16. Letter to the Commissioner from
the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 7 January
2010
Thank you for your letter of 17 November 2009 about
the complaint against Mr Fitzpatrick. The complaint is that Mr
Fitzpatrick has used pre-paid envelopes and House stationery to
publish and distribute unsolicited letters and circulars.
As you are aware, the rules governing the use of
House stationery, as outlined in the booklet The Communications
Allowance and the use of House stationery, state that "Pre-paid
envelopes may only be used in pursuit of your parliamentary duties.
This includes ... correspondence with constituents in connection
with an issue on which they have previously contacted you"
(page 33, paragraph 11(d)). However, the rules also state that
"Pre-paid envelopes
may only be used to send updates to constituents on an on-going
basis where the updates relate to specific cases which have been
raised with you by those constituents ... Pre-paid envelopes may
not be used to send updates of more general concerns."
(Page 34, paragraph 13)
In general, I would expect "Dear
Resident" letters to be funded from
the Communications Allowance (now Communications Expenditure)
because they are likely to be unsolicited. Mr Fitzpatrick's letters
from 2007 appear to have been addressed to individuals, although
the letter has the characteristics of a circular, Mr Fitzpatrick
indicates in his letter to you of 12 November that these would
have been sent to people whose cases were according to his records
"live".
The issue would therefore appear to be whether it
was reasonable for Mr Fitzpatrick to treat a general invitation
to an event, which was connected to an issue he was dealing with
on behalf of the recipient, as if it were in connection with an
individual constituency case. Mr Fitzpatrick's view is that it
was acceptable to use both pre-paid envelopes and House stationery
in the circumstances he outlines. However, on balance, I would
suggest that a straightforward interpretation of the rules would
indicate that the usage was in breach of the rules.
At the same time I can confirm that the use of the
Communications Allowance for the distribution of the Mr Fitzpatrick's
letters would have been perfectly proper. The facility for Members
to use House stationery and envelopes is a long-standing one,
whereas the Communications Allowance was, in 2007, a very recent
innovation. The boundary between the two can sometimes be opaque
and Mr Fitzpatrick's interpretation of the rules is not itself
an unreasonable one.
Mr Fitzpatrick has claimed for envelopes and stationery
overprinting from his Communications Expenditure but I am unable
to determine, from the claims submitted, if these claims are for
the stationery used for the letters referred to by Mr Fitzpatrick
in his letter of 28 October 2009. However, I have no reason to
doubt Mr Fitzpatrick's evidence to you on this point.
Under the circumstances it would seem entirely appropriate
for Mr Fitzpatrick to charge the cost of the relevant pre-paid
envelopes to his Communications Expenditure. I understand that
200 second class pre-paid envelopes and sheets of paper would
be charged at £68.53 and £4.92 respectively. Of course,
this is a matter for you and Mr Fitzpatrick to determine and I
await further instructions from you.
I hope this covers the points you have raised.
7 January 2010
| 
