Mr Andy Slaughter MP: Resolution Letter

Transcription

1 1 Complaints not upheld Mr Andy Slaughter MP: Resolution Letter Letter to Mr Greg Hands MP from the Commissioner, 23 July 2009 I have now concluded my consideration of the complaint you sent me on 12 March against Mr Andy Slaughter MP about his use of House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send a circular letter funded from the Communications Allowance to his constituents. As you will know from my letter to you of 16 March, I did not accept your complaint about Mr Slaughter's use of the portcullis emblem for the letter or about the content of that letter. But I did accept your complaint about the use of first class pre paid envelopes to send it. In essence, your complaint was that Mr Slaughter used House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send his constituents a circular letter funded from the Communications Allowance, contrary to the rules of the House. I have consulted Mr Slaughter and the House authorities about this matter. I have found that Mr Slaughter's letter was approved by the House authorities as suitable for funding from the Communications Allowance. Some of the letters were distributed by volunteers. Others were distributed in envelopes whose postage was paid from the Communications Allowance. There were in addition some 450 letters which were sent in House of Commons prepaid envelopes. These envelopes were used by Mr Slaughter to respond to communications which he had received from his constituents about his approach to the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport. The envelopes were also used as a first response to a polling card petition which Mr Slaughter had received and which had not been initiated by him. Mr Slaughter has decided not to make any claim from the Communications Allowance for the letters which he sent in pre paid envelopes. He has decided to meet the cost of the letter paper which he sent in the pre paid envelopes from his own resources. Since no claim for the letters had been made from the Communications Allowance, he has not breached the rules in respect of that allowance. And I have concluded that his use of pre paid envelopes to respond to the polling card petition and to write to constituents who had written to him was permissible and was not therefore a breach of the rules in relation to the use of those envelopes. For these reasons, I do not uphold your complaint. I will report this outcome to the Committee on Standards and Privileges when it next meets. I am copying this letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP. 23 July 2009

2 2 Complaints not upheld Mr Andy Slaughter MP: Written evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Greg Hands MP, 12 March 2009 Over the past four weeks, I have been made aware of a letter which is being sent by Andrew Slaughter MP to thousands of my constituents in Hammersmith. A largely identical letter has been posted to those of his existing constituents who live in Shepherd's Bush, which is also in the prospective Hammersmith constituency, for which Mr Slaughter is the Labour candidate. The letters cover a range of issues, but focus on the expansion of Heathrow Airport and his resignation as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Complaints not accepted for inquiry] 2. The letter to residents in the portion of Mr Slaughter's own constituency that falls within the prospective Hammersmith seat. This version was sent in House of Commons pre paid envelopes and carries the byline, "Printed using the House of Commons Communications Allowance". [Material not relevant to the complaint accepted] It is explicitly against the rules to have sent this letter in House of Commons prepaid envelopes: 13. You must not use House of Commons prepaid envelopes for the distribution of these publications. [CAHS, Appendix 2; cf. Appendix 4, 9.] I believe that Mr Slaughter should be asked to repay the cost of these pre paid envelopes, as set out in the statement on misuse (CAHS, Appendix 2, 7). [Material not relevant to the complaint accepted] I would be happy to provide further information, if needed, and look forward to hearing from you at the earliest opportunity. 12 March 2009

3 3 Complaints not upheld Letter and envelope to Resident from Mr Andy Slaughter MP, February 2009

