Mr Richard Benyon MP - Parliament · 2019. 12. 4. · 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Richard Benyon MP: Written Evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Paul Walter, 24 September

1 Complaints rectified 2008-09

Mr Richard Benyon MP: Resolution Letter

Letter to Mr Paul Walter from the Commissioner, 3 December 2008

I have now concluded my inquiries into the complaint you sent me on 24 September about Mr Benyon's website.

In essence, your complaint was that Mr Benyon included party political comment in his website and weblog fundedfrom the House of Commons Communications Allowance, contrary to the rules of the House.

I have consulted Mr Benyon and the House of Commons authorities about this matter.

Mr Benyon has accepted that the content of the articles you identified was in breach of the rules of the House inrespect of the Communications Allowance. He had put on the website a Westminster Diary which he prepared forother purposes: he did not intend to breach the rules. He has unreservedly apologised. He has also taken action todeal with the matter. He has put his old Westminster Diary entries on a separate site and has set up a weblog whichincludes current and will include all future Westminster Diary entries, both funded by himself and not byParliamentary allowances. His website home page makes clear that links to these sites will open a new webpage andthose pages make clear that they are maintained under a personal agreement. He has also included a reference in hishome page to the handling of complaints about his website. He has consulted the House of Commons authoritiesclosely about the content and presentation of his website and I accept their view that this now conforms with therules.

Mr Benyon has, therefore, apologised for his breach of the rules of the House and he has taken effective action tobring his website within the rules for funding from the Communications Allowance. He has, therefore, rectified thematter and I now regard the matter as closed. I shall report the outcome to the Committee on Standards andPrivileges.

Thank you for raising this matter with me.

I am copying this letter to Mr Richard Benyon MP.

3 December 2008


Mr Richard Benyon MP: Written Evidence

1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Paul Walter, 24 September 2008

I would like to make a complaint regarding Richard Benyon MP. I am one of his constituents and my name andaddress is Paul Walter, [address]. My contact number is[...].

The complaint is concerning the website www.richardbenyon.com

This web site says: “This site is the responsibility of Richard Benyon MP and is paid for from his CommunicationsAllowance.”

See attached appendix 11.

I therefore assume that the web site should be completely apolitical under the rules.

However, numerous statements on many “Westminster Diary” pages on this website contain political comment. Ilist some specimen examples below.

Example 1: See attached appendix 2.

Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/parliament/westminster diary details.asp?NewsID=392orhttp://tinyurl.com/4d9bhj

“Because I live for pleasure alone, I went for a day to Crewe last week to assist with the by-election caused by thedeath of the redoubtable Gwyneth Dunwoody. I am no pollster but I could feel the mood on the streets, not leastbecause it was the complete opposite of the mood in West Berkshire when I cut my political teeth in the Newburyby-election back in the early ‘90s. The Labour Party chose to base their campaign on a class war tactic. This was plaindaft. These days people mind about what you say and what you do; they by and large couldn’t care less whatbackground you have. Worse still for Labour, people felt patronised by this absurd tactic. Like the TV programme“Life on Mars” it was an attitude straight from the 1970s. A colleague of mine asked a Blairite MP what he thought ofthe negative nonsense his Party was putting out and he confided, “we have nothing else to say”. Bleak times indeedfor Labour MPs.”

Example 2: See appendix 3 attached.

Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/press releases/westminster diary details.as p?NewsID=407orhttp://tinyurl.com/4xf8p1

“It was interesting to hear from British companies and some of the thousands of people who work for them, just howbemused they are by Gordon Brown’s detonation of all his predecessors’ work. As far as the market place isconcerned, Britain is no longer in the game. Today, if a legitimate Government, say a Commonwealth country andally like Australia, wishes to buy equipment, Britain will not be their first point of call.

For those who see the arms trade as a total evil, they should consider this. Other defence manufacturing countries arerubbing their hands with glee at Brown's folly.”

Example 3: See appendix 4 attached

1 Appendices not printed.


Internet references: http://www.richardbenyon.com/parliament/westminster_diary_details.asp?NewsID=404orhttp://tinyurl.com/3f14o6

“This statement was delivered by Hazel Blears. Through all the Government’s problems she maintains the blindoptimism of Saddam Hussain’s Information Minister and the twinkly cheerfulness of a childrens entertainer. Shestarted by linking the democracy of today with the sacrifice of the past. Weighty stuff, I am sure you will agree, to bereminded of the Peterloo massacre of 1819 and the Putney Debates of the Civil War. Unfortunately she then went onto announce new measures to allow Councils to “provide an incentive to voting, for example by entering voters intoa prize draw”. I am being a little harsh as there were elements that were welcome but on the whole it was one of thoseexpensively produced pieces of waffle that you just know will go into some Parliamentary Bermuda Triangle never tobe seen again.”


Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/parliament/westminster diary details.asp?N ewsID=403orhttp://tinyurl.com/3hq8or

“A Henley voter let fly at me as I delivered leaflets in last week’s by-election. After a sustained rant with no pausesabout the mudslinging negative campaign “you lot have fought” I was able to point out that he had mistaken me fora Liberal Democrat. We parted as friends but with me developing a complex. I had been described in that day's DailyMail as “Liberal Democrat MP, Richard Benyon”. Should I sue?”


Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon com/press releases/westminster diary details.asp?NewsID=399orhttp://tinyurl.com/5462cc

“Groups of rebel Labour MPs were to be found in huddles as deals were done here and there to shore up theGovernments support for this measure. One conversation I overheard from a group of Labour rebels went “... and[...] has been bought off over Cuba”. This referred to a Castro admiring left-winger who got Brown to agree tooppose sanctions against Cuba in return for his support on Wednesday.”


Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/press releases/westminster diary details.asp?NewsID=380orhttp://tinyurl.com/52a28e

“As the election results were coming in last week someone asked me why I was looking strangely pensive when therewas euphoria all around. The truth was that, for an absurd moment, I was thinking of four years’ time. My party is ata high water mark, one which I hope will project us into Government. Once there' it will be very hard to sustain sucha dominance of political control at so many levels. How ridiculous to be a Jonah at such a time. I should be like theArsenal supporting cab driver I chatted to when they had just won the double. He said, "It's a great time to be anArsenal fan. I'm just going to enjoy it”.

The sobering thought I should have been having is the prospect of being in Government. While there is still thepossibility of two long years before the next election and may hefalump traps along the way, there is at least a verygood chance that we will make it.”



Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/press releases/westminster diary details.asp?NewsID=376orhttp://tinyurl.com/4wsrb3

“the 10p tax rate was going down like a lead balloon on the doorstep in marginal seats and Labour MPs returnedfrom their Easter break in rebellious mood. MPs could be found in corridors talking earnestly into their mobilephones or having heated conversations in sullen groups. As a Whip one of my tasks is to be a “teller”. This meansyou have to count MPs through the lobby as they vote. As they passed, snippets of conversation could be heardgiving a measure of the depth of unhappiness on the Government benches: “... told Gordon it just won't wash withthe electorate...”, “... spitting feathers ...”, “... totally fed up...”. Then on Wednesday, half an hour before PrimeMinister's Questions, came the climb-down. The atmosphere in Number 10 must be sulphurous”


Internet references:http://www.richardbenyon.com/press releases/westminster diary details. asp?NewsID=374orhttp://tinyurl.com/47m88o

“He (Boris Johnson) will have no time for Red Ken’s empire building. The Mayor’s office is full of strange leftys onsix figure salaries doing, well, no one quite what. Ken's style of bureaucratic centralised control fails to deliver forLondoners. He has created a system of patronage for funding that is proper old style left-wing statism. Boris willconcentrate on making London safer by doing all sorts of up-front policing stuff backed by unlocking theenthusiasm of voluntary bodies. He will gear up the funding through his Mayors fund, an innovative proposal towinkle substantial sums from City institutions. I think Londoners are bored of embarrassing love-ins with dodgyLatin American politicians and preachers of hate such as the appalling Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Boris offers them an endto such nonsense, less meddling control-freakery and more effective solutions to their problems. And a few laughsalong the way.”

I would also point out that the website has been used for a “Blog” on which political comments have been made.

This blog has now been left empty and previous blog entries have been deleted - see appendix 10 attached.See internet reference:http://www.richardbenyon.com/blog/

I attach copies (Appendix 11) of a blog entry made on 15th September 2008 at 1:38pm by Richard Benyon, which ison the Internet in Google's “cache”.

