EDITOR – I am saddened and disappointed, but not surprised, about the way that your newspaper has presented (for the second time) the arrangements which Ann and I had made for our London flat, our second home which we needed in order to carry out properly our duties and responsibilities as MPs representing constituencies about 170 miles from London.
If we had not been MPs, we would not have acquired the flat in question, which we purchased with our own money i.e. the capital for the flat was from our own resources, not the taxpayers, and only the interest for a limited number of years was provided by the House of Commons authorities.
This interest could be equated to the rent that we would have paid on a rental property. Such arrangements have been in place for many decades for MPs who needed accommodation in London.
The Commissioner for Standards who looked into our arrangement last year, found that the arrangement had been agreed by the House authorities, that at no time had we sought to conceal the arrangement and that the cost to the public purse was no more than would have been the case if we had rented the flat from a totally independent, commercial company/firm. It is true that the guidance to MPs had changed in 2006, but it was our understanding that an existing contract/arrangement would continue to be honoured and the guidance change would only apply to new arrangements. When we were advised that exceptionally this was not the case, we moved to another flat with which neither we nor our family had any connections whatsoever.
No MP is expected to fund from his or her own resources accommodation i.e. a second home which is needed solely and exclusively for the purpose of carrying out their responsibilities, and all MPs claim the costs of rent or mortgage interest from the House of Commons authorities. The leader of my Party, Rt Hon David Cameron, does and so does my good colleague George Osborne, and MPs from all parties, and so to present what Ann and I did as sleaze is dishonest and totally unjustified. It is the worst sort of sensational journalism which does not allow the facts to get in the way of your story. The ACA allowance was introduced to cover all incidental expenses involved in running a second home. In respect of subsistence "food" claimed by both of us over four years, this equates to approximately £11 per day for the days that the House of Commons was sitting.
To put the sum in perspective, a fruit drink, a toasted sandwich, a piece of cake and a coffee on a motorway service area costs just over £10. You have also sought to portray our announcement that we will not contest the next General Election as being as a result of the allowances/expenses debacle when this is clearly not the case, as the exchange of correspondence with David Cameron clearly illustrates.
It is typical that you have only published part of David Cameron’s letter in reply to my letter, leaving out his detailed comments about the service which Ann and I have given to both Parliament and our constituencies.
I am sure that you don’t wish to deny the truth.
Sir Nicholas Winterton DL MP
Showing comments 1 to 3 and replies | View All
mogangirl (10/06/2009 at 18:08)
What was allowed, what mp s have been allowed for years ETC:
That still does not excuse THE LACK OF MORALS right from the start for donkeys years all availing yourselves of the tax payers money for personal use for yourselves.
We all have to use the motorway service stations for a Butty and drink. But we all pay out of our own pockets. NOT THE RATEPAYERS POCKETS.
Are you saying Nic That you could not afford to pay for your own Butties and drink?? What is 11 pounds per day to you???
That 11 pounds per day could have paid for a constituency office where people could have come to you for help actualy had access to the very person they voted for. Is that not what being an MP is all about?? Showing respect to the ratepayers in actualy becoming involved with the people who have voted you in?
Were they not good enough for you to speak to in person?
Why did you not stay in staffordshire and become an MP over there?
The Satisfied Customer (11/06/2009 at 05:46)
Wielding his power in his own fiefdom - he certainly has brought his lackey Vic Barlow back in line.
Who is next to come out in defence of Boss Hogg?
Stephen Wain (12/06/2009 at 11:30)
The flat was then transferred to a trust of which the Winterton family were members, the objective being to avoid inheritance tax later on. As part of this arrangement, the trust charged Sir Nick & Lady Ann a rent which they then reclaimed through Parliamentary expenses.
The couple seem to find this acceptable but it seems to me that they were in the position of being able to live rent & mortgage free, thereby incurring no cost to the taxpayer. Instead they chose to use what is in effect a tax avoidance scheme which enabled them to reclaim a "rent" which they need not have paid in the first place.
Their attitude (probably common to other MPs) seems to have been "We can claim this allowance - how do we go about it now that we own the property" & not "We own the flat now, therefore we can save the taxpayer some money".
Or have I misunderstood the situation? Perhaps Sir Nick can enlighten us?
Stephen W