that time?

DT If you look at the leaflet there is no House of Commons portcullis, no party logo, there is no reference to party political matter in the text. My agent has worked for me for over ten years; my secretary has worked for me the whole time I have been in the House; my other staff have worked in the House for me for 13 and 15 years each. We have a lot of experience and we wouldn't have let it out if we hadn't felt it was right.

JL Is your agent employed solely in a party political capacity?

DT He is paid partly from House funds. It was in this capacity that he was producing the leaflet for me. His working arrangements have been agreed with the Fees Office and his time accounted for. The arrangement goes back fifteen years.

JL Did you consider taking up the standing offer by the Department of a full review of your newsletter as set out in the rules, particularly as it was your first time?

DT I didn't think there was anything in the text to require it. It wasn't required under the 2007 rules. The Director of Operations was looking at the wrong rules.

JL You are encouraged to seek advice in paragraphs 19 and 20 of Appendix 2 of the 2007 booklet[47] 'The Communications Allowance and the Use of House Stationery'. The rules say "In the event of a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, he will wish to know whether advice was sought."
Did you think of showing the whole thing to the Department?

DT No. It was a relatively simple document: the pictures and about a thousand words of text. And there was a timetable issue.

JL So you didn't show it to them?

DT No. It wasn't necessary. It wasn't political or controversial. I deliberately kept it very simple. I didn't think the photographs excessive.

Distributing the newsletter

JL How was the newsletter distributed?

DT We used professional distributors. I don't have the troops to do otherwise.

JL Who decided on the distribution dates?

DT I told them to get it out as soon as possible.

JL Why?

DT We would normally get leaflets out as soon as possible. I left the distribution at the discretion of the delivery firm, with a general instruction to do it as soon as possible but not at breakneck speed.
We wanted to get it out while it was fresh, while the issues were fresh. I instructed them to cut off the distribution at midnight before the closed period. Distribution started again in rural areas later. By then some issues were out of date.

JL Was that in September?

DT I believe I gave you the dates in correspondence. I can't remember them at this point.

JL What would you say to anyone who suggested that you put out as many copies of your newsletter as you could shortly before the closed period, that there was a rush to get them in under the wire, to draw people's attention to your party and particularly some of those standing in the election?

DT There was not a rush. We produced it as quickly as we could. 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. I used a local distributor but said "Don't go beyond the start of the closed period."

JL Your leaflet shows a lot of pictures of councillors and you distributed it in the period coming up to the June elections. Did you consider that people might misunderstand this, that there was a risk here?

DT Yes, there was a risk if we had gone past the start of the closed period which we did not do. But this was before then. You are trying to apply a new rule retrospectively - talking about some vague period which has been suggested afterwards. 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. In your report on Sir Robert Smith you say that this was acceptable "… when the elected people are clearly and consistently jointly engaged on a local activity." [48] I submit that these photographs meet those criteria.

Photographs

JL Let me ask now about the photographs in a little more detail. Out of 21 photographs on the first three pages of your newsletter, seven showed elected politicians other than yourself. All but one of these eight politicians were apparently to stand in the June election. Were you aware of that at the time?

DT I was aware they were all councillors and standing. The borough council has 34 councillors and the county council has six wards in my constituency. 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.

JL Of the nine sitting councillors in the Hinckley and Bosworth area, six were Conservative and five were featured in your newsletter. All were standing for re-election. Does not this suggest that you were giving undue prominence to Conservative councillors and promoting their interests?

DT You are right that one was not featured. I don't do much work with him.
There is a Liberal/Conservative dingdong in the area. There is no love lost between us. This is a party political complaint.

JL Did you not run the risk that when you produced pictures of you with almost all the Conservative councillors but none from the other side, this could appear to be party political campaigning?

DT 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.

JL But this is a leaflet funded from the Communications Allowance.

DT Yes, and it shows me backing the call for more police. 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.
I remind you of your words about Sir Robert Smith.[49]

JL But set against this are all the pictures showing you with Conservative councillors.

DT I have explained that I work with councillors. My understanding was that I could be shown working with councillors, working with my colleagues. I did this in good faith. I thought I had got this about right.

