19. Letter to the Commissioner from
Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP, 9 February 2010
Thank you for your letter of 4 February. I am happy
to respond, as requested, by return.
[Material not relevant to this inquiry]
[The Director of Operations] refers to the rules
stating that pre-paid envelopes and stationery not paid for out
of the Communications Allowance must only be used in relation
to specific constituency casework, and that a "general
invitation" (to a coffee morning) would normally be paid
for out of the Communications Allowance. What I hope I have highlighted
in previous replies you is that the volume and nature of the contact
from constituents in the area in question led me to conclude that
an appropriate, commensurate and desirable way to pursue the casework
brought to me would be to invite those residents to an event at
which they could engage in face-to-face contact with the local
Safer Neighbourhood Team. In this line of thinking, the coffee
morning represented a response to casework that I felt would be
appreciated by those who had contacted me.* (see end of letter)
Further to this, and perhaps of even greater relevance,
is that one of the ongoing concerns articulated by residents to
me was their difficulty making direct contact with the SNT, or
getting the SNT to follow up issues as they would wish. It struck
me that a coffee morning was, in fact, an apposite and innovative
new way for me to act as mediator between resident and police.
After all, I often write to the police, or email them, or set
up a meeting between me and a senior officer, to bring constituents'
concerns to the attention of the police, when in fact what people
often want is to see and speak with local police officers themselves.
Notwithstanding the above, I am happy with your prompt
to me that the cost of the relevant envelopes could be charged
to my Communications Expenditure, should the case I have made
fall short of your benchmark. However, I do of course hope my
explanations as above, and over recent months, allow you to conclude
in my favour.
I have at no time tried to undermine or compromise
the rules of the House, or misuse public money, or seek political
advantage illegally. I have tried to perform my duties to the
best of my ability and as conscientiously as I believe appropriate.
In the climate of MPs being accused of all manner
of transgressions and indulgences, I would appeal to you to judge
me on my record over more than twelve years and accept my explanation
as not being "unreasonable". I fully accept the
need to be absolutely scrupulous in record-keeping, and this experience
has served to make me determined to focus to an even greater extent
on doing so now and in the future.
Thank you for your assistance.
* I received the attached email last month from
constituent, [...], who lives in [...] on the Isle of Dogs. [This
constituent] was invited to the coffee morning in question, as
her area had clearly been identified as one in which anti-social
behaviour was a problem.
I feel the e-mail from [this constituent] provides
the strongest of evidence to support the points I have made:
Anti-social behaviour had been highlighted a
problem by local people, so my letter to them was a response to
an issue of concern that had been raised with me.
- Local people reinforced the concerns they
had expressed regarding anti-social behaviour by attending the
coffee morning and using it to enlist my support. They used the
forum to provide more detailed information on an existing problem,
and I think this shows that the coffee morning invitation was
not unsolicited and not something designed to "drum
up new business" or "gain political advantage"
to coin two phrases.
- [The constituent's] email shows that my interaction
with her and others, and my subsequent representations, evinced
a positive and much-sought after outcome. Her email finishes with
a warm endorsement of my actions to help constituents, which she
concludes is appreciated by them.
9 February 2010
| 
