Appendix 2: Shahid Malik's
response to the Memorandum of the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Standards, 13 September 2010
I would like to commence by thanking the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards for compiling the memorandum and to
state that I accept the general thrust of his memorandum. There
are however one or two areas of the report which require a response
for the sake of context, perspective and completeness.
A. SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT
Naturally I am pleased that the main area of any
criticism within the memorandum to the select committee does not
focus on the substance of the complaint itself i.e. my integrity
and honesty in the context of the submission of my ACA claim.
Indeed, on page 11, para 28, lines 7-10 the Commissioner
states:
"I also told Mr Malik that I was minded also
to conclude that he had taken the necessary and appropriate action
to rectify the matter by reimbursing the Department for the two
sums involved, at a total cost of £235."
In his conclusion (page 18, para 49) the Commissioner
reinforces this point by stating that it is to my (Mr Malik) credit
that I swiftly repaid the amount in question and that he (the
Commissioner) supports my judgement in feeling uncomfortable and
making the decision to repay. He also points out that I was open
and honest in making my submissions to the department of resources
(its claim processing functions have now I believe been shifted
to IPSA).
In terms of the substance of the complaint, the department
makes clear its judgement both in the memorandum, and in particular,
via the emails from the department to the Commissioner and myself.
Helpfully the Commissioner underlines the vital role played by
the department in 'interpreting and enforcing the rules'. In his
memorandum on page 4, para 5, line 6, he picks out a key quote
from the then Speaker which was used in the introduction section
of the Green Book in 2006:
"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. In
cases of doubt or difficulty about any aspect of the allowances
or how they can be used, please contact the Department of Finance
and Administration. The Members Estimate Committee, which I chair,
has recently restated the Department's authority to interpret
and enforce these rules."
The facts from the memorandum and the additional
emails that I have attached from the department are central to
fully understanding the issue at hand. Put simply the facts are
as follows:
1. Buildings & contents insurance are explicitly
allowable costs. (Memorandum: page 5, para12).
2. The department is not opposed 'in principle'
to extra cover for the ring being an allowable cost. (Memorandum:
page 9, para 23, line 11-14 & my emails of 13th September
2010 in Annex A, Emails 1 & 2).
3. However, the case for this optional extra
cover for the ring could only be made for accidental loss or damage
in the second home - it is explicit from the various communications
that cover 'away from home' was ineligible. (Memorandum: page
9-10, para 25, line 27-2 & page 11, para 28, line 5).
In order to verify the above, I wrote to the Director
of Strategic Projects at the department of resources on Monday
13th September 2010. I asked for confirmation that
the department had no 'in principle' objection to the claim for
the ring in question as long as that cover was confined to the
second home and did not extend to the 'away from home' category.
The Director responded by stating that this was indeed the view
of the department of resources. (See Annex A, Emails 1 & 2).
4. Due to 1 and 2 above I did not think that
there was any 'doubt or difficulty' in the context of the claim.
The claim was completely transparent with all costs and the breakdown
and detail of the various elements of cover clearly visible.
If I thought there was a problem I would have discussed
it with the department as I normally did. If they thought
there was a problem then they would correctly have discussed
the matter with me on two occasions. Failing this, if the
Legg team thought there was a problem they would have highlighted
the matter and asked me to repay in the same way as hundreds
of other MPs did and I would have happily obliged.
5. The department of resources accepts in the
memorandum (page 10, para 9) that they did not fulfil their
duty of care, due to their failure on two occasions to carry
out the necessary diligence expected:
"Therefore there is no evidence that the
process of reasoning and due diligence which the department should
have shown did, in fact, occur."
6. Sir Thomas Legg's team were commissioned to
deploy a 'fine toothcomb' approach to auditing all MP's allowances.
This was a uniquely thorough auditing process with extremely high
stakes given the problems that existed and the need to rebuild
confidence and trust in our democracy.
It is certainly worth noting in relation to Sir Thomas
Legg's audit firstly, that his team did identify insurance
cover, which it felt was inappropriate, and asked the relevant
MPs to repay sums of money relating to such cover claims. Secondly,
that Sir Thomas Legg's team looked at both my claims for extra
cover insurance but did not identify any problem with them.
On this second point I wrote to the Strategic Director
at the department of resources on the 4th August 2010
to confirm that Sir Thomas Legg's audit team had not raised any
such insurance queries in relation to my affairs. He confirms
that the Legg team did not raise the issue of insurance premium
with me nor did they ask me to repay any claimed insurance premia.