JL You say that only those candidates who were already elected councillors were shown in the newsletter, and not candidates standing for election for the first time. Why did you decide not to select them?

DT I couldn't have shown them. It would have been party political. It is against the rules. The point is, the pictures showed elected councillors.

JL Where in the rules does it say that you can include elected but not unelected colleagues in the photographs?

DT I refer you to your report on Sir Robert Smith.[50]

JL That was, of course, my advice. It is not itself part of the rules.

DT It is clear you can put yourself in the photograph with other colleagues of the same party. I would not have included a candidate who was coming in for the first time; I would not promote someone entering politics for the first time.

JL Were you not then promoting the councillors?

DT It was perfectly reasonable to record my activities with councillors. I was uneasy about showing people with whom I had not worked. Except in a few instances, I normally work with councillors.

JL But did you in fact work with first time candidates? Did you have pictures of yourself with them?

DT I do campaign with candidates, wearing a blue [Conservative] hat. But what we are talking about is a "green hat" [i.e. Parliamentary] issue. Most of these people were shown as sitting county councillors or borough councillors.

JL Were these were all "green hat" events?

DT Yes, I attended them as an MP. [Looking through the pictures] They were not party political events, any of them. The picture of Barwell does not show me with a councillor. That is because at the time there was no elected Conservative councillor in Barwell, which is coterminous with Earl Shilton. When visiting there I would not take with me a candidate or a councillor from another party.
The last page contains little cameo shots. The printer chose these pictures and most of them appear on other pages too.
The newsletter is an attempt to record what I have been doing. As for the details, it does not include so much as a political email address, anything about the Conservatives, no links, no torch and no logo.

JL You say in your letter of 29 May that you have almost never been associated with councillors of other parties. Yet, as you say, local issues like travellers' sites involves critics of the policy from all three main parties. Does not the inclusion of so many photographs of Conservative councillors suggest that these campaigns were being conducted on a party political basis?

DT 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. In fact I don't like getting involved in planning issues.

JL I see from your letter of 20 October that in March a former Conservative Councillor complained about a Lib Dem leaflet referring to the Borough Council's alleged views on traveller sites. It is subject to an inquiry and I do not wish to discuss that matter further. But does not this suggest that you well knew the sensitivity of policies on traveller sites before you used the photos of you and the County Councillors?

DT I remind you that another standards body has found the complainant's flatmate and Area Liberal Democrat organiser guilty of "dishonest behaviour" and supplying misleading information. This is a politically motivated complaint.

JL But were you not aware that traveller sites were a sensitive issue, and you would need to be careful?

DT 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. The article merely says 'MP says "Listen to the people."'

JL But we are talking about the photos, not the text. As you have said, a picture is worth a thousand words.

DT I am doing this from memory. I have already given you detailed responses. I don't recall the exact circumstances. If you pick me up it is because I am hazy.
The gist of it is that these were the issues that bugged people. The lack of policing was not really a local council matter but we were shown with a good copper, supporting a council initiative. Post offices: everyone was nuts about post office closures. Traveller sites were another big story but the response was not party political.

JL Were these all issues in the county council elections?

DT The post offices were all done and dusted. Anger about the traveller sites had eased by the time of the County Council election. Some sites had been withdrawn or reclassified as no longer preferred. It shows how quickly the main issues had gone off the boil by the end of the closed period. The proposals had been readjusted.

JL I see you included in one photograph Mr David Sprason, who was to be the Conservative candidate standing for the county council in the division with the Thornton Reservoir site. Why is that not a party political statement or in effect support for someone seeking re-election?

DT It wasn't an issue in his election.
He was there as a county councillor and to support me. I wrote to the County Council and to Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. It wasn't much of an issue in that ward for the election.
Half my job is to be a lightning conductor. On Sunday I'm going to a meeting about new wind turbines. People want me to be there to show solidarity, even if in the end I can't do anything.
My constituency is an island of blue in a sea of red. But I do not carry out my job in a very political way. I don't spend my life attacking councillors or leaders by name. In some wards the vote is split: for the county council the vote goes to a Lib Dem and the parliamentary vote goes to me.

JL In your letter of 29 May you refer to the post office campaign and say it would have been disingenuous and inaccurate to have portrayed it as your campaign only. Do you think that including the three photographs of Janice Richards as the only other elected representative helped her campaign? As I understand it, she was elected.

