Jim Fitzpatrick - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 16 September 2010