(See Annex A, Emails 3 & 4)
7. When I became aware that my claim had the
potential to cause controversy and to damage the reputation of
Parliament, not because it was ineligible, but simply because
it had the potential to become a story at the mercy of media interpretation
I decided to take responsibility, take action, remove doubt and
show leadership. I did so in the full knowledge that my repaying
would leave me open to attack from political and media enemies
in the run up to the general election - indeed, it was hurled
at me quite viciously by these enemies during the general election
campaign itself.
My actions had, as far as I was concerned, remedied
the matter although left me exposed to unjustified criticism,
which duly followed. I believed it was important to be seen to
do the right thing even if I had not proven to have done anything
wrong in the first place, in order to close the issue, protect
parliament and take responsibility.
8. The department in its initial email to the
Commissioner left the matter a little ambiguous, hence I
emailed the department (13/09/10) and specifically asked:
"From our various bits of communication
would I be correct in summarising the Department's view as being
one where it would have no 'in principle' objection to claims
for cover for the ring as long as that cover was confined to the
second home and did not extend to the 'away from home' category."
(See Annex A, Email 1)
The response of the strategic director was straight
forward:
"Yes I can confirm this is in principle
(the department's view)."
(See Annex A, Email 2)
It is clear that the accidental loss and damage in
the home is not potentially problematic and as such the claim
is at least partially eligible. Hence, logic would dictate that
at worst this is a partial breach but one where I have happily
paid back the full amount and am content at having done so.
B. 'TIMELINESS' CRITICISM
I would like to register my disappointment at the
weight and emphasis on timeliness given by the Commissioner in
his memorandum. Though this issue does not relate in anyway to
the complaint itself, I feel it nonetheless has the potential
to distort and undermine. This is due to the fact that it fails
to provide adequate context or perspective to the many interactions
between the Commissioner and myself during the period he highlights,
January 22nd to April 7th 2010.
There is an impression that Honourable and Right
Honourable Members on the select committee may wrongly be led
to draw from the memorandum in its current format - namely, that
I gave insufficient attention and importance to the commissioner
and his office. I will develop this point and also below provide
just a couple of emails by way of evidence that have either been
inadvertently omitted or not considered important.
On page 12, para 31, line 16 in the memorandum the
Commissioner makes mention of a 'substantive inquiry' that I cite
as a key factor in my difficulty in responding to various other
requests he was making of me at the time. There is no further
mention of this matter.
The substantive inquiry had the power to become 'life
altering' and needed to be resolved prior to the general election.
In comparison, this inquiry was relatively trivial and had been
to all intense and purposes remedied - I had repaid the complained
of amount (£137) prior to the inquiry and also repaid the
non-complained of amount (£97.97) at the beginning of the
inquiry.
There is a real danger that readers of the Commissioner's
memorandum may wrongly draw the impression that I somehow decided
not to cooperate with him or perhaps the impression is left that
I had all this free time but could not be bothered with him or
perhaps I did not pay him due respect.
The Commissioner mentions timeliness on a number
of occasions, on page 18 alone he states:
Line 8: "……..he failed to
respond to the questions in my letter of 22 January until 7 April."
Line 10: "……this comparatively
straightforward matter has taken much longer to conclude than
it need have done had Mr Malik responded more promptly."
Line 21: "It is, in my view, therefore,
unfortunate that Mr Malik did not recognise this and demonstrate
the same dispatch in responding to the complaint as he did in
making the repayment."
Line 26: "……his lack of
timeliness................ he made more serious what would otherwise
have been an unfortunate but not serious error.
I am somewhat concerned by the logic in the line
26 quote - how has 'timeliness' made more serious something that
would otherwise be unfortunate but not serious? These are two
almost mutually exclusive issues and I don't accept that one can
impact on the other in the way described. Either it is a serious
matter or it is not. If it were serious the Commissioner would
not have offered rectification. He acknowledged that I repaid
the cover claimed before the inquiry ever began for reasons previously
highlighted and did so despite not knowing whether the cover would
be deemed ineligible.
Of course the Commissioner is entitled to complain
about timeliness but that is very separate to the specific complaint
and its substance. This is especially true since all monies had
voluntarily been repaid, there was no question of dishonesty,
and at worst, the Commissioner accepts it was an "inadvertent
error" made collectively by myself, the department of resources
and the Legg team.
