Jeremy Wright has not been asked to pay back any expense claims

Monday, 1st February 2010

Sir Paul Kennedy has responded to Jeremy Wright's appeal against Sir Thomas Legg's review of his expense claims. Sir Paul has recommended that Mr Wright does not have to repay any of his expense claims and has noted that "there was no loss to public funds" as a result of the claims Mr Wright made.

SIR PAUL KENNEDY'S LETTER TO JEREMY WRIGHT MP:

28 January 2010

Dear Mr. Wright,

The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) Review says that between September 2005 and March 2009 you were paid a total of £769.50 for mobile phone costs, which are not allowable under the Green Book rules. It recommends that you repay £769.50.

In your grounds of appeal to me, you concede that according to the Green Book mobile phone rental and charges have not been allowable as ACA expenses since April 2005, but you say that when you were first elected in May 2005, you rented an unfurnished flat, which had no telephone landline. Before arranging for installation, you asked the Fees Office if you could claim a small proportion of your mobile phone costs in lieu of a landline and that was agreed. Thereafter you claimed £20 per month. The Review has conceded that it was reasonable to claim £20 per month for an initial three months but not thereafter. You say that what you did spared the taxpayer the greater cost of a landline and you point out that as your mobile phone claims were restricted they could all have been claimed under the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP).

I accept that what you claimed for telecommunications charges was less than you would have claimed if you had arranged for a landline, but it seems to me that, having regard to the change in the rules made in April 2005, you should have been advised in May 2005 that claims for mobile phone charges could not be met out of ACA for long. Obviously, you did not receive that advice, but the statement in the Green Book is clear and, as stated in the Speaker’s introduction, it was your responsibility to ensure that your use of allowances was above reproach.

I turn now to consider whether there are special reasons in your individual case showing that it would not be fair and equitable to require repayment. I consider that there are. You did not claim more than a proportion of your mobile phone charges. That proportion cannot have exceeded costs incurred on your parliamentary duties. The sums claimed were, therefore, recoverable as IEP and, as you point out, there was headroom each year within your IEP allowance for those claims to have been made. Finally, and significantly, there was no loss to public funds.

I would, therefore, allow your appeal and do not recommend any repayment.

My report to the Members’ Estimate Committee (MEC) will be in the form of an introductory section, followed by copies of my replies to the individual appellants, so this reply will form part of my report.

Yours sincerely,

Sir Paul Kennedy

---

Updated on Monday, 1st February 2010