6. Letter to Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP
from the Commissioner, 21 October 2009
Thank you for your letter of 20 October responding
to mine of 1 October about this complaint.
I was most grateful to have this response. You kindly
offered to provide further information or clarification if I needed
it, and it would indeed be helpful if you could clarify the following
points:
1. That all the letters you sent in House of Commons
pre-paid envelopes were to constituents who had specifically raised
with you the problem of anti-social behaviour. I ask this because
your letter suggests that you may have invited constituents who
had not, on the face of it, raised this issue specifically with
you, namely: "Constituents living in the environs of the
school were invited… 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 mornings."
2. That no part of your communication, neither the
paper nor the cost of dispatch, for the invitations posted out
or those hand delivered, was met or intended to be met from the
Communications Expenditure. I raise this because you make a number
of references to the Communications Expenditure, including stating
that: "the funding of the mail-out from the stationery
allowance and Communications Expenditure [was] in accordance
with the principles of the Green Book." If I understand
the rest of your letter, the cost of this mail-out was met solely
through your provided stationery allowance.
It would be helpful also to have the following further
information:
1. How many pre-paid House of Commons envelopes you
used for this dispatch. You say that the number was "in
the hundreds", but it would be very helpful if you could
check your database and give me the best estimate you can of how
many such envelopes were used.
2. Assuming that all these recipients were constituents
who had specifically raised the problem of anti-social behaviour
with you, could you give me some examples of the initiating correspondence
or communication from those constituents—20 broadly representative
examples would be most helpful?
3. I take it that the complainant had not raised
the question of anti-social behaviour with you. Could you, therefore,
explain how he or his household came to receive your letter in
a House of Commons pre-paid envelope? And could you let me know
how confident you are that other similar mistakes—if it
was a mistake—have not been made?
If it were possible to let me have a response to
these additional points within the next two weeks, I would be
most grateful. Subject to your responses, I would hope then to
consult the Department of Resources.
Thank you again for your help.
21 October 2009
| 
