Annex O
Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards from Mr A J Walker, Director of Finance and Administration,
House of Commons
ROY
BEGGS
MP: OFFICE
RENTAL
Thank you for your letter of 23 July asking for my
comments on the rent claimed by Mr Beggs in each year from 1988,
in the light of the rental valuations provided to you by the District
Valuer (DV) from the Northern Ireland Valuation and Lands Agency.
I have considered the question whether Mr Beggs' claims for reimbursement
of office rental costs have been properly made within the OCA
rules.
As you know, there have been a number of developments
since you wrote Mr Beggs dropped in on Archie Cameron on 22 August
and presented him with a letter (copy enclosed) setting out details
of rental which he feels he underclaimed from the OCA between
1988 and 1993, and overclaimed in the period from 1 April 1993
to 31 March 1998, on the basis of the valuation of a professional
valuer, DTZ McCombe Pierce. He also left a copy of a letter addressed
to you, dated 22 August, and a copy of DTZ McCombe Pierce's assessment
of an appropriate rental value for 41 Station Road, produced on
the instructions of Mrs * * * and Mrs * * * (who I assume are
Mr Beggs' daughters). He gave us a cheque for £586.05, representing
his calculation of the rent overclaimed on the basis of the DTZ
calculation, adding that he did not propose to make a further
claim to cover the amounts underclaimed.
This was helpful, but I was not entirely satisfied
that the matter could be concluded on that basis. The main considerations
were:
— On the amounts said to be underclaimed
between 1988 and 1993, Mr Beggs had used the DV's rental value
figures, and the amount for the underclaim seemed reasonable.
Of course, he was well out of time for making a claim, even if
he had wanted to.
— As for the market rental value from
April 1993 to 1998, Mr Beggs appeared to accept the DV's figure
of £2,600 a year, and had already refunded £58.05 (ie
3 years at an average overclaim of £19.35). This was one
element in the cheque for £586.05. Our own figures for those
years are very slightly different; but the amounts at issue are
tiny, and we regard those years as closed.
— Turning to the period from April 1998,
Mr Beggs claimed that the DV's figure was too low, and that the
DTZ figure was a better representation of the commercial rental
market. Normally we would accept a professional valuation such
as DTZ's, but in this case it was a valuation based on a 5-year
rental period from April 2000, whereas the DV's figure was for
a 5-year period from April 1998. That might well account for the
significant variation in the figures. The key question was, therefore,
what the actual terms of the rental were. If there was a 5-year
agreement from April 1998, the DV's figure should be used for
the whole period since then. If, however, the most recent rental
agreement ran from April 2000, the DTZ figure could in my view
be accepted, at least from that date.
You confirmed over the phone that Mr Beggs had told
you that the latest rental period did indeed run from April 2000.
On that basis, therefore, Archie Cameron wrote to him suggestinng
that the DV's figure should be used for the period until March
2000, and that the DTZ figure should be used from April 2000.
If he accepted this, he would need to repay a further £1,868.
He responded last week, enclosing a cheque for the full amount.
Mr Beggs has shown good faith in seeking to set things
right and in repaying us the amounts he has overclaimed, totalling
£2,454.05 (ie the £586.05 he paid in August, plus the
£1,868 he has now paid). In the light of this, and on the
basis of information that has currently been provided, I can tell
you that the matter has now been resolved to my satisfaction,
and I do not propose to take further action.
25 September 2001
|