4 4 Complaints not upheld

5 5 Complaints not upheld

6 6 Complaints not upheld

7 7 Complaints not upheld Letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP from the Commissioner, 16 March 2009 I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received from Mr Greg Hands MP about your use of House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send a circular letter funded from the Communications Allowance to your constituents. I attach a copy of Mr Hands' letter of 12 March together with all its enclosures. [Refers to material not accepted for inquiry] In essence, the complaint I have accepted against you is that you used House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send to your constituents a circular letter funded from the Communications Allowance, contrary to the rules of the House. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in paragraph 14: 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 in relation to the Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery were published in April Appendix I provides a new section 6 to the Green Book. Section starts with the following paragraph setting out the scope and purpose of the allowance. "The Communications Allowance (CA) is available to meet the cost of Members engaging proactively with their constituents through a variety of media. It can be used for the production of unsolicited communications within the parameters set out in this Section." Paragraph gives examples of expenditure allowable under the Communications Allowance including: targeted correspondence relating to issues of importance locally.... Appendix 2 to the booklet sets out the rules on the distribution of newsletters and other publications in more detail, including the following paragraphs at paragraphs 12 and 13: The cost of envelopes and postage or freepost facilities can be met from your Communications Allowance. You must not use House of Commons pre paid envelopes for the distribution of these publications. The rules in relation to the use of House of Commons stationery and pre paid envelopes are set out in Appendix 4 of the same publication. Paragraph 10 of that appendix provides as follows: In broad terms, the pre paid envelopes are designed to enable you to reply to letters received and to write to individuals and organisations in pursuit of your parliamentary business. They should not be used to send mail to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted you. You should refer to the guidance note on publications funded from the Communication Allowance (such as annual reports) for help with the costs of mail to inform your constituents about, for example, news about your work as a Member. Paragraph 14 provides: "Pre paid envelopes must not be used:... h) for correspondence with constituents on issues on which they have not previously contacted your or on which they have contacted you only at your own instigation. I would welcome your comments on the complaint about your use of pre paid envelopes in the light of this summary of the relevant rules. In particular it would be helpful to know: 1. the circumstances in which you came to use pre paid envelopes to send out a communication funded from the Communications Allowance;

8 8 Complaints not upheld your view on whether this dispatch was in your view, in accordance with the rules of the House and, if not, how the breach occurred; 3. the size of the dispatch which you sent using first class pre paid envelopes; 4. whether you consulted the House authorities about any aspects of this dispatch. 5. how many similar dispatches, if any, you have sent in pre paid envelopes in the last twelve months. Any other points you may wish to make to help me with the consideration of this complaint would of course be very helpful. I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow in dealing with complaints. I have written to Mr Hands to let him know that I have accepted this part of his complaint and am writing to you about it. I would be very grateful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next three weeks. If there is any difficulty about this, or you would like to talk to me about it, please contact me at the House. I am grateful for your help on this matter. 16 March to the Commissioner from Mr Andy Slaughter MP, 30 March 2009 I am responding to your letter of 16 March. There is much I could say about the accuracy and motivation of Mr Hands' complaint and what I believe is his persistent abuse of public funds and agencies in support of a purely party political role he has assumed in managing and supporting the campaign of the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the Hammersmith seat. However, I am grateful for you prompt action in dismissing the majority of his unfounded allegations and will limit myself to the single point you have identified for response. The letter which was circulated within my current constituency was approved by the House authorities as suitable to be funded from the communications allowance (your point 4 copy of below). It was my intention to distribute it by a combination of hand delivery by volunteers, postage paid from the communications allowance and use of franked envelopes where a constituent had previously contacted me (there are several hundred of these your point 3). I understood that this would be within the rules governing use of both the communications allowance and House stationery (your point 2). I have not tried such a hybrid dispatch previously (your point 5). I think there are two points of contention. Firstly, why communications allowance paid letters were sent in franked envelopes (rather than ordinary Commons stationery your point 1). This was done simply for convenience and I am not sure there is anything wrong about this. Indeed, it was my understanding that expenditure from the communications allowance, so long as it complied with the guidance on use, could quite legitimately be sent via franked or stamped letter. In practice nothing has so far been charged from the mailing to the communications allowance and I await your decision on this before doing so. Secondly, why [...] received a franked envelope rather than a stamped one. One possibility is that [...] has previously contacted my office this could have been in a variety of forms but I assume she denies this and I have no record, although another occupant of her address had done so. Alternatively, it is a mistake: she received a franked letter when she should have received a stamped one. Someone else may have received a stamped envelope rather than a franked one. If this is right, presumably the cost of delivering [...] letter should have been met from the communications allowance rather than the stationery budget. I very much hope that this explanation clarifies the issue. I can assure you I am anxious at all times to operate fully within the rules of the House and go to considerable lengths to make sure this is the case. I am confident that I have done so in this instance, with the only caveat being the possibility of an error as described in the previous paragraph. I am more than happy to provide any other information that could possibly assist you.

