Appendix 2: Memorandum from Mr Michael
Foster (Worcester)
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to submit a Memorandum for consideration along with Sir Philip's
report.
As you will see from the conclusions drawn by Sir
Philip in his report—his Para. 38—the rules on Stationery
and Postage use are very difficult to interpret and can lead to
mistakes. Sir Philip welcomes the current review of Stationery
and Postage Rules which he hopes will offer clearer guidelines
and less ambiguity than at present. This is reinforced in the
final line of Para. 39 where Sir Philip suggests "there is
real doubt that the existing rules fully meet these tests."
With this in mind I would like to address the issues
raised under Complaint No. 1—the use of pre-paid postage.
I would suggest that there is a very fine line between unsolicited
and solicited communications and I stand by my original comment
that a very important function of an MP, especially in today's
climate of political disinterest, is to communicate and keep his
constituents fully informed. Information on a change of address,
for constituents who have requested to be kept informed of my
parliamentary work, is part of the vital link between MP and constituent
and I feel a genuine communication, not a circular.
I would also add that for the interest of the Committee,
my Incidental Expense Provision for 2005/6 has not reached its
limit by some considerable amount and any suggestion that my use
of stationery was to avoid use of my IEP is unfounded.
Secondly, Complaint No. 2—the issue of the
Annual Report, Sir Philip has recommended that a complaint be
upheld against what I consider a factual description in a caption.
In making his judgement, Sir Philip states that he cannot see
the part played by me in the activities being described. I am
very disappointed that at no point have I been asked what role
I played in the three stories. Had I thought it relevant or had
I been asked I would have written an essay on my involvement in
each of the three cases. But Members would appreciate that the
process side of their work does not make for exciting reading,
let alone lend itself for a caption for a photograph. That is
why I had been asked to officially open the nursery, not just
be "in attendance" as Sir Philip puts it. The fact that
I was at the time a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department
of Education having served under the Children's Minister was also
relevant to me being asked to perform the official opening ceremony.
Exactly the same principles apply to the other two examples.
As I have said in the evidence submitted, I do not
consider the captions to be "party political" and I
have suggested an objective test that could be applied to such
assessments in the future. By comparison with Annual Reports and
other IEP funded material I have sent to Sir Philip in the course
of this complaint, I feel the recommendation made to the Committee
will lead to an avalanche of future objections that will have
to be considered by the Committee. Sir Philip has assured me that
the Committee will see the examples I have submitted of other
IEP funded material that will fall foul of this recommendation
if accepted. I do believe a line can be drawn between a description
of fact and making a party political point. I trust the Committee
will look at some of the material and accept that many more Members
will soon have complaints made against them if Mr Luff's complaint
is upheld. Sir Philip in Para 48 in rejecting one of Mr Luff's
complaints, makes the point that my political allegiance is well
known to my constituents. I agree, but I would add that the political
control of the Government is doubly well known, and as such it
is hardly a campaigning or party political comment, but a statement
of fact. There would be far more uncertainty over the political
control of say a local council. So describing the political control
of a local council could be construed as a campaigning or partisan
point compared to the description of the Government that is merely
factual not an opinion.
I am also disappointed, although I can partly understand
why, that in reaching his conclusions Sir Philip did not think
it appropriate to consider that Mr Luff's complaint was politically
motivated, particularly given that Mr Luff's initial letter of
complaint makes reference to incumbency of office and its effect
upon challengers. I would also submit the history of our relationship,
including previous complaints using fabricated names and address
of alleged constituents of mine, and the fact that at least one
local journalist was briefed by Mr Luff about his complaint (a
point I did raise with Sir Philip in conversation) all suggest
a political motivation for the complaint.
Throughout the investigation, I have co-operated
fully and openly with Sir Philip in the knowledge that I have
acted in a manner expected of a Member of Parliament, in corresponding
with constituents in a genuine and open manner and in trying to
effectively engage with my constituents.
In conclusion I would like to endorse the comment
in Sir Philip's report—Para. 56 that the answer to problems
which have been highlighted in this case, will be resolved by
amending the present rules to provide clarity and remove ambiguity
that will enable MPs to properly discharge their Parliamentary
functions—which is what I have been trying to do.
8 May 2006 Michael Foster MP
| 
