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. They can only be used in respect of solicited correspondence, including where a person has signed a petition which has been addressed to a Member provided that the Member has not initiated the petition.
Turning to the specific examples of correspondence initiated by Mr Cawsey which you mention, I am not readily able without further information to assess where these fall within the scope of the new rules. Specifically I am not 6 Complaints rectified 2008-09 clear whether pre-paid envelopes were used in each of the four instances you cite, or whether the envelopes were franked separately. It would be helpful if you could let me know this (and, if possible, send me a sample, failing that a photocopy of the type of envelope used in each instance).
It would also be helpful to have originals or a copy of:
1. The unsolicited letter and survey (plus free post reply envelope, if possible) sent out by Mr Cawsey to residents in Burringham (Example 2).
2. The letter sent to parents of schoolchildren in Example 3
3. The letter(s) you mention in Example 4.
I am sorry to trouble you for this further information but the rules relating to the new allowance are, as you will see, extensive and having it will enable me to decide how to proceed. I will not alert Mr Cawsey to your complaint until I have received and been able to consider your reply.
I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime I am enclosing a copy of a note I send to all those who complain to me about the conduct of a Member, explaining the procedure involved, which I hope you will find helpful.
16 August 2007
6. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Andrew Percy, 31 August 2007
Many thanks for your letter dated August 16th regarding my complaint against Mr Cawsey. I have continued to receive complaints from local residents regarding the large number of unsolicited mailings Mr Cawsey is sending on parliamentary paper and postage. I understand one of the parish councils locally even commented on the cost of the mass mailings which are presently being sent out.
You will see two letters marked A and B which were both sent to everyone who had signed a petition against the closure of the Barts House Unit in Goole. 4The petitions were not addressed to Mr Cawsey and nor were they started by him. [the recipient] assures me that both letters arrived in pre-paid parliamentary envelopes.
I am also sending you a copy of another letter marked C which was received in response to an unsolicited mailing Mr Cawsey sent to residents. 5The original letter and survey, complete with envelope, is marked D.6
I am also including two examples of a further letter sent unsolicited to residents in response to the original flooding letter and survey (marked D). You will see these letters, marked E, are also in parliamentary envelopes.7
I wonder also if there has not been some breach of the Data Protection Act with regard to letter D. It refers to information received from North Lincolnshire Council which contained people’s personal information and which was passed to Mr Cawsey.
I hope this extra information is useful and that you will be able to investigate the matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
As I stated in my original complaint, the subject matter of these letters is important, but my feeling is Mr Cawsey should not be abusing the rules to send mass mailings in a marginal constituency at taxpayers’ expense.
31 August 2007
4 WE 2 and 3 5 WE 4 6 WE 7 7 WE 8 7 Complaints rectified 2008-09
7. Attachment D: Letter from Mr Cawsey about flooding, 12 July 2007
8 Complaints rectified 2008-09
9 Complaints rectified 2008-09
8. Attachment E, further letter from Mr Cawsey about flooding, 16 August 2010
10 Complaints rectified 2008-09
9. Letter to Mr Andrew Percy from the Commissioner, 4 September 2007
Thank you for your letter of 31 August in reply to mine of 16 August. I am also grateful for the samples of letters and envelopes sent out by Mr Cawsey which you have enclosed.
Drawing on the information in your two letters to me, I have prepared the enclosed note in which I have tried to set out succinctly the precise grounds of your complaint against Mr Cawsey. I should be grateful if you will check the accuracy of this carefully. In particular I am not absolutely certain that Mr Cawsey’s letter and survey about the flooding (dated 12 July—letter D enclosed with your recent letter) is the same as his letter about the High Street in Burringham, to which [ name of constituent1] responded and about which Mr Cawsey then wrote to her on 23 July (letter C enclosed with your recent letter). I should be glad if you will confirm the position.
It would also be helpful if you would clarify whether the letter sent to [constituent 1] was sent in a pre-paid envelope, and if you could let me have a copy of the letter to parents of the children at Brigg Primary School mentioned in your example 3.
I am sorry if I seem to be making heavy weather of this but it is obviously important that I can put confidently to Mr Cawsey the precise and accurate grounds of your complaints against him.
I look forward to hearing from you. If you think a word would be helpful, please do not hesitate to ring me.
4 September 2007
Andrew Percy—Grounds of Complaint against Ian Cawsey MP
Example 1
Petition about the future of Bartholomew House. Not initiated by nor addressed to Mr Cawsey.
Mr Cawsey sent letters dated 10 July and 1 August 2007 to those who had signed the petition, using House of Commons stationery and pre-paid Parliamentary envelopes.8
Example 2
Mr Cawsey sent an unsolicited letter to residents in Burringham dated 12 July 2007 about flooding problems in the village, using Parliamentary stationery and a pre-paid envelope. The letter included a questionnaire about flooding, which recipients were invited to complete and return to Mr Cawsey using a ‘freepost’ facility.
Mr Percy also queries whether this letter may have breached the Data Protection Act in that it drew on information provided to Mr Cawsey by North Lincolnshire Council. (Note: this would be a matter for the Information Commmissioner.)
Mr Cawsey subsequently wrote on 23 July to a[constituent],9 who had responded to the letter of 12 July, using House of Commons stationery [and a post-paid envelope?]
Example 3
Mr Cawsey recently sent an unsolicited letter to the parents of every child at Brigg Primary School. The letter was written on Parliamentary paper. Delivery was arranged through the children of the school.
8 WE 2, WE 3 9 WE 4 11 Complaints rectified 2008-09
Example 4
Mr Cawsey sent an unsolicited letter to residents dated 16 August reporting the outcome of his discussions with North Lincolnshire Council about flooding. The letter was sent on House of Commons stationery, using a pre-paid envelope.10
4 September 2007
10. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Andrew Percy, 17 September 2007
Many thanks for your letter dated September 4th11 seeking clarification on a number of points of my complaint. I apologise for the confusion with the various letters and it does appear I have made a mistake. The flooding letter marked D is different to the issue of the High Street in Burringham and I am now enclosing a new letter marked F which relates to the unsolicited letter Mr Cawsey wrote to residents in Burringham. That survey letter was in a parliamentary postage paid envelope and surveyed residents on traffic issues in Burringham. As far as I can establish, it was sent to the whole village and the letter marked C is the response of one of the residents to that original letter.