9 9 Complaints not upheld March Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 30 March 2009 I would welcome your advice on a complaint I have received against Mr Andy Slaughter MP about his use of House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send a letter funded from the Communications Allowance to certain of his constituents. I am addressing this letter to you since as from 1 April, as I understand it, you are responsible for advising both on the communications expenditure and on Members provided stationery. I am, however, copying this letter and its enclosures to [Department of Facilities] for information. I enclose a copy of the complainant's letter of 12 March together with all its enclosures and a copy of my letters of 16 March to Mr Slaughter and to the complainant, Mr Greg Hands MP. As you will see, I have not accepted a number of Mr Hands' complaints. I have, however, accepted his complaint that Mr Slaughter used pre paid House of Commons envelopes to send to his constituents a circular letter funded from the Communications Allowance. I enclose a copy of Mr Slaughter's of 30 March with his response. As you will see, Mr Slaughter suggests that it within the rules for him to send a letter funded from the Communications Allowance using a pre paid House of Commons envelope where the constituent had previously raised the issue with him. He suggests, however, that the pre paid envelope may have been mistakenly used in the case of the letter he sent to the constituent whose envelope is included in Mr Hands' complaint. I would welcome your advice on the complaint and on Mr Slaughter's response. In particular, it would be helpful if you could advise me on Mr Slaughter's explanation in the light of paragraph 13 to Appendix 2 to the rules of April It would be very helpful if you could let me have a reply to this letter in the next three weeks. Thank you for your help. 30 March Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 17 April 2009 Thank you for your letter of 30 March 2009 about the complaint against Mr Slaughter. I note that you have dismissed all aspects of the complaint except the one relating to Mr Slaughter's use of prepaid envelopes within which he distributed a letter about his Ministerial resignation to his constituents. Whilst Members are allowed to correspond with constituents using pre paid envelopes, the circumstances in which they may do so is governed by specific rules outlined in the booklet The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery. I agree that the use of the Communications Allowance (CA) was appropriate for the letter (which the Department had approved) and for its distribution. However, I note that Mr Slaughter says that he undertook a hybrid dispatch with the intention of using pre paid envelopes to send the letter to constituents who had previously contacted him, by which I presume he means people who had contacted him about the third runway at Heathrow. Mr Slaughter did not seek advice from the Department on this specific matter (the hybrid dispatch) and this novel approach inevitably introduced a risk that individuals would be wrongly identified in terms of the appropriate mode of distribution. Pre paid envelopes can be used in cases where the Member is approached by a constituent for assistance in dealing with a particular problem and any follow up correspondence associated with that issue (page 34, paragraph 13, The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery). It is also the case that if Members are contacted by a group of constituents via a petition or similar, that the Member can respond to such contact once only using pre paid envelopes, but not if the petition was itself instigated by the Member (Page 34, paragraph 12).

