Sponsored by
MP Francis Maude makes commitment over expenses
What do you think about Francis' response? Do you agree? What do you think should happen? Leave a comment below or contact the newsdesk by calling 01403 751200 or email by clicking here.
HORSHAM MP Francis Maude has made a three-fold commitment over his parliamentary expenses 'to try to restore the reputation of politics from an appalling low base' – which will see him forego any claims on his London flat until new reforms are in place.
Following widespread public outrage over MPs' expenses – as revealed throughout the past week by the Daily Telegraph – Conservative leader David Cameron on Tuesday announced that his MPs would have to repay excessive expenses or face the sack.
At the same time, Mr Maude told the County Times that everyone who had inadvertently contributed to the damaged reputation of politics 'should do something to start to put it right.'
Mr Maude had come in for criticism for claiming mortgage interest on his London flat – when he already owned outright another property in London only a short walk away which had previously been his home but was now being rented out.
He said: "I'm doing three things. The first is to publish any expenses claims on my website as soon as they're made. This means that my constituents and the public will be able to see exactly what's going on.
"The second is to commit that as and when we sell the London flat the whole of any capital gain – not just the Capital Gains Tax – will go to the Treasury. So there'll be no financial benefit to me or my family. I'm asking lawyers to draw up a binding document to that effect.
"The third is voluntarily to forego any claims in respect of the London flat until the reforms are in place that Sir Christopher Kelly is currently developing. This is likely to take 12 months. This means that the taxpayer will make no contribution over what we expect to be the next 12 months towards the cost of this property. I and my family will carry all of those costs ourselves.
"I know how angry people are at what's been disclosed about MPs' allowances over the last few days and I understand it. I have only ever claimed legitimate expenses of having a second home for the purposes of being an MP. The records made public show that I claimed relatively small amounts in 2004-5 and 2005-6 in respect of the house we then occupied in London. That house was bought, paid for, renovated and furnished at our own expense. The only furniture or furnishings for which I claimed was a replacement bed - 400 from IKEA.
"When in 2006 we moved into a flat in the same neighbourhood I took out a mortgage to cover the purchase price. Again we renovated and furnished the flat entirely at our own expense. We made the move in order to have a home in London that would work for us as a family, with five rapidly growing children, the oldest of whom was just starting university. The aim was not to build a "property portfolio" – but I understand how it could look that way.
"This whole episode has damaged politics enormously and I think all of us who have inadvertently contributed to that should do something to start to put it right. Some will no doubt see these actions as some kind of admission of "guilt". It isn't. No one has seriously suggested that what I've done is not "within the rules". I genuinely believe I've kept within the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. But I recognise that this isn't enough. We need to try to restore the reputation of politics from an appallingly low base. This is my contribution."
Mr Maude also came in for criticism this week from reader Trevor Dayneswood – whose letter appears in Friday's County Times – who pointed out that the MP had not voted in the Gurkha debate, even though he had written in the newspaper of its importance.
Mr Dayneswood, of Slinfold, wrote: "Without wishing to detract from the result achieved, I would have thought, from Mr Maude's comments, that he would have been there in parliament voting on behalf of the Ghurkhas. But no, he omits to say that he was one of only 13% of Conservative MPs who absented themselves from the vote. Where was he? Why was he not there supporting the "overwhelming public opinion"? Why was he not representing the "incredible number of … people" who had written to him on the subject? It's not as if the result were a forgone conclusion: there was no certainty that the Government would have been defeated."
Responding to the criticism, Mr Maude said: "This was a complete cock up on my part. I was in the House of Commons, I meant to vote and I made a cock up. I have strong support for this issue and was hugely relieved when the vote went through anyway."
What do you think about Francis' response? Do you agree? What do you think should happen? Leave a comment below or contact the newsdesk by calling 01403 751200 or email by clicking here.(tim.raw@sussexnewspapers.co.uk)
See this Friday's (May 15) West Sussex County Times for the full debate.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Horsham
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: 14 C to 26 C
Wind Speed: 10 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 12 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: North east