The letter marked F is a further mailing sent on parliamentary paper and in parliamentary postage paid envelopes updating residents on Mr Cawsey's Burringham survey.12
I am still trying to track down a copy of the letter sent to the parents of Brigg Primary School. It was showed to me by a parent but I did not keep a copy as at that point I was unsure whether any rules had been broken.
With regard to Example 1,13 I was at a meeting recently with some other residents who had also received the letters about Barts House. They confirmed they were in parliamentary envelopes and have said I can have their copies if I need them. They too were appalled that public money should be used to send out mailings to people who signed a petition which Mr Cawsey had nothing to do with.
I hope this clarifies the matters further and I shall endeavour to get a copy of the Brigg Primary School letter.
17 September 2007
10 WE 8 11 WE 9 12 WE 11 13 WE 2, WE 3 12 Complaints rectified 2008-09
11. Attachment F: Mr Cawsey’s follow up to traffic survey, 13 August 2007
13 Complaints rectified 2008-09
12. Letter to Mr Andrew Percy from the Commissioner, 2 October 2007
Thank you for your letter of 17 September and enclosure. I am sorry not to have replied earlier as I have been abroad.
In the light of the information you have sent me, I have revised the note I enclosed with my letter of 4 September setting out the grounds of your complaint against Mr Cawsey. I enclose a copy of this and the copy correspondence to which it refers (you will see I have re-lettered the various items of correspondence so that they follow the order in which they are mentioned in the note).
I should be grateful if you will check that this revised note is now correct. It will be helpful if you will also answer the query in the square bracketed passage at the end of Example 2 in the note.
Once I know that you are content with the revised note, I will consult the relevant departments of the House before inviting Mr Cawsey’s response to your complaint.
2 October 2007
13. Letter to the Commissioner from Mrs Julie Johnson, 7 November 2007
I write in reply to your letter Andrew Percy dated 1st November14 and received on the 7th November.
Mr Percy confirms that your revised draft is correct and that in answer to your query, the letter was sent using a House of Commons postage paid envelope.
14 In which the Commissioner asked Mr Percy to respond to his letter of 2 October. 14 Complaints rectified 2008-09
I am now taking over the complaint against Mr Cawsey, as I am agent for Mr Percy and the Constituency Association. I would therefore request that the complaint be made in my name.
7 November 2007
14. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 14 November 2007
Some time ago I received a complaint against you from Mr Andrew Percy. A copy of his letter dated 4 August is enclosed. The complaint focussed on a number of instances of alleged misuse of House stationery and pre-paid envelopes.
It took a little time for me to achieve the necessary clarity in the statement of the different aspects of the complaint. During that time, Mrs Julie Johnson (Mr Percy's agent) has taken over the role of complainant from Mr Percy. The complaint she is now making is set out in the enclosed note, together with a copy of the various items of correspondence to which the complaint refers. It is to the complaint as set out in the note and its attachments that I am now asking you to respond.
The essence of the complaint is that you have misused Parliamentary stationery and prepaid envelopes by using them to communicate proactively with constituents. As you know, paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House provides:
“Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.”
The rules on the use of House stationery and pre-paid envelopes were revised earlier this year consequent on the introduction of the Communications Allowance (CA). You can find them at Appendix 4 of the booklet on the CA which was issued by the DFA and the Serjeant at Arms to all Members in April. I enclose a copy of the Rules for ease of reference.
You will see that if you wish to use original House of Commons stationery to send to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted you, you must either purchase it from the suppliers or photocopy it (paragraph 9). You may not use pre-paid envelopes to send mail to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted you (paragraph 10). They can only be used in respect of solicited correspondence, including where a person has signed a petition addressed to a Member provided that the Member has not himself initiated the petition.
The application of the Stationery and Postage Rules has, of course, to be seen alongside the rules on the use of the CA, which is intended to enable Members to communicate proactively with their constituents on Parliamentary matters. Whilst targeted communications within the scope of the rules are permissible, pre-paid envelopes cannot, however, be used to facilitate their distribution.
I should be grateful if, in accordance with the procedures set out in the enclosed note, you will now give me your response to Mrs Johnson’s complaint. It would be helpful if, in doing this, you would explain in relation to each of the four instances of alleged misuse of stationery and pre-paid envelopes set out in the enclosed note:
a) how many copies of each of the communications were despatched;
b) to whom, and why;
c) whether pre-paid envelopes were used, and if so, of what class of postage;
d) how the House stationery used was funded (eg. whether privately, from your CA or otherwise);
e) how the free-post facility mentioned in Example 4 was funded.
It will also be helpful if you can let me have a copy of
i. the survey of residents and covering letter mentioned in Example 2; and 15 Complaints rectified 2008-09
ii. the letter to parents of children at Brigg Primary School mentioned in Example 3.
If you would like a word about the complaint at any point, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number above. I look forward to hearing from you. Meanwhile I am copying this letter and enclosures to the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Operations in the Department of Finance and Administration, whose views I will seek once I have your response to the complaint.
14 November 2007
Mrs Julie Johnson—Grounds of complaint against Ian Cawsey MP
Example 1
Petition about the future of Bartholomew House. Not initiated by nor addressed to Mr Cawsey.
Mr Cawsey sent letters dated 10 July and 1 August 2007 (copies attached marked A and B) to those who had signed the petition, using House of Commons stationery and pre-paid Parliamentary envelopes.15
Example 2
Mr Cawsey conducted a survey of residents on traffic problems in Burringham, using House of Commons stationery and pre-paid envelopes (no copy of this survey available). He subsequently wrote to all those surveyed on 13 August giving feedback on the survey (copy letter marked C). He also wrote on 23 July to [a constituent], who had responded to the letter of 12 July, using House of Commons stationery and a post-paid envelope (copy of letter marked D).16
Example 3
Mr Cawsey recently sent an unsolicited letter to the parents of every child at Brigg Primary School. The letter was written on Parliamentary paper. Delivery was arranged through the children of the school. (No copy of this letter is currently available.)
Example 4
Mr Cawsey sent an unsolicited letter to residents in Burringham dated 12 July 2007 about flooding problems in the village, using Parliamentary stationery and a pre-paid envelope (copy of letter and envelope marked E).17 The letter included a questionnaire about flooding, which recipients were invited to complete and return to Mr Cawsey using a 'freepost' facility.
The complainant also queries whether this letter may have breached the Data Protection Act in that it drew on information provided to Mr Cawsey by North Lincolnshire Council. (Note: this would be a matter for the Information Commissioner.)