DT Yes, she was. The three pictures were of her in her capacity as borough councillor. One was at a meeting about vandalism on the Mound. She was involved in the post office campaign as borough councillor, perhaps parish councillor. The picture at the bottom left shows her dealing with what people were most concerned about: traveller sites. The copy for that story I wrote myself: it is pretty bland stuff.

JL Am I right that she defeated the sitting Labour councillor?

DT Yes.

JL You say in your letter of 29 May that the story on more police has nothing to do with councillors and they are not mentioned. You do however include another picture of Councillor Richards with you highlighting the need for a higher profile police presence on issues such as vandalism and antisocial behaviour. Why did you include that picture of you with a Conservative councillor?

DT The second story on police issues shows me and Janice Richards, identified as a local councillor, complaining about a lack of response from the police. She takes an interest. There was a lot of concern boiling up about policing, and allegations that the police didn't do their job, culminating in the tragedy in the summer in a neighbouring ward. I went there as the local MP alerted to the problems. She was there as the local councillor.

JL Here was someone who would shortly be standing in the county council elections. She is shown holding a broken paving stone and standing next to you. Could not the picture be seen as promoting party political interests and a person seeking election?

DT 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.

JL Why did you caption the councillors so fully in the photographs - their name, the fact that they were councillors, and in many cases their ward or division?

DT It would have been inaccurate otherwise. If I didn't say where they represented, then it would make me look out of touch. And not everyone knows who represents them.

JL Why was it necessary to provide that degree of accuracy in these captions?

DT It 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.
I work very closely with our local representative in Barwell. I ring her up, asking what is the situation, what is happening. There can be trouble if you are not doing that. I need to be in touch with the county council and borough council. Sometimes you need your hand held.

JL What about areas where there was no Conservative councillor? Do you not visit those?

DT Yes. I would take someone else like my agent. There are little pockets of this sort: Castle and Clarendon, but they don't amount to much of my constituency. I would be in touch with the Council chief executive. If there wasn't a councillor, I would take my local agent. He would know what was going on.
I would prefer to work with councillors of like mind, but if not I can get by.

JL You say in your letter that you have not identified yourself as a Conservative Member of Parliament in your newsletter. I am not sure what weight you suggest I should give this, but do you not think that any reader would know that you were a Conservative?

DT I don't think so. It doesn't say.

JL But the picture of you with David Cameron?

DT 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.[51]

Conclusion

JL What would you say to the suggestion that your choice of these photographs, and their captions had the effect of promoting the interests of another person you supported, namely Conservative councillors and an MEP, when you knew these people were shortly to stand for election?

DT 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.

JL Did you know these individuals were standing?

DT Yes.

JL Are there any final points you would wish to make to help me in concluding this inquiry?

DT Yes. The closed period was absolutely clearly defined. I could distribute my newsletter until 23.59 hours on the night before it began and then after it ended.
The issues I have quoted are all mainstream.
I remind you of your words in paragraph 49 of the report on Sir Robert Smith.[52]
On party political content, this was a political leaflet but not a party political one.
The Director of Operations says that on balance it would be harsh to ask me to repay. He said that the harm caused is very limited. And that was under the tighter rules which he thought applied.
The references in his letter to the Appendix [of the Communications Allowance booklet] are wrong.[53]
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. There is only one complainant.
I wanted to stay within the rules and I thought I had got it right.

Conclusion

JL [The notetaker] will now prepare a note of our discussion and show it to you so you can comment on its accuracy. As you know you can expect the note to be included with the memorandum I will prepare for the Committee and it will be subsequently published with the report.
Once I have the note of the meeting I shall prepare the factual sections of my memorandum which again I would show you to check its accuracy. I will then add my conclusions and submit the full memorandum to the Committee. The Clerk will show you it and invite any comments you want to make about it and any comments will be submitted to the Committee with my memorandum.

Thank you again for coming in.

22 October 2009

22. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr David Tredinnick MP, 29 October 2009

Thank you for sending the transcript of my interview last Thursday. At the end you asked if there were any final points that I wished to make to help to conclude your enquiries. After one and a half hours' interview nothing immediately came to mind, however I have now reviewed what I said and the questions, and I would like offer further insights into my thinking at the time.