The truth is that this is more of a mundane administrative
matter. Most people will find it extraordinary that a completely
disproportionate amount of time energy and effort has been spent
on something of this nature when it could better have been spent
on other more serious matters - such as the substantive inquiry
that the Commissioner was simultaneously investigating into my
office expenses.
There are as stated a couple of emails, which are
not in the memorandum bundle, which I believe, are useful in at
least setting the scene:
On 6th February 2009 I wrote the
following email to the Commissioner's office:
"Dear
I am very keen indeed to fully cooperate and
to do so in a timely fashion but
as per my last email I humanly have simply been unable to find
the time to put together an adequate response.
I
work a near 90-hour week and travel 400 miles a week. As well
numerous other significant ministerial and non-ministerial work,
as a Minister I have had to commit considerable time and effort
into the following areas of Parliamentary business that I have
led in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall:
5 January 2010 - Main Chamber 'Regeneration' Adjournment
Debate
18 January 2010 - CLG Select Committee 'Preventing
Extremism' Hearing
20 January 2010 - Westminster Hall Adjournment
Debate (Rossington Inland Port Development)
26 January 2010 - Main Chamber Departmental Oral
Questions (New Build, Interfaith Projects, Green Belt, Topical
Questions)
28 January 2010 - Main Chamber Topical Debate
(Holocaust Memorial Day)
29 January 2010 - Main Chamber Private Member's
Bill (Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.) Bill)
29 January 2010 - Main Chamber Private Member's
Bill (Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Amendment) Bill)
8 February 2010 - CLG Select Committee Hearing
(Fire Control)
In addition I am preparing for a Select Committee
hearing on the Olympics in my role as the Olympic Legacy Minister.
I merely set out the above to explain that
I have the deepest respect for the Commissioner and his important
work and I apologise for responding later than I had hoped.
I will however be in a position within a week to have responded
to all outstanding matters relating to the complaint from Mr Cole.
I hope you find this email helpful.
Best
Wishes
Shahid"
On 11th March 2009 I wrote the following
email to the Commissioner's office:
"Dear
I am currently ill at home and on anti-biotics.
I know that the long standing inquiry is almost concluded and
I will focus on this and hopefully be able to respond over the
weekend.
Regards
Shahid"
In both emails I am referring to the substantive
inquiry and prioritising that as it had received considerable
national media attention and it challenged significantly my integrity
and honesty. I had decided to turn my attention to the insurance
complaint only after the infinitely more serious substantive complaint
had been resolved.
NB - I have looked through my correspondence with
the Commissioner and it shows weighty exchanges between the 22nd
January and the 7th April.
I sent all the below emails to the Commissioner during
the period he has identified as being problematic in terms of
timeliness. I also wanted to highlight one incredibly time consuming
email sent to me from the Commissioner's office:
- 24th January;
- 6th February;
- 11th February;
- 15th February -
I wrote a 4 page and 1,200 word response to substantive inquiry;
- 16th February; I
received an email from Commissioner 17th February -
this email came in three batches and contained a total of 18 documents/files
of evidence, which the Commissioner expected me to go through
and respond to in relation to the substantive inquiry. This was
incredibly time consuming and energy sapping.
- 21st February -
my time consuming rebuttal and comment in relation to the 17th
February email received. My attached response was 12 pages and
6,000 words long.
- 24th February;
- 11th March;
- 18th March;
- 25th March - 5 page
and 1800 word response to the substantive inquiry. Time consuming,
energy sapping and demoralising… but necessary.
- 6th April - substantive
inquiry resolved after 10 months and much anxiety and pain. Following
receipt of the evidence compiled by the Commissioner in February
2010, the Department of Resources concluded that:
'Mr Malik's office arrangements were both within
the rules and within the spirit of the rules'.
In his letter to the complainant the Commissioner
concludes:
"Mr Malik's arrangements for his second
constituency office from 2005-08 were reasonable and were within
rules of the House. The second constituency office was established
and used for Parliamentary purposes and Mr Malik was charged,
and claimed for, a fair market rent, from which there is no evidence
that he received a personal benefit. I do not therefore uphold
this complaint."
- 7th April - having
been cleared by the substantive inquiry before the general election
I now attempted to conclude this matter before the general election.
As per page 8, line 24 of the memorandum I was unable to do so
despite my best efforts - I fully understood and respected the
reasons given by the department.