Mr Cawsey later sent an unsolicited letter to residents dated 16 August (copy of letter and envelope marked E)18 reporting the outcome of his discussions with North Lincolnshire Council about flooding. The letter was sent on House of Commons stationery, using a pre-paid envelope.
15 WE 2, WE 3 16 WE 4 17 WE 7 18 WE 8 16 Complaints rectified 2008-09
14 November 2007
15. E-mail to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 29 November 2007
I am just sending this email to confirm that I have received this complaint and I can see right away that there are factual inaccuracies from the complainant. However, some of this work was undertaken by a student who worked for me over the summer and I want to talk to her first to ensure I can answer your questions as fully as possible and I hope to do this over the weekend.
I will write a full reply to the points as soon as possible.
I trust this is in order.
29 November 2007
16. Letter to the Commissioner from Mrs Julie Johnson, 22 January 2008
In addition to the letters sent to you last year, please find enclosed further evidence of further mailings19 that Mr Cawsey has sent to residents on parliamentary paper and in parliamentary postage paid envelopes.
Also, I have enclosed a leaflet from Mr Cawsey, which uses the portcullis but does not in the imprint make clear whether it has been paid for out of parliamentary expenses.
22 January 2008
19 WE 17, WE 18, WE 19 17 Complaints rectified 2008-09
22 January 2008
17. Attachment G: Mr Cawsey’s letter about post office closures
18 Complaints rectified 2008-09
19 Complaints rectified 2008-09
18. Attachment H: Mr Cawsey’s letter about parking in Brigg
20 Complaints rectified 2008-09
19. Mr Ian Cawsey MP’s Parliamentary Report
21 Complaints rectified 2008-09
22 Complaints rectified 2008-09
20. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 25 January 2008
Following your letter to me and our subsequent emails and conversations with your office I now am able to provide a response to your queries.
This has taken some time mainly due to the fact that the complaints relates to matters several months ago and in two instances relate to casework handled by a temporary staff member no longer in my employment and to advice from another former staff member. Obviously this makes it more difficult to piece together months after the event but I have done all I can to get as much information as possible.
I shall go through the four examples quoted in turn.
Example 120
The accusation is that I had responded to a petition on Bartholomew House (a local mental health facility that was under review) that was not initiated by me nor addressed to me.
There was a lot of public interest in this matter. Two petitions were delivered to me and they were not initiated by me, indeed I understand I would not have been able to respond to them if that had been the case. There were also lots of letters, emails, surgery appointments and I met campaigners on several occasions. All correspondence from myself related to those contacts and nothing was sent in an unsolicited manner.
Example 221
The accusation is that an unsolicited letter was sent to residents in Burringham regarding traffic problems in the village. This is a longstanding issue (indeed it was a problem when I was Leader of the Council before being elected to parliament).
Following previous contacts from many villagers and the local parish council I had take the matter up with the council and some remedial measures had been put in place. This was some years ago but I cannot now be precise exactly when. However, sadly in the summer there was another bad accident at the same point in the High Street. Having spoken to the council they agreed to meet me but pointed out that there were many diverse views amongst the residents about what should be done (e.g. some people think there should be no parking on the street as it is narrow, others think there should be parking as it provides a natural speed reduction model).
I therefore wrote to all those who had signed petitions, emailed, came to surgery etc, explaining that I had a meeting with the council but wanted local feedback on what they thought the situation should be as the council seemed to be at a loss as to what to do next. However, given the small additional numbers involved I wrote to others who lived on the High Street as it is a controversial issue and I wanted to ensure all had a chance to participate. This led to an additional 11 letters being produced.
The meeting was held with the council and they are currently putting in place a weight restriction on the High Street as this was the most supported option.
Example 3
This issue was to do with traffic markings outside of Brigg Primary School. This is a new school that opened in early 2007 but the parents were concerned that the council had not put in place any road markings outside or in the vicinity of the school, also that there was no road signage indicating a school was ahead.
I have no idea why this casework is claimed to be unsolicited as the Head asked me to call into the school to meet him having been lobbied at a parents meeting to involve me as they felt there was no progress from the council.
I took the matter up with the council who agreed to carry out the work over the summer holidays (which they did!). The story was carried in the local newspaper where the Head publicly thanked me for responding to the parents concerns.
20 WE 2, WE 3 21 WE 4 23 Complaints rectified 2008-09
Given that this was all happening in the last few days before the summer holidays began the Head agreed that a Dear Parent letter sent home with the children would be the best way to reassure parents that this would happen before their children returned to school in September. Obviously there were no postage costs for this.
Given the request to involve me came from parents and that the Head invited me to become involved I am not sure that any of this is a breach of the rules, but I would say that I do have a small amount of Commons stationery for personal use which I could use to replenish my overall supply if you felt that was appropriate.
Example 422
The accusation is that I sent unsolicited letters to residents in Burringham. This is not true not least as the example provided relates to Belton which certainly did experience floods last year and I shall assume this is simply an error in the submission to you.
During the extreme weather at the end of June last year, there were a number of bad flood incidents across the constituency. There was no one big flood as happened in Doncaster and Hull but a number of smaller incidents in terms of the number of houses affected but bad in some cases in terms of the extent that some of those households were flooded.
I received a large number of calls for help, not least because the Council's base for their telephone and email systems was flooded as well so that point of contact was unavailable for local people. It was busy and traumatic for everyone and my constituency offices found themselves inundated with calls given the problems at North Lincolnshire Council.
Following the flood the Government made resources available to affected councils for immediate cash assistance to all those who had reported a flood. But in North Lincolnshire that was potentially problematical as the council had not been able to receive calls.
I arranged to meet the council to share the data I had received and I took the decision that if we had calls from an area where houses had flooded then we would write to the other properties in case they had had a problem and had been unable to report it and therefore would not be eligible for the support being given to others through no fault of their own. I should say we are not talking big numbers (less than 100 additional letters) and this decision was simply to ensure the council could be given a comprehensive picture of the problems and remedial actions necessary.
I did have a staff member work for me last year who had previously worked for two other MPs and he had told me that it was in order to send a letter to a household that was affected by casework a member was involved with even if they had not approached the member directly. It's not an approach I have used previously but given the whole scenario of what was unfolding in North Lincolnshire last summer it appeared to me to be a human response to people who were in need and whose normal point of contact was unavailable.
I should say that all of these matters were of huge concern to my constituents and it is not surprising that they made contact with me on them.