Internet references:

http://64.233.183.104/search?h1=en&q=cache%3Awww.richardbenyon.com%2Fblog%2F%3FV/03D16&btnG=Searchorhttp://tinyurl.com/46a6ye

This blog posting contains the following words:

“Last year's conference season was electrifying for those interested in who is to run this country. Brown looked infine fettle at the beginning of September. However, he underwhelmed in his conference speech which left it to DavidCameron to see if the "clunking fist" could be bettered. The Conservatives pulled some headline grabbing policies outof the hat and Cameron made the speech of his life. Really quite exceptional both in his delivery (without any real


notes) and in its content. The tables turned and have stayed that way with Tory wins in London, the local electionsand some amazing by-elections.

So what for this year? Labour is hoping, with increased desperation, that the Prime Minister is able to pull somethingremarkable out of his hat. Cameron will want to continue to look like a Prime Minister-in-waiting but without beingor seeming over confident. We Conservatives must take nothing for granted. You will see neither complacency noran attitude that we can ride into Government on the back of Labour's failure. We have to show we are a strong,principled alternative with a vision for Government. Interesting times.”

Surely these sorts of political comments should not be published on a website paid for by the taxpayer, should they?

I look forward to hearing from you.

24 September 2008


2. Printouts from Mr Richard Benyon MP’s blog













3. Letter to Mr Richard Benyon MP from the Commissioner, 30September 2008

I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received from Mr Paul Walter about the contents of yourParliamentary-funded website.

I attach a copy of Mr Walter's letter to me of 24 September with the evidence on which his complaint is founded. Inessence, his complaint is that you have included party political comment in your website and weblog funded fromthe Communications Allowance, contrary to the rules for the use of this allowance.

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

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

The rules for websites funded from the Communications Allowance are set out in a booklet entitled TheCommunications Allowance and the use of House stationery, published in April 2007. Appendix 3 provides rules andguidance on Members' websites funded from the allowance.

Paragraph 2 to the introduction provides as follows:

“It is important that you follow the rules on content as listed below. You are responsible for ensuring that theserules are fully observed. If they have not been, you will be asked to repay costs involved, and you may also exposeyourself to allegations of misuse of the allowances. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) canprovide advice on the rules and content of your website.”

Paragraph 4 provides:

“The website should make clear that any complaints about content should be made initially to the Director ofFinance and Administration. [Note: this guidance does not apply to pre-election periods. The Department ofFinance and Administration will issue separate guidance to cover these.]”

And paragraph 5 provides:

“The CA may be used to pay for setting up and/or maintaining a website only if its purpose is to inform orcommunicate with constituents about your work as a Member and/or to provide contact details. It must not beused to fund party political activity or campaigning. You may not use the Communications allowance to payfor individual web pages or parts of websites, where other parts of the site are paid for from other sources.”

Paragraph 7 lists a number of activities for which the website must not be used. They include:

“to encourage people to join a particular political party; to campaign on behalf of or against any person seeking election; to advance perspectives or arguments with the intention of promoting the interests of any person,

political party or organisation you support, or damaging the interests of any other such person, partyor organisation.”

Paragraph 8 says:

“In order to maintain a clear distinction between your website, which is financed from public funds, and anyother domain, you must make a clear distinction between your site and any site to which links are provided.You may do this by taking users through a page that confirms they are leaving your website, or by requiringthem to acknowledge it through a pop-up form.”

Paragraph 14 includes the following:


“The content of your website or online presence should not seek, directly or indirectly, to compare a Member’sparty favourably with another, promote one party at the expense of another or seek to undermine thereputations of political opponents.”

And paragraph 16 provides:

“You may state your opinion on a range of issues that affect your constituents. However, it should always beclear that they are personal views and not just statements of support/opposition for a particular national policy.”

Finally, paragraph 27 includes the following:

“...You are not required to submit details of your website to DFA in advance. However, the Department doesoffer advice and guidance on the content of websites and you are encouraged to make use of this service.”

I would welcome your comments in the light of the complaint and the relevant rules of the House. In particular, itwould be helpful to know:

1. your views on each of the nine examples given by the complainant and whether you consider any is in breach ofthe rules of the House, with your reasons;

2. what claims you have made on your Communications Allowance in respect of your website and accompanyingweblog;

3. why your website does not contain the reference to complaints as provided for in the guidance;

4. the arrangements you had for your weblog at the time that the article complained of was posted on 15September and any subsequent changes you may have made;

5. whether you have at any time sought the advice of what is now the Department of Resources on the content ofyour website and on the arrangements for your weblog, and what other contact, if any, you may have had withthe Department about these.