During this 'timeliness' period I sent at least 12
emails to the Commissioner, wrote at least three substantive responses
totalling 21 pages and 9,000 words, and received 18 documents/files
of crucial evidence, which I had to go through myself with a fine
toothcomb and pull out key elements to formulate responses.
Hence, if I appear touchy or sensitive about the
issue of ignoring the Commissioner, not responding to the Commissioner
or not respecting the Commissioner then that is perhaps understandable.
I think it is too often forgotten that MPs are at the end of the
day just human beings with limitations and of course there are
only so many hours in the day.
I understand not being an MP or a Minister the Commissioner
focuses narrowly on his perspective but we really are not robots
and our perspective, our context and our humanity is equally valid.
C. TAKING RESPONSIBILITY
Again, I think the suggestion that I was not taking
responsibility is one that I find quite curious. It feels like
molehills have been turned into mountains in the memorandum. This
is a case where the Commissioner himself in an email has stated
that it was at worst an "inadvertent error".
In addition, the assertion around responsibility
appears completely at odds with the evidence contained in the
memorandum itself. On page 11, para 28, lines 7-10 it is worth
re-stating what the Commissioner states:
"I also told Mr Malik that I was minded
also to conclude that he had taken the necessary and appropriate
action to rectify the matter by reimbursing the Department for
the two sums involved, at a total cost of £235."
Above he concludes that I had taken the necessary
and appropriate action to rectify the matter - in short, I had
taken responsibility!
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, I like
all MPs take primary responsibility for submitting my claims to
the department of resources (now IPSA). Equally, however, the
Department of Resources (IPSA) must take primary responsibility
for scrutinising and correctly processing claims. The department
has a very clear duty of care to MPs and MPs must rightly take
care when submitting their claims.
Additionally in my case the Legg audit team had a
duty of care and primary responsibility for auditing claims that
had been scrutinised and processed by the department - especially
as they were brought in and charged with adopting a 'fine tooth
comb' approach in order to reassure MPs and the public.
As the Commissioner points out, I took responsibility
by voluntarily and unilaterally taking the decision to repay the
extra premium cover that had been incurred and I did so prior
to his decision to initiate any inquiry and prior to any ruling
on the eligibility of the claim.
On this point, the 'facts and findings' element of
the memorandum states:
"Nonetheless, when he became aware of the
extra cover he had felt that the best course of action was voluntarily
to repay the premiums both to show leadership and to avoid any
doubt whatsoever." (page 16)
Importantly, this is despite the fact that there
was no evidence that the payment was incorrect - if anything the
actions of the Department of Resources, twice accepting the claims
as legitimate and processing them as such; and then Sir Thomas
Legg's in-depth auditing of the claims as proper and legitimate
pointed squarely to the claim being perfectly correct.
However, as previously stated, given the need to
increase the public's confidence following the allowances saga
I believed it was important to protect the reputation of Parliament
and our democracy by taking responsibility and simply repaying
the amount - irrespective of whether it was legitimate.
I judged that not repaying swiftly would have left
'doubt' which would have damaged democracy. By taking responsibility
in this way was obviously going to cause me difficulties in the
local media and be dredged up during the general election campaign.
In the climate that existed however, I felt uncomfortable
and was prepared to take the media hit knowing that the argument
would be deployed that I was repaying due to some dodgy claim.
Indeed in a vicious local independent newspaper that has targeted
me for years ran this story three times (including front pagers)
in December, January and two weeks before the general election.
Having carefully read the memorandum I do not feel
on balance that the 'facts and findings' section logically leads
to some elements of the 'conclusions' section - the 'facts' section
obviously being less subjective than the 'conclusions' section.
Drawing towards the end of my response, I would for
the sake of clearing any confusion like to comment on a few further
salient parts of the memorandum.
NB - The most important fact in the whole report
is that there is no criticism of my actions in relation to the
insurance premium, which the Commissioner describes in his conclusions
as "unfortunate but not serious" and "comparatively
straight forward". Indeed, the Commissioner accepts
that I was open in submitting my claim and that it is to my credit
that I repaid the amount of £235 voluntarily and promptly.
Hence, it appears that the Commissioner's concern
is not about the act of the claim i.e. about the complaint, but
about my engagement with him during his inquiry.
I believe the above clearly demonstrates me taking
responsibility not avoiding it. The fact is that any politician
in that climate just before the general election knows full well
that repaying allowances, in the way that I did, would lead to
elements of the media and political foes using it to malign my
reputation.
