Crispin Blunt and his house in SurreyCrispin Blunt, the MP for Reigate, Surrey, responded by asking if he could take out a second mortgage against his constituency home in Surrey and claim that on expenses. When the fees office said no, he sold the house and bought a bigger property costing nearly twice as much, and billed the taxpayer for £16,000 in stamp duty and fees.
Documents lodged with the fees office show that Mr Blunt claimed that London was his second home from 1997.
It was not until April 2003, when he discussed his Additional Costs Allowance with the fees office, that an official noted: “It was clear that his London home is his main home and has been for some time. His family live in London and his children attend London schools.”
The official said that “it would appear” Mr Blunt had nominated his London home as his second home because of his “mortgage arrangements”. He added: “I suggested that he change his nomination.” Mr Blunt then wrote to the fees office agreeing to move his “main home” designation to London, but suggesting that he took out an additional mortgage on his house in his Surrey constituency, and secure it on his home in south-west London. He said: “I will only claim mortgage interest from my additional cost allowance up to a sum not exceeding the valuation of my now 'additional home’.”
The fees’ office reply is not recorded, but land registry documents show that Mr Blunt sold the property in Horley, Surrey for £224,000 in July 2004. He bought another property in the same village for £485,000 in November 2005 and claimed £16,000 in stamp duty and legal bills.
Mr Blunt said that when he became an MP in 1997 “it was open to members to designate either home” as their main residence. He changed the designation in 2003 when he was told that the rules had changed by the fees office.
He said: “The sale of the constituency home and the rent and then purchase of a three-bedroom home was driven solely by the circumstances of my growing family.” He paid £22,344 capital gains tax on the transaction.
Crispin Blunt
Job: shadow home office minister
Salary: £64,766
Total second home claims
2004-05: £ 20,902
2005-06: £21,634
2006-07: £22,109
2007-08: £23,083
2 comments:
What a disgrace, another MP we cannot trust.
“When I was elected as an MP in 1997 my home was in London and my children were at school near my home. Principally in the interests of my family this has remained my position and my second home has been in or on the boundary of the constituency. The price of property in the constituency does mean that the allowance provided is usually entirely consumed by the equivalent of a three bedroom house, which, I claim in full, as I prefer to be with my family in the constituency at the weekend.
I do not believe your suggestion of commuting is a sustainable or sensible long term option. Whilst as an individual I might be able to make this work for a period it does not recognise the constant demands of a week that normally sees my working day finish after 10pm 4 nights of the week. You may think making the working life of your legislators as difficult as possible wise, I do not. You should also consider that at any one time about one seventh of MPs are also providing the country's executive. The demands are sufficient without actively seeking to make them worse. You are however correct to point out that this is a more marginal call for me than other MPs for whom it is plainly out of the question.
It is partners and children who have to put up with not seeing their spouse or parent most evenings. It is the family that in most cases have to put up with a lower earnings level from the individual who, if working these hours with these responsibilities in another walk of life, would probably be providing some substantial material benefit to their family. Instead they get the cost of potential public criticism of their partner and do not enjoy the opportunity to answer back. I wish it to remain that way. If I was rich and single different considerations would hold sway.”
These are the reasons I have thought it right to maintain two homes. I also gave an undertaking to the Association when I was selected as your parliamentary candidate in 1997 that I would arrange my affairs to have a constituency base.
However in the current climate I could save the taxpayer the difference between the London allowance and the second homes allowance (about £17,000 pa.). As I have explained to those who have asked, including the press, if I was to give up the second homes allowance it would be my second home that would be given up. It would be sold and in the current climate I would anticipate bearing a capital loss. So be it. This would be offset by the gain made earlier and the taxpayer would not be contributing. We would run our lives from Fulham, not Horley. This choice would be made for the following reasons. The principal part of my job is to be Reigate’s representative in Westminster not Westminster’s representative in Reigate. In travel time Fulham is not very far from the midpoint between Westminster and Banstead. Faced with the choice it would be the choice of my family to remain in Fulham not Horley. Their work and personal preferences have weight with me as they already bear much of the direct cost of my career choice. The downsides are that I would not have a base in the constituency. This would be administratively complicated as constituency engagements rarely flow neatly one to the other particularly over a weekend. It would make my life more difficult and impact to an indefinable degree on me as part of the local community.
My judgement is that it is right for me to continue to arrange things as they are. However there are those who will take the contrary view. If I received the sense that it was the strongly prevailing view of both the Association and constituents generally that I should forego the second homes allowance, with the consequences outlined, then I would do so. I am interested in your view. Do feel free to express it to me by letter or e-mail to crispinbluntmp@parliament.uk.
This whole episode has been immensely dispiriting for those of us who entered public life for what I believe were the right reasons. Crispin Blunt
Post a Comment