HOW WOULD PETER HAIN'S USE OF THE MPs' COMMUNICATIONS ALLOWANCE BE JUDGED IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION?

With effect from 1 April 2007 a new allowance called the Communications Allowance was introduced, allowing MPs to communicate with their constituents about their work. The Allowance was capped at £10000 per annum initially, rising with inflation thereafter. For 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 the Allowance was £10400 per annum, although monies could be transferred from other Allowances to exceed the specified spending limits.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofCCommunicationsAllowanceBooklet.pdf

The money could be spent on, amongst other things, producing and distributing newsletters, targeted letters, petitions, surveys and Parliamentary reports, and the creation of websites.

The allowance was introduced to help MPs inform constituents about their actions and decisions, but was controversial because mailings produced by MPs were more often than not seen as party political advertisements.

The Kelly report disclosed that half of all complaints investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner in 2008-09 were about the Communications Allowance or Commons stationery. The Kelly report concluded that there was “very limited” evidence of the fund improving relations between MPs and voters, and added: “There is much more evidence of it being used in ways that are essentially party political or have more to do with self-promotion.”

The Kelly Report recommended the Allowance be abandoned and it was discontinued with effect from..............

During the years that the Allowance was extant, Peter Hain made the following expenses claims under its headings:  

2007/2008    £9377
2008/2009    £9438
2009/2010  £11455

Total spend over the three years was £30270

...................................

There were guidelines for MPs as to its use (refer to the website link above), and after looking closely at Mr Hain's claims, the following questions are posed:

Q  In 2007/08, using your Communications Allowance, advertisements were placed in the football programs of, amongst others, Neath RFC and the Ospreys. Costs of ads for Neath RFC seem to amount to £1175 (2 invoices, one £350 plus VAT, one £650 plus VAT).  Ospreys ad totals £352.50.  Did you have any involvement with both of these clubs at that time?  You are now the President of Neath RFC and were previously Vice President of Neath RFC in 2007.

Q  If you did have involvement with any or both of the Clubs, do you think it was appropriate to commission these advertisements, which effectively sponsored, with public money, clubs that you had an interest in?

Q  On 4 June 2007 you banked a personal donation of £10000 from Mr Mike Cuddy towards your deputy leadership campaign. On 4 July 2007 and 8 August 2007 you took out advertisements with Neath RFC to the sum of £1175, and on 31 October 2007 with the Ospreys for £352.50. At the time it is believed that Mr Cuddy's wife was a director of Neath RFC, Mr Cuddy was a director of the Ospreys. Do you think, in hindsight, that this was an appropriate use of your Communications Allowance?

Q  In 2008/2009 you paid out £1175 for a full page season advertisement with Neath RFC
and in 2009/2010 you paid £1150 to the Ospreys for a 1/4 page ad for the season 2009/10 and £1150 to Neath RFC for a full page ad for that season. Bearing in mind Mr and Mrs Cuddy's interest in both clubs, and his £10000 donation to you, do you think in hindsight that this was appropriate?

Q  The total amount spent in setting up your website with Digital Guides Ltd between 2007/08 and 2009/10 was £5,883.30. Did you bother to get a range of quotes for this extensive piece of work?  If not, why not?

Q  Analysis of your expenditure on your website that was set up via Digital Guides Ltd shows 9 consecutive payments of £64.63 per month with effect from 22/04/09, terminating on 21/12/09. The payments are categorised as "website maintenance" and paid out of the Communications Allowance 2009/10. If this maintenance was an essential part of meeting your parliamentary duties, what has happened to the website maintenance since? Why do you seemingly no longer have to pay out such sums?

Q  When you invoiced Parliament with regard to the work undertaken by Digital Guides Ltd, did you advise them that this company is, in effect, operated by your son, who at the time was the only Company Director?

Q  How do you explain the promotion of books that you have written appearing on your publicly funded website, the conditions of such funding explicitly forbidding you using the site for inappropriate private benefit, or to publish or promote any publication?

Q  Another condition of the use of the Communications Allowance to set up a website is that the site must not be used with the intention of promoting the interests of any person, political party or organisation you support. In the light of these comments how do you reconcile articles on your website explicitly promoting the Hafren Power Severn Barrage Scheme?

Q  How does using your son's company square up with the rules on propriety and general behaviour of MPs?

Q  Are you aware that using a "connected party" such as your son to provide any goods or services is now expressly forbidden under IPSA's rules?

Q  Do you not think that even if, at the time the work with your son's company was commissioned, such work was not expressly forbidden, that there was enough general advice on behaviour and propriety of MPs for you to have taken extra steps to allay public concerns?  For example, going out to tender for the work and checking with the authorities before employing him (if you didn't).

Q  Would you agree that the MPs Rules can never comprehensively deal with every scenario relating to MPs expenses and that it's encumbent on an MP to ask himself - how would this look if it became public knowledge?
.............................................................