My decision to repay was a heavy political price
and in practical terms that should have ended the matter without
unnecessary headlines about further inquiries.
There was no question of dishonesty, hoodwinking,
not being transparent, not taking responsibility and not at the
earliest opportunity remedying the matter voluntarily. The resources
that have gone into a bog standard and basic administrative issue
will beggar belief for many. I believe there is a great need to
modernise this element of Parliament's work so the Commissioner
can focus on the kind of complaints, which truly test the public's
confidence in their democracy.
D. CONFUSION AND INACCURACIES ABOUT
THE INSURANCE POLICY
It is worth noting that the insurance policy standard
cover is inadequate for the majority of households - it is similar
to 3rd party fire and theft for cars i.e. a very basic and minimum
cover. It does not cover accidental loss or damage for example.
Please see my email exchange in Annex A, Emails 5 & 6 with
my insurers, AA insurance, where they confirm that valuables in
excess of £1,500 can only be covered for accidental loss
or damage by taking cover in 3a.
On page 17, line 25 the Commissioner asserts that:
"a major element of the package was cover
for the ring while it was away from Mr Malik's second home."
Unfortunately, this is somewhat misleading. I have
attached a page from the policy booklet, which deals specifically
with this matter. I have over a month ago emailed the entire insurance
policy document to the Commissioner for his perusal. On Page 22
of the insurance document (a copy has been scanned and attached
to the end of the response) it states:
"Section 3a extends the cover provided
by Section 1 (standard cover) for valuables and belongings of
high value to include accidental loss or damage and also extends
where they are covered to anywhere in the world"
I think it would be incorrect to deduce from the
above that the major element relates to 'away from home'.
I am also somewhat surprised that in his conclusion,
the Commissioner on page 17, para 44, line 4 states:
"Mr Malik's evidence is that he did not
remember any discussion with the insurers about the extra cover.
He simply received the insurance bill, paid it, and sent it to
the Department for reimbursement. While anybody would be wise
to check an insurance policy before accepting it, I consider that
Mr Malik had a particular responsibility to check carefully the
cover he was offered before seeking to have it funded from parliamentary
allowances."
NB - the above paragraph is a dangerous, offensive
and illogical assumption.
Just because I don't remember the full details of a conversation
two years earlier does not lead to a conclusion that there was
no diligence whatsoever. Indeed evidence in the memorandum itself
conflicts with this assumption.
My email on 7th April at page 25, line
31, (which the Commissioner says he had been waiting for since
22nd January) states I did for example recollect a
discussion about extra cover for accidental damage and loss for
any item in excess of £1,500. Hence, I am well aware why
the cover was being taken, if not fully aware of the 'away from
home' element.
In addition, although I was not specifically asked,
I was also aware for example that I took out extra cover (Section
2 of the policy document) for accidental damage to household goods,
which was not part of the standard cover but which excluded valuables.
This is clearly visible on the two policy summary key facts sheets
in the memorandum (although I think only one may be in the bundle).
The cost of this was £24.92 and £29.38 in 2008-09 and
2009-10 respectively.
The proposition being put forward that standard cover
is adequate is incorrect - most people take cover for accidental
loss or damage in the home and this is precisely what I opted
for taking extra cover under section 2 & 3.
Despite the focus on the 'away from home' element
of my insurance premia I find it difficult to grasp that despite
the Commissioner having for 8 months had access to the two page
insurance summary key facts sheets (one for each year) has failed
to spot an obvious issue. The two pages show that extra cover
was taken out in section 2 also, yet, the Commissioner has neither
questioned nor commented upon, the fact that it also clearly incorporates
cover for household goods 'temporarily away from the home'. The
Commissioner's role is expected to be thorough, where he carefully
checks key pieces of evidence before coming to any conclusions
and I am surprised that he appears to have been less attentive
than one might have expected from someone in such an important
role.
As a result of the above I have made arrangements
with Parliament to repay the £24.92 and £29.38 under
section 2 in order to avoid doubt and remain consistent.
Of course the real challenge is that insurance policy
comes in packages, and if this is precedent setting, it will become
very difficult to find insurance cover, which specifically caters
for MPs and the rules covering tow homes. You are not it seems
able to disaggregate the various elements of cover. This will
invariably have implications for every MP claiming for insurance
in the future and indeed all those who have ever claimed will
potentially be required to repay the whole of any extra premium
taken out if it incorporates any 'away from home' element.