I should further say that except for the one letter mentioned earlier in this submission, I have had nothing but support and thanks for this work. You may be interested to learn that the examples you have been shown have come from Conservative Councillors and candidates (with the exception of the one letter from Burringham), I would hardly have written to them if I was engaged on an attempt to “curry favour” as it was described to you. It was further mentioned that this was in the countdown to an election. That may have become an issue later in the year but back in July I don't think this was in anyone's mind.
I hope that this answers the specific queries. On the more general points I should say that on the rare occasions we do large mailings (usually to petitions) we do use second class post, the only exception would be if we ran out of such envelopes and wished to finish the job before a new order arrives.
Freepost is paid for out of my Communications Allowance, stationery is ordered in the usual way.
22 WE 7, WE 8 24 Complaints rectified 2008-09
Following your letter I have spoken to all my staff members individually to ensure they understand the occasions when Commons stationery is appropriate and when it is appropriate to use the Communications Allowance and I am confident that this is understood.
You finally asked if I had a copy of the survey and letter in Burringham. I'm afraid I don't though I did pass them onto the local council and I could ask them if they still have a copy if that is deemed necessary. Though I have the draft I put together and it was a simple form asking six questions under the heading Burringham High Street Survey.
1—What are the main traffic issues on the High Street?
2—In your experience is speeding an issue and if so does it happen at a particular time or day of the week?
3—Do you think that parking restrictions should be introduced to free up more road space?
4—What solutions do you think the Council should consider to improve matters?
5—Any other comments regarding the High Street?
6—Anything else on any subject you’d like to draw to my attention?
I also don't have a copy of the Brigg parents letter though I do have the text that I used. The letter simply stated:
Brigg County Primary School—Road Safety
I was contacted last week by Steve Pearce, the Headteacher at Brigg County Primary School regarding the failure of the local authority to provide road markings and safety measures outside the new school.
As a result I took this matter up as an urgent priority with North Lincolnshire Council and I am pleased to be able to report to you that they are indeed now going to undertake the work to create a “school safety zone”.
They tell me that this work will take place over the forthcoming summer holidays so that it will be in place when the children return for the new school year in September.
This is, of course, welcome news and if there are any other matters that you feel I could assist with then please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will be very pleased to do so.
25 January 2008
21. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 30 January 2008
I attach copy of a letter of 22 January from Mrs Julie Johnson with some further correspondence about your use of House of Commons notepaper and pre-paid postage to add to the complaints from her which Sir Philip Mawer, my predecessor, wrote to you about on 14 November.23
To maintain consistency, I have attached to this letter a summary of Mrs Johnson’s additional complaints in respect of your alleged use of stationery as I understand them. I am checking this summary with Mrs Johnson.24
Sir Philip Mawer’s letter set out the essence of the stationery complaint against you and the particular points on which he requested your assistance. I do not propose to add to these, although I would welcome any additional comments from you in the light of these further examples.
Mrs Johnson also raises a complaint in respect of your Parliamentary Report of November/December 2007 which I have attached.25 She notes that it does not include an imprint to make it clear whether it has been paid for out of Parliamentary expenses. Under the rules relating to Members’ Communications Allowances, Members must include in publications funded by the allowance a short notice explaining that costs are to be met from the allowances, and
23 WE 16 to 19 24 Not included in the evidence. 25 Not included in the evidence 25 Complaints rectified 2008-09 giving the source of any other funding (Appendix 2, paragraph 18 to the booklet ‘The Communications Allowance and the use of House Stationery’ published by the then Department of Finance and Administration and Serjeant at Arms Department in April 2007.) I would be grateful, therefore, to know what was the source of funding for this newsletter and if costs were met from Parliamentary allowances, why no notice was included in the publication.
My office have spoken to you on a number of occasions in recent weeks to ask when we might expect your reply to Sir Philip Mawer's letter of 14 November. We were expecting it a few weeks ago—and I so informed the Committee on Standards and Privileges to whom I report on the complaints I receive—but nothing has yet arrived. I would be very grateful if you could let me have your promised response, if at all possible within the next few days. If you wanted more time to respond to the additional complaints attached, that would be very acceptable. I think it might be preferable for me have your initial response now rather than to await any further comments you wish to make in the light of the latest complaint. If for any reason you are not able to respond in the next few days, please let me know so that I can deal appropriately with any inquiries I get from the Committee.
As before, I am copying this letter to the Serjeant at Arms and the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources and I shall be seeking their views once I have your response.
30 January 2008
22. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 4 February 2008
I have now had an opportunity to consider your letter of 25 January responding to the initial complaint from Mrs Julie Johnson about your use of House stationery and pre-paid envelopes.
I expect that I shall need to take the view of the Serjeant at Arms office and the Department of Resources on your responses, but before doing so, I would be very grateful for the following points of clarification:
a. Example 1 (Bartholomew House)26— could you confirm that the two petitions which were delivered to you and not initiated by you were actually addressed to you (I hope I am right in assuming that they were)? I hope I am right too in assuming that all the letters you sent in response to the petition and the other unsolicited approaches you had used pre-paid envelopes and House of Commons stationery, and that that stationery and pre-paid envelopes came from your Communications Allowance. Could you also confirm whether or not you were able to estimate how many letters you sent in relation to the future of Bartholomew House?
b. Example 2 (Burringham traffic survey)27—could you again confirm that the signed petitions you received were actually addressed to you? Could you confirm that all the letters you sent in relation to the traffic problems in the village used House stationery and pre-paid envelopes from your Communications provision? Could I also have an estimate of how many letters this represented (that is the number which received from you a solicited reply, and separately the 11 who received an unsolicited letter).
c. Example 3 (Brigg Primary School)28—again, could you confirm that the costs of these letters were met from your Communications Allowance for both House of Commons stationery and postage, and give me an estimate of how many letters this involved?
d. Example 4 (Belton floods)29—again, I would be grateful if you could confirm how many letters you sent to the flood victims in Belton which were solicited in that they were responses to communications from them—and that you used House stationery and postage paid for from your Communications Allowance; and that the 100 additional letters were handled in the same way. Could you confirm that the letter which was attached as Annex E to the original complaint dated 12 July 2007 was sent with the survey to all those who had previously contacted you about the flood and in the same terms as that
26 WE 2, WE 3 27 No example of original letter available. See WE 11 for update. 28 See WE 20 29 WE 7, WE 8 26 Complaints rectified 2008-09
letter? I note that the freepost facility offered in your questionnaire was funded by the Communications Allowance.