10 10 Complaints not upheld Mr Slaughter indicates that there were several hundred constituents who had previously contacted him. What is not clear is whether this contact was individualised (i.e. casework related) or of a more general nature, such as a petition; if the latter, it is also unclear as to whether the petition was an independent one or instigated by Mr Slaughter. In the absence of precise details, my tentative conclusion is that the letter Mr Slaughter sent to constituents was a circular letter of a general nature and not directly related to ongoing casework. Nor does it appear that the letter was a first response to a specific petition. If this conclusion is borne out by the facts then the rules are clear that pre paid envelopes should not have been used (see page 34, paragraph 13 of the booklet says Pre paid envelopes should not be used to send updates of more general concerns ). I hope this covers the points you have raised. 17 April Letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP from the Commissioner, 23 April 2009 I have now received a response from the Department of Resources about the complaint relating to your use of prepaid House of Commons envelopes for a letter which was funded from the Communications Allowance and sent to your constituents. I attach a copy of my letter to the Department of 30 March, and a copy of the Department s response dated 17 April. As you will see, the Department s tentative conclusion is that the letter you sent to your constituents appears to be a circular letter which was not directly related to ongoing casework and did not appear to be a first response to a petition. If this is so, the Department concludes that pre paid envelopes should not have been used for any part of this dispatch. I would welcome your comments on this conclusion. In particular, it would be helpful if you could let me know whether you consider the circular letter you sent was related to a specific case raised by the individual constituent or whether your letter was a first response to a petition signed by certain of your constituents and which had not been instigated by you. In considering this, it may be helpful to set out the relevant rules. These can be found in Appendix Four to the April 2007 booklet on the Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery. Paragraph 12 refers to responses to petitions as follows: Someone who has signed a petition which has been addressed to you, who has sent you a campaign postcard or letter, or who has raised an issue with you in person, is considered to have contacted you for the purpose of these rules, unless the petition or campaign was itself instigated by you or by someone acting on your behalf. Pre paid envelopes and House stationery provided from a Members cash limited entitlement should only be used to reply once to this kind of correspondence in specific response to such contact. You will see, therefore, that the use of a pre paid envelope is permissible when writing on one occasion only to someone who has signed a petition addressed to you, provided that it is a specific response to the petition. It would be necessary, therefore, to show that your letter explaining your resignation from government was in response to specific issues raised in a petition addressed to you, but not instigated by you and that you used prepaid envelopes only once for your response. The rules in relation to sending updates to constituents are set out in paragraph 13 as follows: Pre paid envelopes may only be used to send updates to constituents on an ongoing basis where the updates relate to specific cases which have been raised with you by those constituents (such as progress on asylum applications). Pre paid envelopes may not be used to send updates of more general concern.

11 11 Complaints not upheld It would therefore be necessary for you to demonstrate that the statements in your letter related to a specific constituency case raised by each of the constituents to whom you wrote and was not a response to a more general concern. It is, of course, open to you, in the light of the Department s comments, including what they say about the risks of the novel hybrid approach which you adopted to accept that, in all the circumstances, your circular letters should not have been sent out using pre paid envelopes. In that case, I would need to know the number of envelopes which were used for this dispatch and to consider whether, with your agreement, the matter could be resolved through the rectification procedure. The rectification procedure allows me to resolve a complaint where the Member has accepted that there has been a breach, the breach was relatively minor and was inadvertent and the Member has taken appropriate action to rectify the matter and prevent a recurrence. The Committee on Standards and Privileges would also expect the Member to apologise for the error. In such cases, I do not prepare a formal memorandum for the Committee and the Committee does not itself consider the matter and publish its own report. I write to the complainant setting out how the matter has been resolved and closing the complaint. I then report the outcome briefly to the Committee. It would be helpful to know, therefore whether your letter was in your view an update in response to specific constituency cases raised by each of your constituents or for which this was a single response to a petition not instigated by you. In the light of this, it would be helpful to know also whether you accept that these circular letters should not have been sent using prepaid envelopes and, if so, whether you would like me to consider resolving the matter through the rectification procedure. If it were possible to let me have your response in the next two weeks, I would then consult with the Department of Resources and aim to bring the matter to a conclusion as soon as I can. Thank you again for your help with this. 23 April to the Commissioner from Mr Andy Slaughter MP, 13 May 2009 Thank you for your further letter of 23 April. [references to how to contact Mr Slaughter]. I do not agree with [the Director of Operations ] tentative conclusion that the letter I sent in pre paid envelopes was not directly related to ongoing casework. I specifically decided to use a standard letter in pre paid envelopes because I had had so many letters, s, etc on this subject. I then decided to send the response I had drafted to a wider unsolicited group of constituents, and for this purpose sought and was granted permission to use the communications allowance. It is not correct to say that I have yet charged any of this mailing to the communications allowance however, although I intend to do so (and must do so by 31 May if the charge is to fall into the correct financial year). As regards the form of the letter, I do not see anything wrong with this being standard. This is common practice when replying to petitions, postcard campaigns or, as in this case, uniform correspondence. As for whether a reply to a constituent properly sent in a pre paid envelope can be paid for from the communications allowance, again I do not see anything in the rules to prevent this. 13 May Letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP from the Commissioner, 14 May 2009 Thank you for your ed letter of 13 May responding to mine to you of 23 April about this complaint. I note that you do not accept the Department's tentative conclusions. I take it from your letter that you consider that your common format letter of February 2009 was a response to ongoing casework raised by your constituents but was not a first response to a petition.