E. SPECIFIC ACCUSATION AND DEFAMATORY
COMPLAINT
It seems to me that the select committee could conclude,
if it wished, that there was this partial unintended breach but
it cannot uphold the specific complaint made by Mr Scott who is
a serial protagonist and was the election agent of one of the
independent candidates in Dewsbury at the 2010 general election.
Mr Scott's complaint itself specifically states that
insurance premium of £136.87 is 'a clear breach of the rules'
and is a 'bogus claim' according to Scott.
It is unambiguously clear from the memorandum and
emails that rings of this nature are not in principle ineligible
and it is the principle that the complainant is challenging. Mr
Scott does not focus at all on the accidental loss or damage or
the away from home element of the premium - his argument is very
narrow in that he simply asserts that the principle of insuring
such an item is a breach irrespective of anything else. He goes
on to use typical defamatory language concluding that any such
claim is 'bogus'.
This is a very serious defamatory accusation, claiming
that I have made a 'bogus claim' and as such am involved in criminality
and not a fit and proper person to be involved public life. I
have taken Mr Scott and the local independent newspaper to the
High court in 2007 for defamation at which point Mr Scott did
a u-turn and the independent local newspaper, which printed his
lies, was forced to print the truth.
To give you a flavour of the work of this publication
I have below a recent extract from the paper written by its founder
for your perusal:
"I thought twice about drawing this next
analogy, because it could smack of insensitive opportunism. But
in the end I kept being brought back to the thought that if Derrick
Bird had been carrying a Koran, he would have been celebrated
as a hero by tens of thousands - possibly more - of so-called
'British' Muslims.
Those are the numbers of our supposed fellow-Britons
who believe the indiscriminate murder of 'non-believers' is an
act of heroic Islamic martyrdom…."
Getting back to the matter in hand, it seems to me
to be prudent, fair and proper to be able to conclude if one wished,
that there was a partial unintended breach but that the complaint
about the 'principle' of the cover and the accusation of it hence
being 'bogus' is not founded.
If it were upheld without appropriate wording then
it would set a precedent and every MP that may have insured in
this way will be accused of making bogus claims and of course
there may be potential legal implications.
F. ANNEX A - NEW EMAIL EVIDENCE
Email 1: My email to the Strategic Director
at the Department of Resources on 13th September
2010
Dear Paul
From our various bits of communication would I be
correct in summarising the Department's view as being one where
it would have no 'in-principle' objection to claims for cover
for the ring as long as that cover was confined to the second
home and did not extend to the 'away from home' category.
Many thank in anticipation of your response.
Regards
Shahid
Email 2: Response from the Strategic Director
at the Department of Resources on 13th September
2010
Dear Mr Malik
Yes, I can confirm this in principle.
Yours sincerely
Paul Silk
PAUL SILK
Director of Strategic Projects
Email 3: My email to the Strategic Director
at the Department of Resources on 4th August
2010
Dear Paul
I write further to your letter to John Lyon in April.
Sir Thomas Legg
The very narrow area where I would appreciate your
assistance is with regards to Sir Thomas Legg's findings in relation
to my expenses (which you have access to and which are also in
the public domain) and please confirm that:
In my case, Sir Thomas Legg DID NOT
highlight the insurance premia as problematic and DID NOT
state that any of the premia should be paid back.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Best wishes
Shahid
Email 4: The response from Strategic Director
at the Department of Resources on 5th August
2010
Dear Mr Mailk
Thank you for your e-mail and letter.
I can confirm that Sir Thomas Legg made no mention
of insurance premia in relation to you in his report.
Yours sincerely
PAUL SILK
Director of Strategic Projects
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Email 5: Email sent from me to AA insurance
who covered my second home on 9th August 2010
Dear Kath
Can you please confirm that section 1 (standard cover)
would not cover accidental loss or damage in the home and the
only way to get this accidental loss or damage covered for an
item valued above £1,500 in the home would be to take out
extra cover under section 3a.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely
Shahid Malik
Email 6: The response from the AA to my email
dated 10th August 2010.
Hi ,Mr Malik
I can confirm that no cover for accidental damage
or loss to items of £1,500 & over would be covered under
section 1
Thanks
Donna
This electronic message contains information from
The Automobile Association which may be privileged or confidential.?The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s)
or entity named above.?If
you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail
immediately.?The
contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without
the sender's consent.
| 