Impact of the Newsletter

The newsletter was broadly intended as a record of my activities in the constituency. In your line of questioning there is a suggestion that it helped candidates in the election and that it was political. In addition to the points I made to you I would say the following. 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 — something which has not been addressed in our exchanges before. We did win one seat in Earl Shilton but we lost two in Burbage Castle to the Liberal Democrats. One of the successful Liberal candidates is the local organiser of the Liberal Democrats, Stuart Bray, and flatmate of the complainant to whom I have referred in earlier correspondence in respect of complaints against him.

The leaflet illustrates the activities that I had undertaken across the constituency covering most wards. If I had intended it to be party political it would have had a quite different focus. For a political pamphlet, it would have been pointless covering the safe Conservative divisions of Market Bosworth and Markfield, the latter being David Sprason's ward. It would also have been unnecessary to cover Earl Shilton because with the national swing against Labour and the addition of a BNP candidate, 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. If it is argued that the photographs of me with Janice Richards, a former hairdresser in Earl Shilton and sitting Borough Councillor, and someone who has lived there all her life helped her then, it can equally be argued that my photos with Mary Sherwin and John Moore, the Conservative Burbage Division County Councillors who were defeated in May, outside the Post Office and by a pedestrian crossing were counterproductive and contributed to their defeat.

I enclose an email from the Library [WE 23] with the relevant statistics.[54]

I hope this is helpful.

29 October 2009

23. Email to Mr David Tredinnick MP from House of Commons Library, 26 October 2009

The table below shows the national equivalent share of the vote in County Council elections in 2005 and 2009 and the percentage point change between these dates.

National equivalent share of vote in county elections

Party 2005 2009 % point change

Con 33.0 35.0 2.0

Lab 36.0 22.0 -14.0

Lib Dem 23.0 25.0 2.0

Other 8.0 18.0 10.0

The percentage point change in the share of the vote between 2005 and 2009 for individual wards in the Bosworth Constituency are shown below. For this purpose I have assumed that the Bosworth Parliamentary Constituency is equivalent to the borough of Hinckley and Bosworth. Please note that in some areas the data is distorted due to the BNP standing in 2009 and not in 2005.

Percentage point change in County Council election vote share in wards of Hinkley and Bosworth between 2005 and 2009

Conservative Labour Lib Dem Other

Burbage Castle -2.5 -15.2 12.8 4.9

Earl Shilton 9.1 -16.5 -4.7 12.0

Groby & Ratby 2.6 -16.1 -4.5 18.0

Hinckley 10.5 -15.6 -2.1 7.1

Mallory -5.0 -20.6 -0.8 24.4

Market Bosworth 1.2 -14.5 9.3 4.0

Markfield Desford and Thornton 5.5 -12.1 -8.8 15.3

The decline in the Labour vote share is more pronounced than the national average in most areas, with the exception of Markfield, Desford and Thornton. The Conservative improvements shown nationally are more pronounced in five wards, but a decline in the percentage share was observed in Burbage Castle and Mallory wards. The Liberal Democrats show above average improvements in Burbage Castle and Market Bosworth, but pooled less than the expected share of votes in all other wards. The improvements found in the "Other" category is predominantly due to the BNP fielding candidates in 2009.

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you need anything else.

26 Oct 2009

Attachment to email to Mr David Tredinnick MP from House of Commons Library, 26 Oct 2009

Burbage Castle

Elected: Stuart Lee BRAY Keith William LYNCH

Result: Liberal Democrat Gain Liberal Democrat Gain

Registered Electorate: 16,594

Actual Turnout: 36.2%

Candidate Party Candidate Votes (2009) Candidate Share (2009)

Stuart Lee BRAY Liberal Democrats 2943 24.5%

Keith William Phillip LYNCH Liberal Democrats 2925 24.3%

John Spencer MOORE Conservatives 2274 18.9%

Mary Louise SHERWIN Conservatives 2212 18.4%

Philip John KAVANAGH The Labour Party Candidate 725 6.0%

Steve BARBER British National Party 591 4.9%

Eamonn Sean GABRIEL The Labour Party Candidate 360 3.0%

Earl Shilton

Elected: Janice RICHARDS

Result: Conservative Gain

Registered Electorate: 8988

Actual Turnout: 36.9%

Candidate Party Candidate Votes (2009) Candidate Share (2009) Party Votes (2005) Party Share (2005)