12 12 Complaints not upheld Before I consult the Department further about this, it would be helpful if you would: 1. let me know how many of your common format letters of February 2009 you sent in response to casework raised by your individual constituents; 2. give me say ten examples of the constituents letters to which your letter of February 2009 was the reply. If you could let me have a response to this within the next week, I will seek the considered conclusion of the Department, based on the additional material you provided, and any other points you may wish to make. Thank you for your help on this matter to the Commissioner from Mr Andy Slaughter MP, 26 May 2009 I am replying to your and letter of 14 May As you request I attach herewith ten examples of correspondence 1 to which my letter of February 2009 was the response. To explain further, sometime in November 2008 I believed an announcement on the future of the Third Runway was imminent but was not sure what it would be. I told my office not to respond to letters, s or postcard petitions, unless pressed, until we knew the decision and I had decided my response. As it turned out the announcement was not made until late January, by which time we had several hundred enquiries. I wrote the letter for general circulation to those who had contacted me. But I also realised, from general constituency business and personal contact, that the issue and my resignation were of more general interest and decided on the unsolicited mailing, partly intended to be funded from the Communications Allowance, where the House authorities had approved this. To answer your first point, it was my intention that all those who had not received an answer to their enquiries, some 200, would receive the common format letter. 26 May Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 28 May 2009 I would welcome further help on this complaint against Mr Andy Slaughter MP about his use of House of Commons pre paid envelopes to send a letter funded from the Communications Allowance to certain of his constituents. You wrote to me on 17 April and, in the absence of full details, gave your tentative conclusion that the letter Mr Slaughter sent to his constituents was a circular letter of a general nature and not directly related to ongoing casework, nor did it appear that the letter was a first response to a specific petition. I wrote to Mr Slaughter on 23 April inviting his comments on your conclusion and proposing a way forward. I attach a copy of that letter. Mr Slaughter responded on 13 May, disagreeing with your initial conclusion. I attach a copy of Mr Slaughter's of 13 May to that effect. I wrote on 14 May to Mr Slaughter inviting some further information. I attach a copy of that letter. Mr Slaughter ed me on 26 May with the information I had requested. I attach a copy. I would welcome your advice on this matter in the light of the further information and argumentation provided by Mr Slaughter. In particular, it would be helpful to know whether you consider that it was within the rules to send in pre paid envelopes a communication intended to be funded from the Communications Allowance; and if you accept that up to 250 of the letters were properly sent in pre paid envelopes because they were in response to a Greenpeace campaign postcard, and that some 200 of the letters were properly sent in House of Commons prepaid envelopes in reply to specific communications from Mr Slaughter's constituents. (Mr Slaughter has provided examples of these communications.) 1 Not included in evidence.