I am sorry to ask for this further clarification at this stage, but I am hopeful that, if you can let me have responses on these points, it should enable me to resolve the complaint more quickly. I am grateful for your help.
I am copying your letter of 25 January and this response to the Serjeant at Arms office and the Department of Resources to keep them in the picture.
4 February 2008
23. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 29 February 2008
Thank you for your letter of 4 February30 concerning the complaint against Ian Cawsey MP by Mrs Julie Johnson. This complaint has a number of strands to it but in essence is about the use of House stationery and therefore falls mainly within the remit of the Department of Facilities. I comment below on the Communications Allowance aspects of each example as they have been presented by Mrs Johnson.
As far as data protection is concerned, this would more properly be a matter for the Information Commissioner. However, if you would wish to have initial advice from the House’s Data Protection Officer in my Directorate, please let me know.
Example One—The letter concerning Bartholomew House31
This seems to be mainly a matter for the Department of Facilities to advise you. In principle, however, follow-ups to petitioners can be funded from the Communications Allowance. The content of the two letters to [...] dated 10 July and 1 August 2007 do not breach the rules of the CA.
Example Two—Letter sent to residents in the village of Burringham32
We have not seen this, although once again this is primarily a matter for the Department of Facilities. The mailing would, in principle, have been allowable under the CA (subject to its content, etc.). Likewise, the cost of the survey and freepost facility could also be charged to the CA, subject to the application of the detailed rules. Without seeing the actual survey I cannot offer an opinion if it was within the rules, but from the information Mr Cawsey provides it certainly appears to be the type of survey that could be acceptable if properly formulated. The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery booklet states that “surveys/questionnaires relating to matters of importance locally or for use by the Member locally” are acceptable (Page 21, para. 14) and the matter undoubtedly meets this criteria.
There seems to have been an additional exchange with [...], although Mr Cawsey does not comment on this point. His letter of the 23 July does contain a partisan comment about the local council.33 However, I would not wish to interpose the Department in the midst of a private exchange between a Member of Parliament and an individual constituent.
Example Three—Letter to parents of Brigg Primary School34
I see nothing wrong with the content of this letter or its distribution had it been funded from the CA.
Example Four—Letters to Belton residents affected by flooding35
30 The Commissioner had forwarded a copy of his letter of 4 February to Mr Cawsey. 31 WE 2, WE 3 32 Original survey not available. 33 WE 4 34 WE 20 35 WE 7, WE 8 27 Complaints rectified 2008-09
I am happy that these circular letters and the survey would have been a legitimate charge to the CA. Surveys should have a funding imprint which explains that it has been funded from the Parliamentary allowances. This does not appear to have been done in this case. Although technically a breach of the rules, this would not in itself prevent the costs being charged to the CA.
I hope this is helpful, but please come back to me if you require any further clarification.
29 February 2008
24. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 14 March 2008
I am now in a position to answer further to your letters. I apologise for a further delay, as you know these complaints relate to a period some time ago and involved staff members who no longer work for me. Therefore I have had to make contact with them again but I have tried to do all I can to offer as much information as can be recollected.
To take the four further points you raise in your letter:
Bartholomew House36
I can confirm that both petitions were not initiated by me. Both were addressed and delivered to my constituency office in Goole (separately) for me to act on. Indeed the organiser of one of the petitions had been to see me earlier to say a petition was being collected and that it would be sent to me, so it was no surprise when it arrived.
There were no unsolicited letters relating to this matter. I replied to those on the petitions who were my constituents on Commons letterheads and envelopes. My understanding was that this was in order and in Sir Philip’s letter to me he said (of letterheads and envelopes): “They can only be in respect of solicited correspondence, including where a person has signed a petition addressed to a Members provided that the Member has not himself initiated the petition”. I believe this was the case.
There were a lot of signatures, though we only sent one per house and as stated previously only to constituents (the facility covers a geographic area beyond my boundary). My staff’s estimate is that this would have run to about 500 letters.
Burringham Traffic Survey37
As I said in my previous reply I have had many constituents get in touch over the years on the trials and tribulations of Burringham’s traffic problems. There have been petitions, letters, surgery appointments, emails and phone calls. All have been addressed and directed at me, usually quite forcibly!
However, the numbers are not large as it is not a large village and again we would only send one per household not necessarily one to everyone who had been in touch. I am advised that about 100 were sent.
Brigg Primary School38
As I said in my last letter there was no postage for these letters. This was a matter the Head brought me into school to assist with following a parents meeting where he was asked to do this, therefore I took the view that a Dear Parents letter distributed by the school was in effect a reply to their soliciting of my services through the Head.
Belton Floods39
Following the June floods of last year we were inundated by calls for help. As I explained the local council office had flooded and was not able to receive either phone calls or emails. I met with the council later to cross match my list of victims with theirs and I wrote to them all prior to meeting North Lincolnshire Council again to ensure we had
36 WE 2, WE 3 37 No example of original survey available. 38 WE 20 39 WE 7, 8 28 Complaints rectified 2008-09 information on flood history and response in the area so that we could go through the various remedial actions necessary. All received the same correspondence. There were about 400 calls for assistance, not all from Belton, though this was a badly affected area.
I now turn to your further letter, which unfortunately I have mislaid, however I recall it was about two matters. A letter on post office closures and a parliamentary newsletter which did not carry an imprint relating to the Communications Allowance.
The first is in effect a re-run of some of the above. As you can imagine the response in a village to a proposed post office closure is significant. In this case I received a high number of calls and correspondence from the village and asked the Post Office for a meeting to go through these representations. In writing about that meeting to those who had been in touch it was agreed to send to the others in the village as it is a tiny village. Most had been in touch and as I explained in my previous reply, I had a staff member whose work for two previous MPs had led him to understand it was in order to write to others on a solicited matter if it could be reasonably though they would be affected by the matter in hand.
But in this case we are talking tiny numbers. Indeed for the two big post office closures in my constituency (which affected thousands of people) I privately produced information leaflets to all the households concerned so they were all fully informed as matters progressed. I only say this to make the point that we were not trying to write to huge numbers of people in an unsolicited manner and when the numbers were big I made private arrangements.
Finally on the newsletter I can do no more than say it was a mistake. I thought I had done everything right. I avoided party political content or branding and stuck very much with local matters in the area. I had no idea it needed a Communications Allowance imprint. However, I was aware by the time you wrote as an officer of the House (I think he was a compliance officer) had been in touch to tell me this before. I said I was just unaware and was told that it is a new system but I must ensure it is on all publications paid for this way in the future. I am happy to confirm that this has happened since! I should also say I mentioned this in the Tea Room and colleagues shared my ignorance but I have done what I can to spread the word!
