David Clelland MP furious at continued expenses row

Oct 15 2009 by William Green, The Journal

A TYNESIDE MP has blasted moves to force him to repay expense claims linked to his second home as an “outrage”.

Tyne Bridge’s David Clelland spoke out yesterday after receiving a letter from independent auditor Sir Thomas Legg, who has been investigating MPs’ expenses, querying his claims.

Sir Thomas has also written to Berwick MP Sir Alan Beith about a mortgage the Liberal Democrat has never had – although he will abide by the conclusions Sir Thomas makes after the matter is resolved. Earlier this year, Mr Clelland rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing for buying his partner’s share of their London flat with a taxpayer-backed mortgage after its value rose “substantially”.

She put in a £25,000 deposit but got an additional £20,000 when she pulled out three years later amid fears her personal details could be compromised when information on expenses was released under Freedom of Information rules.

Mr Clelland said he and his now wife Brenda acted in good faith and on advice of the Commons authorities.

He added taxpayers’ money had been saved and the couple still had to pay the mortgage, which rose by £198.67.

Speaking yesterday, the Labour MP said: “Legg has not suggested that my arrangement was outside the rules at the time. He is only suggesting that it didn’t comply with the rules that he has now made up and backdated to 2004.

“I don’t think it has been very well handled. I think members have a legitimate right to complain about this idea of retrospection.”

The MP confirmed Sir Thomas Legg had raised the issue of “conflicted transactions” over his second home in London, but declined to say how much cash he was asked to return.

Sir Thomas has warned MPs about buying or renting a second home from a close relative, a company in which the MP held shares, or a close associate such an employee. He said: “The transaction will be regarded as tainted, and the whole payment accordingly invalid.

“This will be so even if the MP can show that it was effected at arms-length or that the public purse has not suffered.”