13 13 Complaints not upheld You will know that Mr Slaughter would like to make a claim against the Communications Allowance for 2008/09 for this full dispatch, and, if so, will need to do so by 31 May. I am not yet in a position to take a view on whether such a claim is justifiable. But you may want to discuss this with him. I would be most grateful for a response to this letter, if possible within the next three weeks. 28 May Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 2 July 2009 Thank you for your letter of 28 May 2009 requesting further advice on the complaint against Mr Slaughter. As indicated in my earlier letter it is acceptable to use a pre paid envelope to send standard letters as a first response to a petition and similar. Some local issues will attract a very large postbag and I also accept that a standard letter sent in a prepaid envelope in reply to such correspondence is within the rules. You have specifically asked about the use of House of Commons pre paid envelopes for distributing items paid for from the Communications Allowance (Expenditure), and whether it was acceptable to use such envelopes to respond to the 450 constituents identified by Mr Slaughter. Of the 450, some 250 were in response to receipt of individual campaigning postcards and the remainder a reply to specific communications. Items paid for from the Communications Expenditure (CE) should not ordinarily be distributed in pre paid envelopes as this allowance is provided specifically for Member's to communicate pro actively with their constituents. In broad terms this means,... to inform constituents about your work as a Member, consult with constituents or local groups, or provide information about how to contact you. (page 20, paragraph 6 The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery). However, I am prepared to accept Mr Slaughter's explanation that because of the time lapse on the runway decision and a more widely identified constituency interest in his actions, he decided to distribute a single, standard letter, to those constituents who had contacted him by letter or postcard and use pre paid envelopes for this defined group. In the circumstances, I do not believe this breaches the pre paid envelope rules. This case demonstrates, in my view, that the rules of the Communications Expenditure and those of the House stationery are not entirely complementary. This is a product of history, but is nonetheless unsatisfactory for Members and for officials who have to administer the two systems. As matters stand I believe Mr Slaughter's hybrid approach to distribution was unwise, especially in view of the specific and personal message in the standard letter, but on the facts available I do not believe it breached the rules. I hope that this covers the points you have raised. 2 July Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 14 July 2009 Thank you for your letter of 2 July, which I received on 13 July, with your advice on a complaint I am considering against Mr Andy Slaughter MP. As you have helpfully made clear, this case turns on the interaction between the rules in relation to the Communications Allowance and those relating to the use of provided stationery set out in the April 2007 booklet. You say that the rules on the use of the Communications Expenditure and on the use of House stationery are not entirely complementary. I wonder if you could help me by explaining this a little more fully with reference to the rules. In this particular case, I believe that the rules are those for the Communications Allowance and not for the Communications Expenditure, which came into force on 1 April But it would be helpful if you could confirm this. In any event, the rules for the Communications Expenditure require that Members claims must comply with the more detailed guidance produced in April 2007 (2.5.2 of the April 2009 Green Book).

14 14 Complaints not upheld Under the April 2007 rules, it appears to be clear that you must not use House of Commons pre paid envelopes for the distribution of these publications. (Appendix 2, paragraph 13). These publications would appear to be: parliamentary newsletters and other publications distributed to all constituents or a targeted local grouping (paragraph 10 of the same Appendix). As you know, Appendix 4 deals with the use of House of Commons stationery and pre paid envelopes. Paragraph 10 makes it clear that: in broad terms, the pre paid envelopes are designed to enable you to reply to letters received and to write to individuals and organisations in pursuit of your parliamentary business. They should not be used to send mail to people on issues on which they have not previously contacted you. You should refer to the guidance note on publications funded from the Communications Allowance (such as annual reports) for help with the cost of mail to inform your constituents about, for example, news about your work as a Member. And, as you know, paragraph 12 allows pre paid envelopes and House stationery provided from a Member s cash limited entitlement to be used to respond once to someone who has sent the Member a campaign postcard or letter, unless that postcard or letter was itself instigated by the Member or someone acting on his or her behalf. Applying these rules to Mr Slaughter s dispatch, and the 250 letters funded from the Communications Allowance which he sent in pre paid envelopes as a first response to campaigning postcards and specific communications from constituents, it could be taken that a natural interpretation of the rules is that, while it was acceptable for Mr Slaughter to send a common format letter in pre paid envelopes to these 250 letter writers, he should have funded these letters from his provided stationery allowance and used original House stationery. This would appear to meet the rules in Appendix 4 referred to above. He should not have used the Communications Allowance to pay for the stationery for a dispatch in pre paid envelopes. To do so would appear to be contrary to the rule in paragraph 13 of Appendix 2 referred to above. I would be grateful for your advice on this possible interpretation of the rules, which would appear to meet the requirements of both the Communications Allowance and the rules on the use of provided stationery and pre paid envelopes. An alternative interpretation would be equally welcome. I am sorry to come back on this point, but I consider that it goes to the central question of whether or not Mr Slaughter was in breach of the rules in the way he funded the stationery he used to send the 250 of the copies of his letter. It would be extremely helpful if you could let me have a response to this letter within the next two weeks so that I can advise Mr Slaughter of the position. Meanwhile, I will send him a short letter to let him know that I am still consulting you about the interpretation of the rules. 14 July Letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP from the Commissioner, 14 July 2009 This is just to let you know the stage I have reached in the consideration of this complaint and to apologise that I have not been able and am still not able to let you have a definitive response. As you will know from my letter of 28 May, I have consulted the Department of Resources about this matter. The case does, however, raise some potentially difficult points about the interaction between the rules in relation to the Communications Allowance (now the Communications Expenditure) and those relating to House of Commons stationery and pre paid envelopes. I am in discussion with the Department of Resources about this matter, but it may take a few more weeks before I have clarified the point with them. I apologise for this, but I think it is important for me to resolve this point, which is central to my consideration of this complaint. I will back in touch again when I have concluded my discussions with the Department. 14 July Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 20 July 2009 I wrote to you on 14 July for further advice on this complaint I am considering against Mr Andy Slaughter MP.