Any other comments you wish to make would, of course, be very welcome.

I attach a note which sets out the procedure I follow when considering complaints. I have written to the complainantto let him know that I have accepted his complaint and am writing to you about it. I would be very grateful if youcould let me have a response within the next four weeks. If there are any difficulties about this, or you would like aword about any of this, please call me at the House. I would be most grateful for your help on this matter.

30 September 2008

4. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Richard Benyon MP, 10 October2008

Thank you for your letter of 30th September. I am more than happy to co-operate with you to resolve the issuesraised in Mr Walter's complaint.

As I understand it, the key issue in this complaint is whether, by posting this diary on my website I am contraveningthe rules governing the use of my IEP or Communications Allowance.

1. My Westminster Diary is an article I write on a weekly basis (when Parliament is sitting) for one of the localnewspapers that serve my area. Rather than write a turgid litany of my Parliamentary activities, I seek toaddress one or two key issues in, at times, a light-hearted and relatively a-political manner. As the examplesshow, I do on occasions pass comment that could be construed to have a political bias. But in nearly everyexample I endeavour to leave it up to the reader to make their own mind up on the issues discussed.

As you point out, Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament says that it is within therules to give opinions on a range of issues that affect your constituents. I am unclear, for example, as towhether a comment on an individual’s speaking abilities in the Chamber constitutes my personal views or-


my support or opposition for a particular Party or political group. I have, for example, commented onLabour MPs being ‘courageous’, able and even honourable. For example in my Westminster Diary of 17thMarch 2008, I referred to the Chancellors Budget as containing “an honourable intention” to reduce bingedrinking but went on to state my belief that his methods are wrong. I can find nothing in the rules to guideme as to whether this was within the rules or not if this is subsequently posted on my website.

However, in order to remove any further confusion I have arranged for all past Westminster Diary entriesto be removed from the main site and to be hosted on a separate site which clearly indicates that it isseparate from my main website and will be funded by myself. All future Westminster Diary entries fromOctober 2008 will be posted on my blog and I hope that, under new arrangements (see 4), such matters willnot be the subject of any further complaint.

2. The website build was paid for by the IEP in 2006 at a cost of £1173.82. This was a cost for the entire sitebuild, which did not include a blog. Hosting and updates in 2006/7 was paid from the IEP at a cost of£193.87. In 2007/8 hosting and updates were paid from the Communications Allowance also at a cost of£193.97per annum. For the current financial year I have claimed £434.75 for hosting and updates. Thisincrease is because for the years 2006/7 & 2007/8 our supplier incorrectly charged us for updates at £25.00per annum when the agreement should have been £25.00 per month. The supplier did not claim any backpayment and the new figure of £434.75 will be the new annual cost for www.richardbenyon.com.

The Blog build and hosting is not funded from the Communications Allowance and no claims have or willbe made. Nor will any costs relating to the moving or hosting of the archive Westminster Diary.

3. I was unaware of the recommendation for reference to complaints and whilst my website contained a clearindication of how to contact me, it did not offer guidance on making a complaint. I have now rectified this.However, in conjunction with this answer, please note my response to point 5.

4. In September of this year, I started a blog. I am well aware that a great many MPs include a blog as part oftheir website. My intention was to incorporate my Westminster Diary as part of this blog which will allowmy constituents and others to comment on what I had written and to engage in the issues in a more openand effective manner. On having the issue raised with me approximately 48 hours after my first posting, Iimmediately removed the article and investigated the rules and amended the website accordingly. My blogis now accessed by leaving my website with a clear notice saying that the blog is located on a page which isfunded under a separate arrangement from the website (i.e. paid for by me). This arrangement has beenchecked and cleared by [...] at the Department of Resources (copy email attached).

As I have said, it was always my intention to post my Westminster Diary on the blog site, and this willhappen now that Parliament has returned.

5. We have frequently sought advice from what is now the Department of Resources on a number of issuesconcerning the website and other publications. In the middle of the last session (the date cannot berecalled)—a member of my staff telephoned to check the links page in particular and was told by theDepartment that it was fine, and all websites were checked for compliance when invoices connected towebsites were submitted for payment via the Communications Allowance. We therefore assumed that therewere no issues relating to our site at that time. The Westminster Diary entries referred to in this complaintmay well have been on line at that time, but you may need to check with the Department of Finance as tothe date of this call (if logged). No reference to the compliant procedure was made by the Department ofFinance during this conversation or in the email from [...] about the blog.2

I am keen to co-operate in every way to resolve this matter. I see my website as a crucial means ofcommunicating with my constituents. I am proud that it has been recognised as being one of the best MP'swebsites but I am obviously keen to remain strictly within the rules.

2 See WE 5 and 6


10 October 2008

5. E-mail from the office of Mr Richard Benyon MP, to the Departmentof Resources, 25 September 2008

We are trying to launch a blog which can be accessed through, but is independent of, the below Comms allowancefunded site. Please could you check that it is within the rules.

www.richardbenyon.com

25 September 2008

6. E-mail from the Department of Resources to the office of Mr RichardBenyon MP, 25 September 2008

The link, as it is now, is acceptable. The disclaimer makes it clear that the blog is not funded from the Parliamentaryallowances, which is all we require here.

25 September 2008

7. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, fromthe Commissioner, 15 October 2008

I would welcome your comments and advice on a complaint I have received about some of the material on MrRichard Benyon's Parliamentary funded website.

I attach a copy of[relevant correspondence]. As you will see, having initially included entries from his WestminsterDiary in part of his Parliamentary funded website, Mr Benyon has taken action to set up a weblog, the establishmentand running costs of which he has funded other than from his Parliamentary allowances, and has identified thedistinction on his website Home Page. He has also clarified the funding attribution and included the statement aboutcomplaints required under the April 2007 rules. He has attached to his letter an e-mail of 25 September from anofficial in the Department of Resources which appears to show that the new arrangements are acceptable to theDepartment.

I would welcome your comments on this complaint. In particular, it would be helpful to know whether you arecontent that Mr Benyon's website and weblog now meet the requirements of the rules of the House given the contentof some of his weblog and the rule about distinguishing between a Parliamentary funded website and any otherdomain; whether you can throw any light on the nature of the advice Mr Benyon recalls he sought in the middle oflast session (point 5 of his letter); whether you are satisfied in terms of Parliamentary resources with the financialarrangements he has made for his website and weblog; and whether overall you are satisfied that appropriate actionhas been taken. Any other comments you wish to make would, of course, be very welcome.

It would be very helpful if it were possible for you to let me have a reply to this letter by the end of the month.

15 October 2008

8. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member LiaisonServices, Department of Resources, 19 November 2008

Thank you for your letter of 15 October 2008 concerning the complaint about the content of Mr Benyon’s website;this has been passed to me in the absence of [Director of Operations].

You asked for the Department's view on the current content of the website; whether we are satisfied with thefinancial arrangements in place and whether we are satisfied with the actions taken by Mr Benyon. You also asked ifwe can clarify any advice given by this Department to Mr Benyon’s office about the content of his website.


The rules governing the Communications Allowance require Members to enclose a copy of the home page of theirwebsite when submitting claims for payment. Departmental staff always review copies of the home page when theclaims are received. Any routine checking is limited to the home page, not the whole site; however, if any articleheadings or index entries on the home page raise any concerns these items will also be looked at and their contentreviewed. An article named Westminster Diary would not in itself raised concerns.

Our records show that we reviewed the home page of Mr Benyon’s website when claims were received in August2007, March 2008 and April 2008 and that on each occasion they were found to be acceptable. It would appear,according to Mr Benyon’s comments, that there were no statements on the site about what to do in cases ofcomplaint. I can only conclude that this was missed by our staff when they checked the home page. They have beenreminded of the need to ensure that in the future all websites have the necessary statement included on the homepage.

I do not consider this omission to be a sufficient departure from the rules of the House to make it necessary to ask fora repayment of costs for the site, particularly as it appears not to have been brought to Mr Benyon’s attention.

It is clear that the articles referred to in the complaint and contained in Mr Benyon’s Westminster Diary fall outsidethe rules governing the Communications Allowance in that they discuss matters which are clearly party political,even if on occasion in a light hearted manner. As they were not part of the homepage they were not reviewed by ourstaff.

We are not aware of the date at which material outside the rules of the Communications Allowance first appeared onMr Benyon’s website. When we do discover such material on a Member’s funded website, we ask the Member toensure that the site conforms with the rules. We do not normally ask for any sums already spent on maintenance ofthe website (which are generally very small) to be repaid.

