Cash secrets of MPs who tried to stop you seeing their expenses

David Maclean, David Clelland, Julian Lewis and Fraser Kemp

An investigation has established that backers of a Bill two years ago which aimed to exempt Parliament from the full force of the Freedom of Information Act have benefited from thousands of pounds paid under the second home expenses system.

Examples ranged from a former government whip who “bought out” his partner from her share of a London flat at a cost to the taxpayer of thousands of pounds, to a Tory grandee who spent thousands of pounds of public funds on his country estate before selling it.

A shadow minister claimed a £7,000 bedroom suite and a £2,200 television and “flipped” his second home, while a Labour election co-ordinator bought 16 bedsheets within the space of two months for a one-bedroom flat.

The MPs, who all backed the 2007 Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill introduced by David Maclean, the former Conservative chief whip, will face questions over their use of expenses and will come under pressure to return money.

Supporters of Mr Maclean’s Bill said they were acting to protect the confidentiality of constituents. Yet MPs opposing the Bill told the Commons repeatedly that its main impact would be to keep expenses secret.

The latest disclosures came as the fallout from the MPs’ expenses scandal showed no sign of letting up. David Chaytor, a backbench MP, was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party after he admitted he had claimed nearly £13,000 for the mortgage on a London flat after it was paid off.

The Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service are due to meet this week to decide whether to start a criminal inquiry following the Telegraph’s investigation into the misuse of the expenses system by MPs from all sides of the House of Commons.

Two new opinion polls confirmed the damage being sustained by both main parties over the expenses scandal.

Labour was neck and neck with the UK Independence Party in a BPIX poll for the Mail on Sunday as voters looked set to punish mainstream parties over the expenses scandal at the ballot box next month.

More than a third of voters (38 per cent) now believe Gordon Brown should call a snap election over the scandal.

A second poll, by ComRes for the Independent on Sunday, also showed a record low for Labour.

A five point slump for each since last month left Labour on 21 per cent - just three points ahead of the Liberal Democrats who were unchanged at 18 per cent - with the Tories on 40 per cent.

The latest disclosures include:

- David Maclean, who introduced the 2007 Bill, spent more than £20,000 doing up his farmhouse under the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) before selling it for £750,000.

He was entitled to the money because the property was designated as his “second home” with the Commons authorities, yet Mr Maclean did not pay capital gains tax on the sale because the taxman accepted it was his main home.

- David Clelland, the Labour MP, “bought out” his partner’s share of a joint mortgage on a flat in London in a deal which cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds plus legal fees. After the deal, which was approved by the Commons fees office, his taxpayer-funded mortgage interest payments increased by almost £200 a month.

Mr Clelland, who cited the “increasingly bureaucratic” nature of the expenses system and fears of “press intrusion” as reasons for ending the joint mortgage, also submitted a claim including 36p for fuses.

- Fraser Kemp, a former government whip and one of Labour’s key election strategists, made repeat purchases of household items within weeks of each other for his one-bedroom flat.

He bought 16 sheets within seven weeks and tried to claim for a £1,699 television only for the fees office to turn the claim down.

A year earlier he had successfully claimed for a £599 television. Last night he described some of his purchases – including the bed linen – as an “error” and offered to make repayments.

- Julian Lewis, the shadow defence minister and one of the most outspoken opponents of the disclosure of MPs’ personal details, asked

if he could claim £6,000 expenses for a wooden floor with acoustic underlay but was told by officials in the fees office that this “could be seen as extravagant”. However, he was permitted to claim £4,870 to upgrade the London flat, as well as £352.20 in legal fees for settling a dispute over unpaid service charges. Mr Lewis also claimed £119 for a wall-mounted trouser press and £5 for a “sweater tidy”. Last night he described the ACA as an “absolutely rotten system”.

- David Ruffley, the shadow Home Office minister, “flipped” his second home from a London flat to his Bury St Edmunds constituency before spending thousands of pounds on furniture and fittings. He successfully claimed for a £1,674 sofa – but was refused the full amount when he claimed for a £2,175 46-inch Sony widescreen HD television from Harrods. An attempt to claim £6,765 for the purchase of several bedroom items was reduced by £4,748.

Not all of the 98 MPs who supported Mr Maclean’s Bill in 2007 had questionable expenses. Some submitted low or zero claims including Labour’s Martin Salter and Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP.

The latest disclosures came as Gordon Brown and David Cameron faced increasing pressure to do more to address the scale of the abuse of the expenses system.

Since the Telegraph investigation began nine days ago, one minister has stepped down from his post, two Labour MPs have been suspended from the parliamentary party, while a parliamentary aide to the Conservative leader has also resigned his role.

Last night the Prime Minister pledged to take action against ministers who abuse the expenses system and claimed he was “appalled and angered” by the disclosures.

“The bottom line is that any MP who is found to have defied the rules will not be serving in my government,” Mr Brown said.

“I want to assure every citizen of my commitment to a complete clean-up of the system — that wherever and whenever immediate disciplinary action is required I will take it.” The position of Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, remains under threat. A “no confidence” motion could to be tabled against him this week. In a leaked letter to Tory candidates campaigning in next month’s European elections, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, said the Opposition backed “the office of the Speaker,” suggesting that the Tory leadership was losing patience with Mr Martin personally.

Officially, both Mr Brown and Mr Cameron back him – although a growing number of MPs favour his early removal on the grounds that he has mishandled the expenses affair.

David Clelland and how home buy-out costs taxpayer thousands on MP's expenses

The MP for Tyne Bridge told the Commons authorities that his partner wanted to end their joint ownership of the property because of the “increasingly bureaucratic” system of MPs’ expenses, and possible “press intrusion” into their financial affairs.

Using the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA), Mr Clelland claimed – and was repaid – £431.36 in legal costs incurred in buying out his partner’s share of the property.

As a result of the financial transaction in May, 2004, taxpayers were left contributing an additional £198.67 a month towards the MP’s increased mortgage interest repayments.

Mr Clelland married the following year.

Mr Clelland, a former government whip, also had a four-year dispute with the Commons fees office over his claims for minor household products including £2.98 for Cillit bleach, 89p for pedal bin liners, 36p for fuses, £1.48 for Cif Oxy Wipes and £1.06 for Windolene.

Mr Clelland’s purchase of his partner’s stake emerged in a letter to the fees office.

In the letter the MP states: “As discussed with your office some time ago, I have made arrangements to buy out my partner from her share of my London flat.

“This is because she does not want to be involved in the increasingly bureaucratic and prescriptive nature of the members’ allowances system and the possible intrusion of the press into our affairs once the FOI [Freedom of Information] Act is invoked.” In the transaction, Mr Clelland, 65, not only bought out his partner’s stake in the property and paid back the cash deposit she had put down when they purchased it together, but also paid her extra money — via an extension to his mortgage — to reflect the flat’s increase in market value since its purchase.

He explained in the letter: “The property was bought for £125,000 in 2001 and has been valued for mortgage purposes at £165,000 on today’s market. My partner ... provided the deposit on the flat of ... which has to be repaid to her. In addition she is entitled to her share of the equity in the property.

“To accommodate this I have had to take out a mortgage of ... to repay the deposit and half the equity of ... As you will see, this increases my monthly payment by £198.67.”

The MP told The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that in 2001 his partner had wanted to invest in the then “booming” London property market and that the joint mortgage the couple secured cost the taxpayer less than his previous rental arrangement, which he termed “a win-win situation”. Mr Clelland said his partner feared losing out under future arrangements and added: “She could see her [capital] being locked into the flat with no prospect of any growth  . .. Like any other right-minded person faced with the same situation, naturally she wanted out and her [capital] back.” The new arrangement was made on the advice of the fees office, he said.

The MP has said: “For those who think that means we therefore jointly benefited from the second mortgage arrangement they should consider this.

“The money [my partner] received over and above her original deposit did not come like manna from heaven. It was borrowed from the bank and still has to be repaid.”

He insisted the new arrangement remained cheaper for taxpayers than if he had continued to rent

Mr Clelland claimed on the ACA for doing up the one-bedroom flat.

In September he claimed for £704-worth of work on the property’s lounge, hallway and kitchen while in March 2005 he claimed a total of £1,294 for labour and materials – including a 98p plaster knife and £1.78 for white spirit. He said yesterday these were “part” of a larger claim for materials from B&Q.

Later that year Mr Clelland, using the ACA, bought a teak extending table and six chairs for a £220 “hammer price” (plus a premium of £38.78) from the auctioneer Thomas N Miller in Newcastle – close to his main home in Blaydon.

In his claim for this amount he said the furniture was for his London property.

Yesterday he disclosed that he had kept the “best two” chairs and taken the others to the “recycling plant”, and added: “A lot cheaper than John Lewis, don’t you think?”

The following year saw the start of Mr Clelland’s dispute with the fees office over claims for “toiletries”.

Amid correspondence about the “level of detail” which needed to be provided he wrote: “Now that I have itemised all purchases I realise that the total expenditure amounts to more than the £57 that I claimed and I would be grateful therefore if you would amend my original claim form to reflect this amount.”

In January, 2007, Mr Clelland, a product of Kelvin Grove Boys’ School, Gateshead, who went on to study at Gateshead and Hebburn Technical College, wrote to the fees office: “I should perhaps explain that no doubt because of my limited education what I mean by toiletries are things like toothpaste, toilet roll, bathroom cleaners etc . ..

Another dispute, this time in 2006, came after Mr Clelland bought a rug for £470. He claimed the full amount – which the fees office reduced to £300 as well as querying why the purchase was invoiced to the MP’s main constituency address in Blaydon.

Mr Clelland wrote back: “I can confirm that the rug was bought for my ACA home – the address on my bill is my home address because I paid for the rug by my credit card and my home address is, of course, the address to which my card is registered. As you will see, I bought the rug in Nottingham on the way down to my London flat.”

Yesterday he said: “On reflection and in today’s atmosphere it was probably over the top but there we are. Compared to David Cameron and Nick Clegg my overall claims are reasonably modest.”