CASE-RUTLAND-STAFFING

Tom Rutland — staffing, committee work and constituency-first accountability

Final findings on published staffing costs, verified committee activity and whether publicly evidenced local work is demonstrably focused on East Worthing & Shoreham.

FINDINGS — RIGHT OF REPLY CLOSED · NO SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE BY STATED DEADLINE

CURRENT POSITION

The evidence stage is complete. WATCH has found legitimate grounds for scrutiny, but no evidence of improper staffing expenditure or misuse of public money.

VFM BASELINE

The current CONSTITUENCY-FIRST VFM table remains authoritative: Tom Rutland is 12th of 17, 55.88/100, MIXED+. This case does not recalculate that table.

RESPONSIBLE BODY

Tom Rutland MP / parliamentary office

RIGHT TO REPLY

The stated response deadline expired on 7 September 2026. After WATCH checked its normal inbox and Junk folder, no substantive response had been identified by 17:23.

WATCH finding

SCRUTINY JUSTIFIED — MIXED PERFORMANCE EVIDENCE — NO EVIDENCE OF IMPROPER EXPENDITURE.

Published 2024/25 data records approximately £180,160 in staffing expenditure. That is a legitimate public-money question, but it is not evidence of waste or wrongdoing. MPs' staffing and office costs are parliamentary business costs, not personal income. WATCH asked for staffing structure and recruitment context before drawing conclusions.

Committee work: credit due, but output still matters

UK Parliament's published Culture, Media and Sport Committee attendance statistics record Tom Rutland attending 27 of 36 meetings during his membership — 75%. That is a material positive and WATCH gives him credit for it.

Attendance alone does not answer the accountability question we put to the MP: what responsibilities did he undertake, what substantive contribution or outputs can be evidenced, and what benefit can be demonstrated for East Worthing & Shoreham? WATCH sought further context about his committee role and related matters. No substantive response was received by the stated deadline.

Constituency-first scrutiny: work outside the seat

WATCH has found verified examples of Rutland devoting public parliamentary or local-facing activity to projects physically outside East Worthing & Shoreham. This is not automatically improper: neighbouring projects can affect his constituents and MPs can legitimately work jointly on cross-boundary issues. The accountability question is whether that work can be shown to serve the people who elected him.

Worthing Lido: Hansard records Rutland speaking in a March 2026 lidos debate about restoring Worthing Lido and working with Worthing West MP Beccy Cooper, Worthing Borough Council and the community. In the same debate Dr Cooper explicitly described the lido as being in Worthing West. Rutland's own later column again highlighted his work on the lido.

Montague Gardens: the 7 September 2026 council account of the opening records Beccy Cooper, the MP for Worthing West, among the speakers and Tom Rutland as an attendee. Montague Place sits in Worthing's Central ward; Central is within the Worthing West parliamentary constituency under the current boundary composition.

These examples establish activity outside his constituency. They do not establish that Rutland is improperly handling another MP's constituent casework, and WATCH will not describe them as such without evidence. His own website states that he can only deal with issues raised by people living within East Worthing & Shoreham.

The unresolved constituency-first question is therefore proportionate: how much of Rutland's publicly evidenced local activity demonstrably benefits East Worthing & Shoreham, compared with activity centred on neighbouring Worthing West or wider Worthing projects? WATCH will continue to distinguish genuinely cross-boundary benefits from activity with no evidenced constituency link.

What the evidence does establish

Rutland was elected to represent East Worthing & Shoreham.
His CMS Committee attendance during membership was 27/36, or 75%.
Published 2024/25 staffing expenditure was approximately £180,160; no evidence reviewed by WATCH establishes improper expenditure.
His public record includes substantial constituency-facing activity within East Worthing & Shoreham as well as verified activity concerning projects in neighbouring Worthing West.
Worthing Lido is expressly identified in Hansard as being in Worthing West.
Rutland attended the Montague Gardens opening; WATCH does not equate attendance at an event with casework or claim that attendance itself was inappropriate.

Final correspondence check

WATCH carried out a further manual Proton inbox check at 20:14 on 14 September 2026. No substantive response to the outstanding accountability correspondence had been received. This is recorded for transparency only; non-response is not evidence against the MP. Any material late response will be assessed and added fairly and in context.

What remains unanswered

WATCH sought context on staffing, committee responsibilities and related accountability questions. No substantive response was received by the stated deadline. Non-response is not evidence against the MP and does not increase the severity of any finding. A material late response will be assessed and the record corrected or updated where appropriate.

Current VFM position — unchanged

This investigation supplements, but does not replace, WATCH Sussex's completed CONSTITUENCY-FIRST VFM audit. The operative published position remains 12th of 17 · 55.88/100 · MIXED+. The superseded 11-MP and interim VFM 2.0 models must not be used as the current verdict.

Primary sources

CURRENT CONSTITUENCY-FIRST VFM PROFILE →

← ALL INVESTIGATIONS