Janice RICHARDS Conservatives 1288 38.8% 1574 29.7%

Denis Robert BOWN The Labour Party Candidate 894 26.9% 2297 43.4%

Mike SHORE British National Party 638 19.2% 379 7.2%

Richard Bernard NEALE- GARDNER Liberal Democrats 499 15.0% 1044 19.7%

Hinckley

Elected: David Christopher BILL Donald Owen WRIGHT

Result: Liberal Democrat Hold Liberal Democrat Hold

Registered Electorate: 19141

Actual Turnout: 30.3%

Candidate Party Candidate Votes (2009) Candidate Share (2009)

David Christopher BILL Liberal Democrats 3106 26.8%

Donald Owen WRIGHT Liberal Democrats 2757 23.7%

David THORPE Conservatives 2175 18.7%

Jack WEAVER Conservatives 1894 16.3%

Glyn PENNELL British National Party 825 7.1%

Peter MUSCUTT The Labour Candidate 497 4.3%

Qamar BHATTI The Labour Candidate 356 3.1%

Mallory

Elected: Ruth CAMAMILE

Result: Conservative Hold

Registered Electorate: 8611

Actual Turnout: 35.9%

Candidate Party Candidate Votes (2009) Candidate Share (2009) Party Votes (2005) Party Share (2005)

Ruth CAMAMILE Conservatives 1022 33.1% 2039 38.1%

Michael John GOULD Liberal Democrats 984 31.8% 1746 32.6%

John Edward RYDE British National Party 541 17.5% 0 0.0%

John Philip Joseph CULLINANE Independent 276 8.9% 0 0.0%

Andre WHEELER The Labour Candidate 269 8.7% 1570 29.3%

Markfield Desford & Thornton

Elected: David SPRASON

Result: Conservative Hold

Registered Electorate: 9755

Actual Turnout: 2.5%

Candidate Party Candidate Votes (2009) Candidate Share (2009) Party Votes (2005) Party Share (2005)

David SPRASON Conservatives 2311 55.7% 3339 50.2%

Robin WEBBER-JONES Liberal Democrats 660 15.9% 1640 24.7%

Julie HAMILTON British National Party 633 15.3% 0 0.0%

Jeannie HERD The Labour Party Candidate 545 13.1% 1674 25.2%

Market Bosworth

Elected: Ivan OULD

Result: Conservative Hold

Registered Electorate: 10625

Actual Turnout: 47.9%

Candidate Party Candidate Vote (2009) Candidate Share (2009) Party Votes (2005) Party Share (2005)

Ivan OULD Conservatives 2824 55.5% 4092 54.3%

Bill CROOKS Liberal Democrats 1456 28.6% 1454 19.3%

Ken JACKSON British National Party 474 9.3% 0 0.0%

Tony SIMHANI The Labour Party Candidate 335 6.6% 1594 21.1%

26 Oct 2009

24. Email to Mr David Tredinnick MP from House of Commons Library, 18 November 2009

You asked about recent elections in Earl Shilton and how these compare with the national standing of parties.

The most recent elections were in 2009 in the Leicestershire County Division and 2007 Hinckley and Bosworth Borough elections. These are set out below; in each case I have shown the parties' vote shares in the previous elections.

In the case of multi-member borough seats, vote share has been calculated on the basis of the highest number of votes for a candidate for each party.

In both cases, the Conservatives turned around a previously labour seat. In the borough elections they won two of the three ward seats.

It is interesting to compare these data with the national party standings. The following chart shows the percentage vote share for the 3 main parties from the monthly MORI poll and the percentage achieved in local elections in Earl Shilton Division/Ward in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009.

As you can see, the decline in the labour vote share in Earl Shilton and rise the Conservative is pretty much in line with the national trend. You could argue that the decline in the labour share is slightly steeper than the national trend but the Conservative share is more or less in line with national opinion.

The % share data underpinning the chart are as follows: