Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP: Resolution Letter

Transcription

1 1 Complaints not upheld Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP: Resolution Letter Letter to Mr John Baker from the Commissioner, 9 July 2009 I have now completed my inquiries into the complaint you sent me on 29 May about reports of the claims the Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP made for a bathroom in his London home against the Additional Costs Allowance. In essence, your complaint was that Mr Smith made claims against that allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in that home. I have taken evidence from Mr Smith and witnesses in the course of my inquiries. I have also seen documentary evidence. My conclusion is that I am fully satisfied that the bathroom for which Mr Smith made claims against his Additional Costs Allowance was installed in his London home, which is the home he identified for the purpose of claims against that allowance. That conclusion is based on the invoice which I have received from the plumber and his testimony, the testimony I have had from the supplier who had identified Mr Smith's Oxford home in the invoice, from the evidence given by Mr Smith and from an informal visit paid by my staff to his London home. I have, therefore, dismissed this complaint. I will report the outcome to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. I am copying this letter to the Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP. 9 July 2009

2 2 Complaints not upheld Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP: Written evidence 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr John Baker, 26 May 2009 The reports in the Daily Telegraph have long ceased to be amusing but certain disclosures seem more annoying than others. I wish to make a formal complaint about the bathroom which was supposedly fitted in Mr Smith s designated second home when the materials and builders were both invoiced to his Oxford home. Certainly the builders can confirm my suspicions if correct. 29 May Extract from article in the Sunday Telegraph, 24 May 2009 [Mr Smith] submitted a number of claims for work he said was done at his London home, although his constituency home was given as the delivery or invoice address. In November 2004 Mr Smith claimed 1, for materials for bathroom under the ACA. Yet the delivery address on the invoice for items including a lavatory and washbasin was his address in Oxford. Several other products claimed were bought from shops in Oxford. In December 2004 he claimed 5,287 (of which 3,500 was paid by the fees office) for modernisation to bathroom. However, he used a company that is based in Oxford and the invoice was addressed to his home in the city. 3. Letter to Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP from the Commissioner, 9 June 2009 I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received in respect of the claims you reportedly made against your Additional Costs Allowance for work carried out on a bathroom in your London home. I attach a copy of the complainant's letter of 29 May, together with the Sunday Telegraph article of 24 May on which the complaint is based. In essence, the complaint is that you made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in that home. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in Paragraph 14 as follows: Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services. The relevant rules would appear to be those set out in the Green Book published in June In his introduction, Mr Speaker wrote as follows: Members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care. The Finance and Administration Department is there to relieve Members of the bulk of the day to day administration of Parliamentary allowances whilst helping Members to provide the necessary accountability. Section 3 sets out the rules For claims against the Additional Costs Allowance. The scope of the Allowance is described in Section as follows:

3 3 Complaints not upheld The additional costs allowance (. 1(11) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes. Paragraph provides that: Subject to paragraphs to you can claim reimbursement for the expenses listed provided that they are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties. Paragraph gives examples of expenditure allowable under the Additional Costs Allowance, including: Maintenance & service agreements necessary non capital repairs (ie repairs to make good dilapidations) decoration. I would welcome your comments on this complaint in the light of this summary of the rules. In particular, it would be helpful to know: 1. the circumstances which led you to decide that your bathroom in London needed replacement; 2. why you decided to employ Oxford based builders to undertake the necessary work; 3. why you decided to buy the bathroom materials, including a lavatory and wash basin, from an Oxford outlet; 4. why the materials appear to have been delivered to your Oxford home; 5. what arrangements you made to transfer these fixtures and fittings to your London home; 6. the payments you made for the fixtures and fittings and to your builders for the completion of this work and the claims you made for them under the Additional Costs Allowance; 7. if you sought the advice of the House authorities about this work, the nature of that advice. Any further comments or information you would like to provide would, of course, be very welcome. It would be particularly helpful to have any documentary or other evidence, including photographs, you may have of the work having been carried out in your London home June Letter to the Commissioner from the Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP, 11 June 2009 Thanks for your letter of 9th June. The complaint that I made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in that home is totally false, and almost certainly libellous. The Sunday Telegraph could have checked this for themselves, as the address and telephone number of the plumber who undertook the work is listed in the unredacted receipts to which they have access, but they evidently chose not to check this out, even after I had pointed out the truth to them.

4 4 Complaints not upheld I attach a copy of the report in Oxford Mail [A] where the plumber concerned, [...], whom the Oxford Mail did contact, confirms that he installed the bathroom fittings in my second home London residence, which is... I also attach a copy of the invoice from [...] [B], which as you can see makes clear that the work relates to... in response to your questions: 1. The bathroom fittings needed replacement because they were old, dilapidated and not working properly. 2. I employed an Oxford based plumber because I knew I could trust his work and I could safely give him the keys to get on with the work when I was out, and he knew the property and plumbing because he had previously installed a boiler there. 3. I bought the materials from Oxford outlets because they are ones I know and it was convenient for me to look at what was available whilst I was in the constituency at the weekend. I also knew they were outlets the plumber would be familiar with and therefore easy for him to pick the items up there and take them to London. 4. None of the materials were delivered to my Oxford home. One of the invoices (from [...] has, in error, a deliver to listing of my Oxford home address. I can only assume this was either automatically generated as the same address as the invoice address (which is my home address, the same address at which my credit card with which I paid is listed) or an operator entry error, as I made it quite clear at the time that the materials would be collected direct from [...] by my plumber. 5. The materials were picked up by my plumber and taken by him to London. 6. The payments made for the fittings and work were as follows: Shower cabinet and fittings [...] Toilet, washbasin, cabinet and fittings [...] Supplying shower and towel rail, installing the fittings, tiles and decoration [...] So the total cost was I claimed against this: the equipment fitted: ( ) most of the work undertaken by the plumber, including supply of the shower, I did not claim for the of items listed on the plumber's invoice as "additional extras". So in summary: Total actually spent on the bathroom: Total amount claimed: Total amount reimbursed: I attach copies of the other relevant invoices [C] and [D]. I would stress: this is a relatively small bathroom. The works made good dilapidation, and were not of a luxurious or excessive standard. I think the fittings I bought from [...] were on promotion at the time, which is why a 15% reduction on each is shown on the invoice. 7. The only discussion I recall having with the Fees Office was about the cost of the plumber's work when they said 3500 was what they thought was an appropriate payment. I did not challenge their advice on this. I don't have any photographs of the work being undertaken, but as I mention above the plumber's invoice makes clear all the work was undertaken at [London address].

5 5 Complaints not upheld The allegation made in the complaint is totally false. 11 June Extract from article in the Oxford Mail, 11 June 2009 MP Andrew Smith has rejected suggestions he used his Parliamentary second home allowance to renovate his main house in Oxford. The Oxford East MP has nominated an address in Kennington, south London, as his second home for his Parliamentary expense claims. But the Sunday Telegraph revealed this week that his main address in..., appeared on invoices and delivery receipts for plumbing work and items including a toilet and washbasin for the London home. He also bought many claimed for items at Oxford shops. Under Commons rules, Mr Smith could only use the additional costs allowance (ACA) on his second home in Kennington. Mr Smith told the Oxford Times that none of these items had been delivered to, or installed in, his Oxford address, and said The Oxford plumber who did the work collected the items from... in Cowley and took them to London where they did the installation. At no point during the period April 2004 to date have I claimed on the second homes allowance for any work or items for my main home in... He said he had chosen an Oxford plumber and local suppliers because he knew he could trust them. He added: The plumber s invoice would have been sent to my Oxford address because that s the address the local firm I use have on their system, and it is where I do day to day things like pay bills and am listed for credit cards. I bought items in Oxford because it s where I know the shops and suppliers. The Sunday Telegraph asked me about this in an exchange, and I told them the detail of what happened by they have chosen not to report all of that. It s plain common sense if you re having works done to chose a plumber you know will do a proper job. I m not going to apologise for using a reputable Oxford plumber, nor for buying materials from suppliers in Oxford. [...] the Marston plumber implicated in the story, said: That s the case, it was installed in London. We did pick it up from a local firm because that s the kind of man he is, he s a local man. I ve worked with him for 30 years and everything we did on the expenses was done in London Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources from the Commissioner, 17 June 2009 I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received in respect of the claims Mr Andrew Smith MP reportedly made against his Additional Costs Allowance for work carried out on a bathroom in his London home in In essence, the complaint is that Mr Smith made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in his second home. I attach [relevant evidence]. Mr Smith has told me that he employed an Oxford plumber to carry out the work, who picked up the materials from the supplier in Oxford, took them to London, and installed them in his London home. He has also said that the Oxford delivery address on one of the invoices is a mistake by the supplier, and that the goods were not delivered to that address. I attach a copy of Mr Smith's letter of I l June and enclosures (including a copy of the invoices).

6 6 Complaints not upheld I am writing to the Oxford plumber about this matter. But I would welcome any comments you may wish to make on this complaint in the light of the information which Mr Smith has provided and which you may have available on your records. It would also be useful to know about any discussions Mr Smith may have had with your staff about these matters, and to have any relevant information about the processing of this claim. I would he most grateful if it were possible to let me have a response within the next three weeks. Thank you for your help. 17 June Letter to [plumber] from the Commissioner, 17 June 2009 I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received in respect of the claims Mr Andrew Smith MP reportedly made against his Additional Costs Allowance for work carried out on a bathroom in his London home in In essence, the complaint is that Mr Smith made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in his second home. I attach a copy of the Sunday Telegraph article of 24 May on which the complaint is based, which claims that many of the purchases for the work were made in Oxford, that the work was carried out by Oxford based builders, and that the delivery address on an invoice for materials for the work was Mr Smith's home in Oxford. I attach a copy of that invoice and of another invoice for bathroom materials. Mr Smith has told me that you were the plumber who carried out the work, that you picked up the materials from the supplier in Oxford and took them to London, and that you installed them in his London home at [...], London, SE 11[...]. He has also sent me a report in the Oxford Mail of 28 May in which you are quoted as saying, "It was all installed in London. We did pick it up from a local firm.... I would he very grateful if you could help me on the following matters: 1. whether you collected the items on the... invoice of 22 October and the... invoice which were sent to Mr Smith, and if so, the date or dates when you did so; 2. whether you transported them from Oxford to London, and if so, the date or dates when you did so; 3. whether you installed them in Mr Smith's home in Kennington, SE London, and the date of the work. Any further comments or information you would like to provide to help me in in this inquiry would, of course, he very welcome. I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow in taking evidence from witnesses. As you will see, the fact that I am writing to you and your reply are confidential to my inquiry and subject to Parliamentary privilege. If I were to prepare a memorandum on this matter for the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges then I would expect to submit your response to that Committee as evidence and the Committee would expect to publish it with any report they produced. You would be informed in advance if such a report is to be published. If however I decide I can resolve the complaint without a formal memorandum to the Committee, I would then retain your letter for my records. I would be most grateful if it were possible to let me have a response within the next three weeks. I would be grateful for your help on this matter. 17 June Letter to [builders merchant] from the Commissioner, 24 June 2009 I would welcome your confidential help on a complaint I have received in respect of the claims Mr Andrew Smith MP reportedly made against his Additional Costs Allowance for work carried out on a bathroom in his London home in 2004.

7 7 Complaints not upheld In essence, the complaint is that Mr Smith made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance for the purchase and installation of a bathroom which was not in fact installed in his second home. The allegation on which I would welcome your help is that the delivery invoice for certain of the materials ordered by Mr Smith from you showed a delivery address to Mr Smith's Oxford home and was delivered to that address. I attach a copy of the invoice dated 22 October 2004 which appears to show the requirement to deliver the products to Mr Andrew Smith's Oxford home, with a delivery date of the same day. Mr Smith has said that these materials were not delivered to his Oxford address. The invoice listing Mr Smith's Oxford home as the delivery location was an error. He has suggested that the address was either automatically generated as the same address as the invoice address, which was his home and the same address at which his credit card, which he used to pay for the goods, was listed; or that it was an operator entry error. Mr Smith said that he made it quite clear at the time that materials would be collected direct from your company by his plumber and that the materials in question were in fact picked up by his plumber and taken by the plumber to London. The plumber is quoted in the Oxford Mail for 11 June 2009 as saying: We did pick it up from a local firm... I appreciate that this is all now some time ago. But I would be very grateful if you could help me on whether you have any evidence or another way of ascertaining whether the materials in the attached invoice were collected from... and not delivered by... to Mr Smith's Oxford home. Any comments on why the invoice suggests something different would also be most welcome. Any other comments or information you were able to provide to help me with this inquiry would be equally welcome. I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow in taking evidence from witnesses. As you will see, the fact that I am writing to you and your reply are confidential to my inquiry and subject to parliamentary privilege. If I were to prepare memorandum on this to the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, then I would expect to submit your response to that Committee as evidence and the Committee would expect to publish it with a new report they produced. You will be informed in advance if such a report is to be published. If however, I decide I can resolve the complaint without a formal memorandum to the Committee, I will then retain your letter for my records. I would be most grateful if it were possible to let me have a response within the next three weeks. Thank you for your help on this matter. 24 June Letter to the Commissioner from [plumber], 23 June 2009 I can confirm all items concerning the plumbing work was collected by ourselves from...and..., and transported by ourselves to [...] London SE11, and installed by ourselves. The bathroom installation was ongoing work and the approximate date was 8/9th November For your information I have enclosed a copy of our invoice to Andrew Smith for work which verifies the work carried out at [...]. I hope this clarifies the matter. 23 June 2009

8 8 Complaints not upheld Invoice from [plumber] to Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP, 8 December 2004

9 9 Complaints not upheld

10 10 Complaints not upheld Letter to [plumber] from the Commissioner, 25 June 2009 Thank you very much for your letter of 23 June about this matter and for such a prompt response. I was most grateful for your help and for sending me a copy of the invoice. I see that there was no separate charge for you collecting the materials from the two builders' merchants in Oxford and delivering them to Mr Smith's London home. Could you kindly let me know how the costs of that were met? Is your normal arrangement that collection and delivery costs are included in the overall costs of the work? Thank you again for your help. I would be most grateful if you could clarify this final point for me. 25 June Letter to the Commissioner from [plumber], 30 June 2009 With regards to your question concerning the collection and delivery of materials to London. Andrew Smith has been our regular customer for 30 years. As a service we undertook whatever necessary for the complete work. Knowing Andrew we fully assumed we would collect and deliver all goods from local suppliers because we know Andrew is loyal to local trades and traders. 30 June Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP, 30 June 2009 Thanks for your recent letter letting me know you are writing to [builders merchant]. It does occur to me that there is a quick and simple way of confirming that the bathroom materials on the invoice were indeed installed at my second home at and not at my main home at [...] Road Oxford, and that is to have a look at the fittings concerned. At least one of the fittings at [London home] has the brand name on, which corresponds to that on the relevant invoice, and all of them of course correspond with the nature and dimensions of items on the 2 invoices for bathroom materials. My fittings at my main Oxford home are a different brand, and marked as such. You or your representative would be very welcome to visit both my homes to check this for yourself. As I am sure you will understand, I am anxious to resolve this matter as soon as possible, and conclusively to refute the baseless allegations which have been made. My proposal above strikes me as a good way of achieving this and assisting in bringing your enquiries to a conclusion. Please let me know on my Parliamentary extension... or mobile [...] if you would like to make arrangements to visit. 30 June Letter to the Commissioner from [builders merchant] 30 June 2009 I have now reviewed all of the details relating to the above. As the transaction is approx five years ago it is difficult to be absolutely precise about the delivery point. However I can confirm that: The goods on the transaction are all special products which we would have had to order in rather than our standard stock. These products would have taken approx 2 3 weeks to arrive from our suppliers so would have been impossible to have been delivered by us on the same date they were ordered as our paperwork suggests.

11 11 Complaints not upheld The delivered to address on our copy paperwork is purely a default copy of the invoice address of the customer and I do not believe is the actual delivery address. Taking all of the above into account I believe it is correct that the products were collected at a date after the sales paperwork date of the 22/10/04 and that we did not deliver them to the Oxford address on the sales receipt paperwork. I hope that this will enable you to resolve this issue. 30 June Statement from [staff member] Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, 2 July 2009 At the invitation of Mr Andrew Smith MP, I visited his [London] home at [...] at 2pm today. The purpose of the visit was to see the bathroom. In the bathroom on the top floor Mr Smith pointed out to me the following items which were listed on the various invoices for his bathroom: a toilet (both cistern and pan) and basin a mixer tap and soap dish a side cabinet and mirror cabinet a chrome towel rail a shower a 120 x 70 cm shower enclosure and tray white tiles and white emulsion on the wall. The... branding was clearly visible on the toilet and basin. The visit took about 10 minutes. 2 July Letter to Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP from the Commissioner, 2 July 2009 I have now completed my inquiries into this complaint about the fitting of your bathroom in your London home. On the basis of all the evidence I have seen, I have no doubt that the bathroom was fitted there and, therefore, propose to dismiss the complaint. I thought you would want to see the evidence on which this conclusion is based. I attach [relevant material] I attach an extract of the letter I propose to send to the complainant dismissing the complaint. I would welcome any comments you might wish to make on the draft, including, of course, its factual accuracy. Once I hear back from you, and subject to your comments, I will write to the complainant. I will tell the Committee on Standards and Privileges of the outcome at its next meeting before the summer recess.

12 12 Complaints not upheld Thank you again for all your help on this matter, which I do appreciate. 2 July Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 3 July 2009 Thank you for your letter of 17 June 2009 concerning the complaint against Mr Smith's use of the Additional Costs Allowance. The complaint is that Mr Smith has used the Additional Costs Allowance to fit a new bathroom in his designated main home which would have been a breach of the rules governing the allowance. From the information you have provided and that which the Department still has access to, I can confirm that the figures quoted by Mr Smith about the costs incurred and payments received from this Department for the work carried out on his bathroom, agree with our records. The overall claims for the bathroom fittings, installation and decoration were reduced by 1, to keep it within what was deemed at the time to be fair, in line with the rule about "...avoiding purchase which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious" (2003 Green Book, updated in July 2004, page 11, paragraph 3.8.1). Mr Smith was informed about the reduction to his claim on 11 January There is a brief file note with the claim which indicates that this decision was taken by the then Deputy Director. Mr Smith's decision to employ a plumber based on knowledge of previous work and his assertion that the selection and purchase of materials locally was more convenient seems entirely reasonable. Our records show that as well as invoice number dated 8 December 2004, from [...], there was a previous invoice dated 12 November 2004 submitted with Mr Smith's November claim; this was for the purchase and installation of a replacement boiler. The relevant address on this invoice was also [...], the same as invoice A total of 4, was paid. Whilst this does not in itself prove that the remainder of the fixtures and fittings were taken to Mr Smith's London home, provided that [plumber] can confirm that this was the case, as he appears to have already done to the Oxford Mail article, I cannot see that a breach of the rules occurred. I hope this is helpful and covers the points you have raised. 3 July Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP, 8 July 2009 Thanks for your letter of 2 July setting out the conclusion of your enquiries, which I welcome. I am happy for you to write to the complainant in whatever terms you judge appropriate, but as you have invite my comments I would suggest a reference to the testimony as well as the invoice of the builder (as per attached) 1, since this supplemented the reference on the invoice, and answered the further questions you had. It would also be more accurate to describe [name] as a plumber rather than a builder since this is how he describes his business, and that is indeed his trade. 1 Not included in the evidence

13 8 July Complaints not upheld