We have no record of any conversation with Mr Benyon’s office about his link page “in the middle of the lastsession”, although that is not to say that it did not take place. You will have seen that the department was contactedon 25 September by a member of Mr Benyon’s staff, and that we gave advice specifically about the disclaimer inrelation to the blog which we considered made it clear that the blog was not part of the site paid for fromparliamentary allowances. I can confirm that we have received no claims which relate to the development ormaintenance of Mr Benyon’s blog.

In summary, I am happy, with the exception of the absence of a reference to complaints covered in paragraph 4above, that Mr Benyon’s home page was acceptable when reviewed by staff on three separate occasions in August2007, March 2008 and April 2008. I am also satisfied that Mr Benyon has acted promptly to bring his website withinthe rules of the Communications Allowance, and that the links page and the blog have a suitable statement aboutfunding to allow readers to distinguish what is, and what is not, funded from the Communications Allowance.

As Mr Benyon has not submitted, nor does he intend to submit, any claims against his allowances for the costsassociated with his blog, I am content with the actions he has taken. The Department would not under thesecircumstances seek to reclaim any reimbursement of costs already claimed.

I hope that this deals with the matters you have raised.

19 November 2008

9. Letter to Mr Richard Benyon MP from the Commissioner, 25November 2008

I have now heard back from the Department of Resources about your helpful response of 10 October to thecomplaint about your Parliamentary funded website.

I attach a copy of a letter of 19 November from the Director of Member Liaison Services in the Department ofResources. As you will see, he considers that the articles referred to in the complaint contained in your WestminsterDiary fall outside the rules governing the Communications Allowance, but he is content with the actions which youhave taken and, in the circumstances, would not seek to reclaim any reimbursement of the costs you have alreadyclaimed.


I need now to come to my own conclusions on this complaint and to consider the way forward. If I conclude thatyour weblog did breach the rules of the House in respect of the Communications Allowance (although it does notnow do so) then I could, with your agreement, seek informal rectification of this matter. That means that I woulddecide that your response to the complaint is sufficient rectification, and write accordingly to the complainant andclose the complaint. I would inform the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the outcome, but I would notsubmit to them a formal Memorandum, leading to a Report from them, both of which would be published.

In order to follow the rectification procedure, I would need you to confirm that you accept that the documentscomplained of were a breach of the rules of the House in respect of the Communications Allowance. I would notethat you have put your old Westminster Diary entries on a separate site and have set up a weblog which includescurrent and will include all future Westminster Diary entries, both funded by yourself and not by Parliamentaryallowances. I would note that your website home page makes clear that links to these sites will open a new webpageand those pages make clear that they are maintained under a personal agreement. I would note also that you hadadded to your home page a reference to the handling of complaints about your website. It would be helpful if youwere to apologise for the errors. I would also note that you have consulted the House authorities closely about thecontent and presentation of your Parliamentary funded website, and that I accept their view that it conforms withthe rules.

Before I decide on the way forward, it would be very helpful to know whether you would wish me to deploy therectification procedure on the basis I have described above. If so, I think the only outstanding point would be yourconfirmation that I may record your apology.

It would be very helpful if you could let me have your response within the next week or so, so that I can resolve thiscomplaint. I have been very grateful for your help with it.

25 November 2008

10. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Richard Benyon MP, 28November 2008

Thank you for your letter of the 25 November, and for enclosing a copy of the letter from [...], the Director of LiaisonServices.

I am grateful for your clarification of the rules concerning Members' websites and I fully concede that the displayingof my Westminster Diary on my Home Page may have breached the rules. On most weekly postings, my.Westminster Diary was fairly innocuous, frequently self-deprecating and relatively non-Party political, but therewere occasions when I did very clearly state my views about the actions of the Government or another Political Party.In these circumstances, it was wrong of me to post these articles on the Home Page of my website, and I unreservedlyapologise for this breach in the rules governing Members' allowances.

As you note in your letter, I have put all my Westminster Diary entries on a separate site and have set up a web-blogwhich includes current and past Westminster Diary entries. This site is funded by myself and not through myParliamentary allowances. I am delighted that my website now fully conforms with the rules.

As I say, I am grateful for your clarification in this matter.

28 November 2008

Documents

Mr Richard Benyon MP - Parliament · 2019. 12. 4. · 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Richard Benyon MP: Written Evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Paul Walter, 24 September