Finally can I say that I think the inference of this complaint, which I know you understand is politically motivated, is that I was trying to do things with House stationery rather than the Communications Allowance. But actually I have not used my full allocation of either stationery (indeed I have a large amount in stock) or the Communications Allowance and therefore did not need to act this way other than believing it was in order to do so.
However, as you might imagine, my staff are all now complete experts on the allowances and everything is checked either with myself of my constituency manager, [...] in my absence.
I hope this is now sufficient for your needs. I am very happy to deal with any further queries or to come in for a chat about it if that is helpful.
14 March 2008
25. Letter to the Head of Client Services, Department of Facilities from the Commissioner, 28 March 2008
I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received against Mr Ian Cawsey MP about his use of House of Commons note paper and prepaid envelopes for a series of communications he has sent to residents of various parts of his constituency.
Sir Philip Mawer and I have, I think, copied you into the correspondence for what has been a long running issue. I attach, however, Philip Mawer’s letter to Mr Cawsey of 14 November initiating his inquiry, to which he attached a letter of 4 August from Mr Andrew Percy, the original complainant, a summary of the grounds of the complaint and copies of the relevant letters and envelopes, where available. I attach also a copy of my letter to Mr Cawsey of 4 January with a letter of 22 January from the complainant with additional complaints, a summary of those complaints as they affect his correspondence, and copies of the relevant letters. 1 further attach Mr Cawsey's letter to me of 25 January giving his response to the first batch of complaints, my letter to him of 4 February with some follow up questions, and his letter to me of 14 March (which reached me by email on 27 March) with Mr Cawsey's response to my further inquiry and to the additional complaints. 29 Complaints rectified 2008-09
You will see that Mr Cawsey has not responded to the second of the additional complaints (example 6) and I am writing to him to invite him to do so.
In the light of the complaint, and Mr Cawsey’s responses, it would be very helpful to know whether you believe that Mr Cawsey has breached the rules in respect of the use of House of Commons stationery and prepaid postage in any of these examples, and if so, how you believe the position might be rectified.
I am copying this to [the Acting Director of Operations], in the Department of Resources. in case there were any points he wanted to raise on the examples of Mr Cawsey’s use of stationery and postage, taking account of the letter [the Director of Operations] sent to me on 29 February, of which I enclose a copy. I am writing to [the Acting Director] about the remaining issue, namely Mr Cawsey’s Parliamentary report.
28 March 2008
26. Letter to the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 28 March 2008
I would welcome your comments on a complaint I have received against Mr Ian Cawsey in respect of his use of Parliamentary note paper and postage, but also in his accepted failure to identify the source of his funding for his Parliamentary report.
I attach a copy of my letter to [the Department of Facilities] and its various attachments in respect of the examples of Mr Cawsey’s use of stationery and postage. If there were any issues which you wish to draw to my attention on this, in addition to those which [the Director of Operations] raised in his letter to me of 29 February, I would, of course, be very grateful.
I would welcome your comments on Mr Cawsey’s accepted omission of a reference to funding from the Communications Allowance for his Parliamentary report of November/December 2007. It would be helpful to know how the Department normally deals with such omissions.
28 March 2008
27. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 28 March 2008
Thank you for your letter of 14 March, which, as you know, only reached me here with your email of 26 March, and for which I was most grateful.
I am now putting the complaint and your responses to the Facilities Department and the Department of Resources and inviting their comments. Once I have received these, I shall consider how best to proceed.
You noted that you had mislaid my letter to you of 30 January. I attach a further copy, together with its annexes. You will see that in addition to the question about your Parliamentary report and your letters on the Post Office, there was an example of a letter you sent about parking in Brigg. I recognise that there may be some necessary repetition in your responses, but for the sake of completeness and to ensure that I have addressed all aspects of the complaint, I would be very grateful if you could let me have a response to example 6, parking in Brigg. If there are any additional points you wanted to make having now seen the letter again, I would, of course, be very happy to receive them.
28 March 2008
28. E-mail to the Commissioner from the Head of Client Services, Department of Facilities, 3 April 2008
I am sorry to reply to you by email recently but my PA is on leave and I go on leave this evening so I thought it better to get back to you.
Regarding the complaint against Mr Cawsey, I am interested that in your summary sheet you say that the Bartholomew House petition was not addressed to Mr Cawsey. As it had been sent to him for action I think this is at least a grey area and I would think it was ok for him to send one communication in response. 30 Complaints rectified 2008-09
The survey should not have gone out in pre-paid envelopes or using paper supplied through the stationery allowance.
The letter to the parents in relation to Brigg school could go out on House stationery as long as it was purchased via the Communications allowance.
Similarly the letter re flooding should have gone out using stationery and postage not provided through the stationery allowance. This would require a transfer of monies from the Communications Allowance to the House Stationery budget. This seems to have the potential for genuine mistakes and no overall abuse of public money.
I hope this is helpful. If you so wish, we will arrange for the transfers to be made. However, as Mr Cawsey has funds available in both “pots” it may not really be necessary now the year end has passed.
3 April 2008
29. Letter to the Commissioner from the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 4 April 2008
[The Director of Operations] wrote to you on 29 February with an initial response to this complaint. I have reviewed [the Director]’s comments and do not have anything further to add to them, other than to say that I agree with his assessment that the material supplied would be acceptable expenditure under the Communications Allowance. I also agree with his comment that the essence of the complaint falls mainly within the remit of the Department of Facilities.
You asked about our procedures where the funding statement is not included on a publication funded from the Communications Allowance. Members do occasionally omit this statement, and if we are asked to view the publication in advance, we will ask for the statement to be included. If we saw a report without the statement only after publication, we would contact the Member to remind them of their obligations under the rules, but would allow the claim, as we do not consider this to be a major infringement of the rules. If a Member were to omit the statement repeatedly, we might consider giving a final warning and then refusing to pay if it happened again.
We do not necessarily see all newsletters even after publication, although a number of Members do send them in with their claims. On this occasion we did not see Mr Cawsey’s “Parliamentary Report” of November/December 2007 until the complaint was drawn to our attention. In his letter of 14 March 2008, Mr Cawsey said that we had, some time after the report had gone out, drawn his attention to the need for an imprint. The only contact on this subject that we have been able to trace actually related to Mr Cawsey's website and said “May I draw your attention to Page 29, Para 24 [of the CA booklet] which states that you should “display prominently on the homepage of your website, a statement that it is funded from Parliamentary allowances”. This has not been included and I would be grateful if the relevant addition to your website could be made as soon as possible.” (Letter from [Department of Resources] to Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 12 November 2007).
