Mr Ian Cawsey MP: Resolution Letter
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Ian Cawsey MP: Resolution Letter Letter to Mrs Julie Johnson from the Commissioner, 6 August 2008 I am writing to let you know the outcome of my consideration of the complaint against Mr Ian Cawsey MP which came initially from Mr Andrew Percy and which you took over from 7 November last year. The complaint was about Mr Cawsey’s use of House of Commons stationery and franked envelopes for a total of eleven communications. The essence of your complaint is that Mr Cawsey has misused Parliamentary stationery and pre-paid envelopes by using them to communicate proactively with his constituents and that he failed to include a funding imprint in his newsletter for November/December 2007. After thorough examination of the examples you sent me and my predecessor, and having taken advice from the House authorities, I have concluded that, with the exception of his initial responses to the two petitions on Bartholomew House and one on parking in Brigg, these communications should have been funded from Mr Cawsey's Parliamentary Communications Allowance and not from his centrally provided stationery allowance. This is because House of Commons pre-paid envelopes (which he had used for all except the letters to parents of Brigg county primary school children) may not be used for sending surveys and because centrally provided stationery may not be used to send to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted the Member, other than in very limited circumstances. One of these is to respond once to a petition which has been sent to the Member and which (as in the three cases referred to above) they themselves have not initiated. Mr Cawsey has accepted these mistakes and apologised for them. Members are however allowed to use their Communications Allowance to send correspondence to constituents on local or constituency wide issues, including surveys. It would have been within the rules of the House for Mr Cawsey to have used this Allowance for these communications, Mr Cawsey has therefore undertaken to meet the costs of the communications in question from his Communications Allowance. Meanwhile he has briefed his staff on the operation of the rules in order to avoid this happening again. He has also accepted that the newsletter should have included a funding imprint. I understand that he is ensuring that one is included in future. I have concluded, therefore, that Mr Cawsey was in breach of the rules of the House in funding the communications I have identified from his centrally provided stationery allowance and not from his Communications Allowance. He has taken action to rectify the situation1 and to avoid a recurrence. He has apologised for the error. I consider this is a satisfactory outcome. I shall be reporting my conclusions informally to the Committee on Standards and Privileges and I therefore now regard the matter as closed. I am copying this letter to Mr Ian Cawsey. 6 August 2008 1 Paying £399 from his Communication Allowance. 2 Complaints rectified 2008-09 Mr Ian Cawsey MP: Written Evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Andrew Percy, 4 August 2007 It has recently come to my attention that Mr Ian Cawsey the Member of Parliament for the Brigg and Goole constituency appears to have written a series of unsolicited letters to residents on various issues within the Brigg and Goole constituency on parliamentary paper using parliamentary postage. Given that Mr Cawsey sits in a marginal seat it can surely be no coincidence that these mailings have increased in recent months particularly following my selection as the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party at the next General Election. The issues that Mr Cawsey writes about are indeed very important issues and perhaps ones that he should be communicating with his constituents about. However, surely it should not be the case wherein taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for Mr Cawsey publicising himself in the run up to the next General Election. Example 1. The enclosed letters marked A & B were written to local residents who signed a petition against the closure of the Bartholomew House Unit in Goole.2 The petition was not addressed to Mr Cawsey and indeed was not even delivered to Mr Cawsey. They were addressed to the Humber Mental Health Trust and the petition was gathered by the Belgravia Carers. My understanding is that Mr Cawsey’s Secretary, who was present at the handover of the petition from the Belgravia Carers to the Humber Mental Health Trust, took the opportunity to photocopy the petition for use by Mr Cawsey. The lady to whom letters A & B were addressed was most angry about this issue as she understood the petition to be non-political and to have been started by the Belgravia Carers. The petition was not addressed to Mr Cawsey and nor was it delivered to Mr Cawsey. This is a clear breach of Parliamentary rules as those who signed, including myself, did not sign a petition either addressed to or organised by Mr Cawsey. Example 2. I am given to understand that an unsolicited letter was recently sent to every house in the village of Burringham from Mr Cawsey on Parliamentary paper and in a Parliamentary envelope. The letter included a survey with a freepost envelope to be returned to an address in Brigg. The issue the letter addressed was extremely important, however, a number of residents have expressed concerns about the nature of the mass mailing sent to them from Mr Cawsey, presumably paid for by the taxpayer. One of the residents who returned the survey with a note saying she did not think it appropriate has now received a reply which is attached and marked C.3 The letter makes a clear partisan point which is surely not appropriate use for Parliamentary paper and postage. Example 3. A letter was recently provided by Mr Cawsey for delivery to every parent of a child at Brigg Primary School. This letter was delivered to every child at the school for them to take home to their parents. I understand this unsolicited mail was also on Parliamentary paper. Example 4. I am informed that Mr Cawsey recently sent out unsolicited letters (parliamentary paper and postage) to residents who lived in areas that had been flooded. Again, this is a commendable exercise for an MP to do but many would conclude that these letters should not be sent at the taxpayers expense. I too have written to many residents affected by flooding, the difference being that I have paid for the production and postage of those letters myself. It can be no coincidence that Mr Cawsey is sending so much unsolicited mail out at the present time. Many residents have contacted me to say that they consider these mailings to be little more than an attempt to curry 2 WE 2, WE 3 3 WE 4 3 Complaints rectified 2008-09 favour in the run up to the next election. I appreciate that that is exactly what politicians try to do, but the difference here is that public money appears to have been used. As far as I am aware from my own employment as a researcher for an MP, it is a breach of parliamentary rules to write unsolicited mass mailings to constituents on parliamentary paper and postage. The issues raised in Mr Cawsey’s letters are important and did require action. However, this does not mitigate the fact that it would appear that parliamentary rules could have been broken. I would be more than grateful therefore if you would please investigate these matters to establish whether or not any breaches have occurred. Please could you clarify, in writing, the rules on which Mr Cawsey can communicate with his constituents, particularly in respect of mass mailings. I thank you in anticipation of your cooperation in this matter and I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience on this issue. 4 August 2007 2. Attachment A: Letter sent to local residents from Mr Ian Cawsey MP 4 Complaints rectified 2008-09 3. Attachment B: letter sent to local residents from Mr Ian Cawsey MP 5 Complaints rectified 2008-09 4. Attachment C, Letter to resident who responded to a survey from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 23 July 2007 5. Letter to Mr Andrew Percy from the Commissioner, 16 August 2007 Thank you for your letter of 4 August (received in my office on 14 August) about various items of unsolicited correspondence recently circulated by Mr Cawsey in his Brigg and Goole constituency. You ask me to clarify the rules governing the use of House of Commons stationery and postage by an MP. The rules relating to these matters were revised earlier this year when a new Communications Allowance (CA) was introduced with effect from 1 April in order to enable MPs to communicate proactively with their constituents. The CA can be used to cover the cost of stationery and postage employed in targeted correspondence related to local or constituency-wide issues. You can find the detailed rules relating to the new allowance and the use of House stationery on the House of Commons website at www.parliament.uk by looking up ‘Allowances’ in the A-Z Index. You can access the booklet containing the relevant rules and guidance there under the heading 'Further Information' relating to the House of Commons Allowances scheme. You will see from paragraph 10 of the rules on House stationery (on page 33 of the booklet) that prepaid envelopes should not be used by Members for unsolicited correspondence.