15 15 Complaints not upheld I sent a holding letter to Mr Slaughter on the same date and he telephoned me on 17 July. Mr Slaughter said that he had decided not to make a claim against the Communications Allowance for the notepaper used in sending his letter in House of Commons pre paid envelopes. I have considered whether this would allow me to resolve the complaint. I believe that, on the basis that Mr Slaughter has not claimed for the notepaper from the Communications Allowance, it would be right for me not to uphold the complaint. On that basis I would not need to trouble you for a reply to my letter of 14 July. I attach a draft letter to Mr Slaughter and the extract of a draft letter to the complainant which sets out my reasoning in a little more detail. I would welcome any immediate comments you can let me have on this proposal and on the factual accuracy of the draft letters, in particular as they relate to the rules of the House. I know Mr Slaughter would like this complaint resolved quickly, and so I would be very grateful if you could let me have a response in the next two days. If there is a difficulty about this, do let me know. 20 July Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 23 July 2009 Thank you for your letters of 14 and 20 July concerning this complaint. The letter of 14 July raised issues relating to the use of stationery and the Communications Allowance. Your subsequent letter confirms your intention to dismiss the complaint against Mr Slaughter because he has confirmed that he has not claimed for the notepaper from the Communications Allowance and will fund the costs himself. Allowing for Mr Slaughter's decision, I am satisfied with the contents of your proposed letter to Mr Slaughter and Mr Hands. The issue you raise in your letter of the 14 July concerning the interpretation of the rules governing the use of House stationery and Communications Allowance would require further, detailed consideration. In the light of the outcome of the case, I would be happy to pursue this general matter other than by the exchange of formal correspondence if you would find that helpful. 23 July Letter to Mr Andy Slaughter MP from the Commissioner, 23 July 2009 I have considered further the resolution of this complaint following my letter to you of 14 July and our telephone conversation on 17 July. You noted that you had not claimed from the Communications Allowance for the letter which you had sent out in 450 pre paid envelopes (250 for the polling card response and 200 in response to constituents communications with you). You recognised that the question was whether it was within the rules of the House to use the Communications Allowance for such letters. You had decided that you would not claim from the Communications Allowance for the letter paper for that part of the dispatch for which you had used pre paid envelopes. In effect, you would meet the cost of that notepaper from your own resources. Having considered this further, and on the basis of what you have told me, I believe it would be right for me to decide that the complaint should not be upheld because you have decided not to make a claim for this notepaper from the Communications Allowance and because your use of pre paid envelopes in the circumstances you have described was within the rules of the House. I attach an extract of the letter which I would propose to send to the complainant. I would be grateful for any comments you may wish to make on its factual accuracy. I would aim to write to the complainant as soon as possible after receiving your reply.

16 16 Complaints not upheld I look forward to hearing from you July Mr Slaughter telephoned his acceptance on 23 July 2009