4 April 2008
30. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 30 April 2008
Following contact from [...] in your office yesterday I am writing in relation to your request to information about the copy of the letter I sent to constituents regarding car parking charges in the town of Brigg.
This was in response to a petition collected by a local man and was not unsolicited in any way.—i.e. The letters were solicited not the petition!
I hope this is everything you need, though I remain very happy to answer any further queries or, as I said to you previously, to chat through any issues you feel require clarification or additional information.
Obviously this is all a matter for you, but just to “pull it all together”, these systematic complaints from the Conservative Party as far as I can see come to this 31 Complaints rectified 2008-09
Bartholomew House
I only responded to those who made contact with me.
Brigg Primary School
A Dear Parent letter was distributed by the school on a highways issue relating to their children's safety. The Head asked me to take this up on behalf of parents after they had asked him to do this at a meeting they held with him. No postage involved.
Brigg Car Parking Charges
I only responded to those who made contact with me.
Belton Floods
Response to those affected and in touch with a small additional number for those in the affected area given the council's own flood problem which cut off their telephones and email systems.
Burringham Traffic Survey
Response to those who had previously been in touch plus a small number to ensure all High Street consulted.
Post Office Closures
Response to those who had been in touch plus a tiny number in very small remote villages. In the two cases where the numbers were large I made private arrangements for leaflets in those areas.
Local Newsletter
An early attempt with the Communications Allowance before I realised the imprint should have said that. They all do now.
As I previously said, I realise and totally respect that this is entirely a matter for you but I just wanted to put this together to show what it comes to. For all of the complaints, as far as I can see, the two issues have been the inadvertent lack of imprint on a newsletter and a small number of additional letters to otherwise solicited mailings. Which I now understand I could have used the Communications Allowance for anyway.
I am lucky that I have two staff members who have been with me for all my 11 years in parliament and they share my upset over these issues. You may recall I was advised by a further staff member, who has now left my employment but had worked for 2 other MPs before me, that if you were writing to people in a solicited way over an issue you could write to others who would be affected by the issue. I took that advice on face value but, of course, I am entirely responsible for any actions that resulted from it. It is, at least, fortunate that in reality it was hardly used.
But this is where we have now gotten to. A few days ago the local newspaper carried an article about a small number of residents who were complaining that they had been flood victims but no one was helping them. A check of our records showed we had no contact from them so I asked my office to look up their phone numbers and give them a call. They were all ex-directory.
We were then going to write to express sympathy and ask if we could help when we all suddenly thought of these complaints. So I wrote a letter on a blank piece of paper, put it in a blank envelope and bought a stamp for it!
Anyway, I've had my say and can only reiterate my firm belief that the only motivation in any of this has been to work for my constituents on issues they have me to do so.
I remain very willing to co-operate in any further way you wish but earnestly hope we may be reaching the stage when this can be put behind us. 32 Complaints rectified 2008-09
30 April 2008
31. E-mail to the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 1 May 2008
When I signed the original of the letter I emailed to you yesterday, I realised that the opening sentences were a bit ambiguous and you will see on the original I have appended a handwritten note.
But just so that Mr Lyon is completely clear about what I meant I began the letter with this text:
Following contact from [...] in your office yesterday I am writing in relation to your request for information about the copy of the letter I sent to constituents regarding car parking charges in the town of Brigg.
This was in response to a petition collected by a local man and was not unsolicited in any way.
I think the term “not unsolicited” is a clumsy phrase and I wanted to make it clear that I was referring to the letter sent into Mr Lyon, not the petition. Just for added clarity, the man who collected and organised this petition was not connected either to my office or to the Labour Party!
1 May 2008
32. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 8 May 2008
Thank you for your letter of 30 April which was very helpful in clarifying the circumstances surrounding the communications with your constituents which has been the subject of this complaint.
As you know, I have consulted the House authorities about this matter. I attach a copy of the letters of 29 February and 4 April received from the Director and Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources; and an email of 3 April from the head of Client Relations in the Facilities Department.
My summary of the advice which I believe they are giving is that all these communications – with the exception of the initial letters sent in response to the Brigg and Bartholomew House petitions - should have been funded from the Communications Allowance either because they were surveys or because they were targeted communications (see 6.3.1 of Appendix 1 to the booklet on the Communications Allowance on the use of House stationery published in April 2007). In that case, with the exception of the initial Brigg and Bartholomew House letters, their view is that it was not appropriate for you to use prepaid envelopes or stationery provided from the Stationery Allowance. They consider that the cost of postage and stationery should have been met from your Communications Allowance. The Brigg letter and the two Bartholomew House letters are excepted on the understanding – which I would be grateful if you could confirm – that they were sent in response to 3 petitions that were addressed to you and there was no more than one circulated response to each of the 3 petitions.
If you accept that advice, then you may wish to consider how best to rectify the position. You would have until the end of May to repay from your Communications Allowance for 2007 – 08 the cost of the pre-paid envelopes and headed paper used for these communications. It would be necessary, of course, for you to identify the number of letters dispatched from each of the relevant examples.
I have also noted the action you have taken to ensure that all future newsletters funded under the Communications Allowance has the appropriate imprint.
Before deciding whether I am able to resolve this complaint, or whether I need to prepare a formal report for the Committee on Standards and Privileges, it would be helpful to know whether you accept this summary of the position based in the advice of the House authorities and what actions you might wish to take in response. It would also be helpful for me to know whether you would wish me to pass on apologies to the Committee for the mistakes in the handling of the correspondence with your constituents.
I hope this has helped take this forward towards a completion. I would be very happy to talk any of this through with you, or to have a more formal discussion, if you would find that helpful. I am copying this letter to the Acting Director in the Department of Resources and to the head of Client Relations in the Facilities Department. 33 Complaints rectified 2008-09
I am grateful for your help with this complaint.
8 May 2008
33. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 30 May 2008
Thank you for your letter following your further investigations into complaints from the Brigg & Goole Conservatives regarding various communications.
I am happy to accept your judgement that in the cases you highlighted letters should have been funded out of the Communications Allowance and I am happy to arrange for that to be the case.
Is this now something I deal with [the Director] about or do I do so via your office?
