21. Letter to Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP
from the Commissioner, 15 February 2010
Thank you for your letter of 9 February responding
to mine of 4 February about this complaint. I was most grateful
for such a full and prompt response.
[Material not relevant to this inquiry]
I have carefully noted the points you have made in
respect of the advice given in the letter of 7 January from the
Director of Operations. I recognize too the points you have made.
But I am currently minded to take the view that this communication
was not sufficiently related to the saving in the rules that pre-paid
envelopes may only be used to send updates to constituents if
the updates relate to specific cases which have been raised by
those constituents. I note that the rule also goes on to say that
pre-paid envelopes may not be used to send updates of more general
concern. I think you have established that your invitation to
your constituents—even if it could be interpreted as an
update—was related to matters of more general concern and
not related to a specific case raised by each of the constituents
to whom you wrote using these envelopes. I am reinforced in this
view by the fact that the Communications Allowance (now Communications
Expenditure) was introduced specifically to enable a Member to
communicate with groups of their constituents.
I need now to consider with you how best to resolve
this matter. I am, of course, open to further argument about my
provisional conclusion. Equally, you are not bound to accept that
provisional conclusion. If you were not to accept it, then I would
prepare a memorandum for the Committee on Standards and Privileges
and the Committee would need to consider this matter and reach
its own conclusion on the basis of that memorandum. Their report,
and my memorandum would be published along with all the evidence
I have received.
It is open to me under the Standing Orders of the
House, however, to decide that I can myself resolve the matter
through the rectification procedure. In order to do so, the Member
would need to accept that he was in breach of the rules of the
House and to have taken appropriate action to rectify that breach.
The Committee would also expect the Member to have apologised.
I am able to use this procedure if I consider that the Member
has taken satisfactory action and if I am satisfied that the breach
did not fall within the serious end of the spectrum.
After carefully considering the matter, I have decided
that I would be ready to resolve this complaint through the rectification
procedure since I do not consider that the breach is at the serious
end of the spectrum. I consider it would be acceptable, if you
agreed to it, that the full cost of the stationery used for the
invitations which were the subject of the complaint and for similar
letters which you say you sent in the last two years should be
taken from your 2009-10 Communications Expenditure provision.
The Department of Resources estimate that the total cost would
be £557.
I would be very grateful to know whether you would
wish me to resolve this matter through the rectification procedure,
or whether you would wish to pursue one of the other options set
out in this letter. If you were to agree to rectification, then
I would show you the draft letter I would propose to send the
complainant so that you could check on its factual accuracy. Once
I have sent the letter, I would regard the matter as closed. I
would also report the outcome to the Committee on Standards and
Privileges. Under proposals agreed by the Committee, but not yet
implemented by the House, the rectification letter and in due
course the evidence related to that decision would be published
on my website.
If you would like a word about any of this, please
contact me at the House. Otherwise I look forward to hearing from
you again—I would hope in the next week so that the matter
can if you agree, be quickly resolved.
10 February 2010
| 
