5. Letter to the Commissioner from
Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP, 20 October 2009
Thank you for your letter of 1 October 2009 regarding
the above. I understand the complaint into which you are inquiring
is that I have used pre-paid House of Commons envelopes to send
unsolicited correspondence to some of my constituents, and may
have drawn on my allowance of original House stationery for the
paper.
As a framework, I shall use the six points you outline
on page three of your letter. Firstly, however, I would like to
highlight my primary and substantive response to your line of
inquiry thus:
I did not use pre-paid House of Commons envelopes
to send unsolicited correspondence to some of my constituents.
The envelopes that were paid for from the stationery allowance
were posted to constituents who had previously written to me on
the subject matter of the coffee morning, ie. crime and anti-social
behaviour.
1. The circumstances in which I came to invite
some of my constituents to my coffee morning.
The coffee morning in question—at Seven Mills
Primary School, Malabar Street, Alpha Grove, London E14—had
as its focus crime and anti-social behaviour. My letter to constituents
informed them, "the coffee morning is designed to give
you an opportunity to voice your concerns, exchange ideas and
plan our next steps alongside Millwall Safer Neighbourhood Team..."
The decision to organise such an event stemmed from
the large amount of casework I receive in respect of crime and
anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods. (It is the number one
issue of concern. Such casework comes to me during my weekly Saturday
door-knocking sessions; incidental encounters in the streets;
by email, letter and fax; and my Friday evening advice surgeries.)
Coupled with this is an allied concern communicated by constituents
that they often find it difficult to make contact with the police,
and/or obtain a swift response from the police service. As such,
the SNT's attendance was integral to ensuring the event met the
needs of my constituents who had made clear to me their desire
for the police to listen to, answer, and follow up concerns.
I would also like to emphasise here the contemporary
relevance and importance of such an event in terms of engendering
social cohesion in a multicultural area. My constituency has a
significant Muslim population, and the coffee morning format provides
a valuable interface between them, their elected representative
and the police.
Thus, I concluded that a coffee morning would not
only provide a timely and appropriate response to constituents'
concerns over crime and ASB, but would also facilitate the kind
of access they sought to me and to their local police team, and
encourage the social cohesion often debated but not always facilitated
in such a tangible way.
Lastly, a coffee morning held on a Saturday provides
an additional, more convenient and relaxed way for constituents
to access me and the police than a busy Friday evening advice
surgery, whilst retaining the kind of face-to-face aspect so valued
by constituents.
2. Which constituents were targeted for my letter
and how many such letters I sent out.
I organised the coffee morning in the middle of an
area from which a great deal of crime and ASB casework had stemmed.
Constituents living in the environs of the school were invited—ie.
streets from which crime and anti-social behaviour casework had
emanated. Indeed, I have followed up such casework from the very
street from which the complaint comes, ie. [street name] involving
youths on mini-motos and skateboards; drug use; prostitution;
break-ins; theft; travellers living in an empty vehicle; the need
for CCTV. It is worth pointing out that this issue has been so
important in [street name] that I wrote to the Council about the
residents who were in the process of installing gates on the estate,
and who had paid for night-time security in the interim. I had
asked the Council if it might be able to assist in funding the
gates.
On my casework computer system I have a great deal
of additional casework logged from the surrounding area, and the
people in these streets received my letter about the coffee morning.
You will gather this amounted to hundreds.
3. The source of the notepaper used for my letter,
and specifically whether it was drawn from my stationery allowance,
or funded by my Communications Expenditure or by myself.
The letters posted had notepaper paid from my stationery
allowance.
4. If the notepaper used for the letter was not
drawn from my stationery allowance but funded from my Communications
Expenditure, why it did not include a notice identifying the funding
source.
It was from my stationery allowance.
5. The distribution arrangements for this letter
including how many second class (or first class) House of Commons
pre-paid envelopes I used for this dispatch.
Some were posted, some were hand-delivered. Those
that were posted were second-class. Hand-delivery provided an
opportunity for greater personal contact with constituents. As
I have outlined in response to point 2, the number posted was
in the hundreds.
6. Whether I at any time consulted the Department
of Resources about any aspect of my letter or its dispatch.
No. I had spoken with others who had organised similar
coffee mornings in other constituencies and whom I understood
had already clarified the situation with the Department.
The matters outlined above accord with Paragraph
2.6.3.1 of the Green Book, which states that pre-paid envelopes
must not be used, "for correspondence you instigate with
constituents on issues on which they have not previously contacted
you." I hope I have explained that any pre-paid envelopes
bought from the stationery allowance for this purpose were sent
to constituents who had written to me on the issues of crime and
anti-social behaviour.
Further to the above, I refer to Section 2.5.1 of
the Green Book, relating to Communications Expenditure—ie.
"Communications Expenditure is designed to help Members
communicate proactively with their constituents about their work
in furtherance of their parliamentary duties." In writing
to local people whom I knew to be affected by crime and ASB, and
in inviting them to an event designed to address and tackle those
concerns, I believe I acted in furtherance of my parliamentary
duties. At a time when MPs are being asked to be more available,
accessible and transparent, I also feel my contact with constituents
in this way responds to such demands.
Thirdly, Section 2.5.1 also provides examples of
appropriate Communications Expenditure, and includes, "Advertising
of...constituency meetings." The coffee morning was one
such constituency meeting: not political, not seeking to gain
political advantage, but for constituency neighbourhoods with
previously declared crime and ASB concerns. The fact that I included
in my mail-out people who were of an opposite political persuasion
(eg. the complainant's household) does, I think, demonstrate there
was nothing underhand or untoward in my efforts.
I hope the above demonstrates the veracity of my
coffee morning mail-out to constituents on the Isle of Dogs and
the funding of the mail-out from the stationery allowance and
Communications Expenditure, in accordance with the principles
of the Green Book. I believe my explanation of this matter refutes
the complainant's implication that such an activity was not an
appropriate use of my stationery allowance or Communications Expenditure
or against the interests of the residents of [street name] and
its vicinity.
Lastly, I hope you will be aware that my record on
MPs' expenses has been exemplary, and this makes me ponder the
political motives of the complainant—an active member of,
and councillor for, an opposition party in the local borough—in
attempting to sully my reputation. (I have encountered not a single
other complaint regarding this or other coffee mornings—indeed,
quite the reverse.) Organising such an event was, I believe, the
action of a diligent MP, cognisant of his responsibilities to
his constituents. It is worrying to me that a local opposition
councillor would seek to waste taxpayers' money by pursuing such
a complaint and attempting to dress it up as his own concern about
inappropriate use of taxpayers' money.
I shall of course be happy to provide further information
or clarification, and I await your response in due course.
20 October 2009
| 