I would certainly apologise to you and your staff as well as to my colleagues on the Standards and Privileges Committee for all of this and for all the time it must have taken up for both yourself and your staff. I am, nevertheless, happy that the decision is that these matters can be dealt with out of parliamentary allowances and both myself and my staff have resolved to ensure all we do is allocated to the correct allowance.
I have also instructed all my staff members to seek approval, prior to printing, for future communications allowance newsletters.
As you know, I believe these accusations to be politically motivated and vexatious. Indeed to be motivated by the prospect of media coverage at my expense rather than any concern over the use of parliamentary resources. I would welcome your comments on how and when this will be reported back to the complainant.
Your assistance and help in all of this is very much appreciated.
30 May 2008
34. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 4 June 2008
Thank you very much for your letter of 30 May responding to my letter of 8 May about this complaint.
In the light of your response, I am minded to resolve this complaint informally on the basis of the rectification you have offered. That would entail me writing to the complainant to let them know the outcome and the reasons for my decision, and the actions which you have taken. I would copy the letter to you. I would also let the Committee on Standards and Privileges informally know of the conclusion. My view is based on my understanding that the Brigg letter and the two Bartholomew House letters were within the rules since they were sent in response to three petitions which were addressed to you and that there was no more than one circulated response to each of the three petitions. I would be very grateful if you could confirm, if possible by return, that that assumption is correct.
As to the payment, I would be grateful if you could discuss that with the Department of Resources. As I said in my letter of 8 May, my understanding was that you had until the end of May to repay the costs of your use of pre-paid envelopes and headed paper from your Communications Allowance for 2007. You will need to discuss with the Department whether that can still be achieved. For the purposes of this complaint, I believe it is sufficient that you have offered to make this transfer and are discussing it with the House authorities.
I would be very grateful if you could let me know immediately whether the assumptions about your response to the petitions which I am making are correct.
I am copying this letter to the Acting Director of Operations in the Department of Resources and the Head of Client Relations in the Facilities Department. 34 Complaints rectified 2008-09
4 June 2008
35. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey MP from the Commissioner, 2 July 2008
I am writing to ask you to let me have a response to my letter to you of 4 June about the complaint from Mrs Julie Johnson in respect of a number of communications with your constituents.
My office contacted you about this on 20 June and I understand that, unfortunately, you had not received my letter of 4 June. My office sent you a further copy of the letter on 24 June following your e-mail of the previous evening.
I enclose a further copy of that letter. As you will see, I had it in mind, subject to your response, to move to the determination of the complaint. If I am to do this, however, then I need your response.
The Committee on Standards and Privileges is expressing some concern about the time taken for Members to respond to complaints, and I would, therefore, be very grateful if you could let me have a response within the next three working days. If there is any difficulty about any of this, please give me a call.
2 July 2008
36. E-mail to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 14 July 2008
Thank you for your further letter.
I am happy for an informal resolution as you have indicated in your letter.
You are correct in your assumption that on the Bartholomew House issue there were two petitions which came in at different times and one full response was sent to each of the petitioners, or if there were several petitioners in a household, one to the household. There was also a local campaign group that I met with several times and responded to as issues were raised. I should also reiterate that as well as petitions there were numerous letters, emails, telephone calls and surgery appointments and of course these were also responded to as well.
I hope this is sufficient for your needs and I am very grateful for the advice and assistance from yourself and from your office in terms of reaching this informal resolution.
14 July 2008
37. Letter to Mr Ian Cawsey from the Commissioner, 29 July 2008
I believe that I am now in a position to resolve this complaint with your agreement on the sums which need to be set against your Communications Allowance to rectify the errors you made in your use of stationery and pre-paid envelopes for some of the communications which are the subject of this complaint.
I attach a schedule which summarises the position. If you agree, then I would write to the complainant noting that, with the exception of your initial responses to the two petitions on Bartholomew House and one on parking in Brigg, you should not have used House of Commons pre-paid envelopes or House of Commons stationery from your centrally provided stationery allowance for these communications. This is because House of Commons pre-paid envelopes, which you used for all except your letters to the parents of Brigg County Primary School children, may not be used for sending surveys, and centrally provided stationery may not be used to send to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted you, 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 Bartholomew House and Brigg cases, the Member has not themselves initiated.
I would note that you have accepted these mistakes and that you have apologised for them. I would note also that Members are allowed to use the Communications Allowance to send correspondence to constituents on local or constituency wide issues, including surveys. It would therefore have been within the rules of the House for you to have used this allowance for these communications. That is why you have undertaken to meet the costs of these communications from your Communications Allowance. I note also that you have briefed your staff on the 35 Complaints rectified 2008-09 operation of the rules in order to avoid this happening again. And you have accepted that the newsletter should not have included a funding imprint and that you are ensuring that one is included in future.
Could you confirm that you are in agreement to me resolving and concluding my consideration of this complaint on this basis and without me referring a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? If you are in agreement, I would look to you to conclude discussions with the House authorities and at the same time I would write to the complainant to close the complaint.
Could you please confirm this within the next two days, since I would like to resolve this long running complaint before the holiday period takes full hold.
29 July 2008
38. Schedule of letters sent by Mr Ian Cawsey MP in summer/autumn 2007 using House of Commons paper and pre-paid envelopes bought from stationery allowance (revised estimates)
Original Cream Copying Communication paid for from stationery headed 2nd class paper allowance paper envelopes used used used
Burringham traffic survey: survey letters* 100 100 follow up letters on 13 August* 100 100 individual follow up letter * 1 1
Survey (and follow up ) on flooding in Belton and elsewhere letters (incl survey) to those who had contacted MP 12 July 2007* 400 400 additional letters to others in flooded area** 100 100 follow up letters 400 400 additional follow up letters 100 100
Post Office survey tiny numbers' * : 3 Oct 07*** 10 10
Letter to parents of Brigg primary school children *** 3 0 247 Total 1214 1211 247
*See Mr Cawsey’s letter of 14.3.08. ** See Mr Cawsey’s letter of 25.1.08 *** As agreed in telephone conversation of 29.7.08
39. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Ian Cawsey MP, 5 August 2008
Thank you for your letter dated 29 July. I write to confirm that I am happy to accept the formal resolutions to the complaint made by Mrs Julie Johnson as set out in your letter. 36 Complaints rectified 2008-09
Whilst writing I would also like to thank your staff for all the help and assistance they have provided to me and my assistant on this matter.
5 August 2008