Appendix 2: Written
evidence from Bill Wiggin MP to the Clerk of the Committee, 5
September 2010
I would like to comment on the conclusions drawn
by the Commissioner on page 39-46.
Conclusions 128-134. The conclusion that I was not
in breach of the rules for claiming £240 is most welcome
and I am grateful to the Commissioner for this.
Conclusions 135-136. The Commissioner is incorrect
to say I did not check for records. I did check and in the attic
I found several telephone bills and water bills which I submitted
to him. The Commissioner's decision to judge on the balance of
probability is deeply worrying given that he has admitted to having
insufficient evidence.
1. Council tax. I agree with the Commissioner for
the line "this provides some reassurance that Mr Wiggin did
not benefit overall from his Council Tax over claim."
None the less I apologise for submitting an over
claim for my council tax in 2005 although I did not benefit from
it. This was an election year and so inevitably a great many Members
also over claimed.
2. Utilities. I currently pay £329 for my utilities.
I believe that £240 six years ago was the right amount. The
Commissioner agreed this in 2004-5 but oddly not for 2005-6. As
I claimed the same monthly amount in each year this seems at best
an inconsistent conclusion.
3. Telephone. I gave bills for the year 2004/5 to
the Commissioner they were August 2004 - £596, November 04
- £502.55 and February 05 - £551.86. I cannot remember
how many calls I made or to whom but I did use the telephones
and estimated my Parliamentary share of the bills. There is no
guidance from the Commissioner as to how much he estimates my
usage should be, so I do not know how I am supposed to pay a share
of a telephone bill except by making a judgement.
137. As many did, I accepted that the Fees Office
would raise any concerns and at no stage was I ever asked about
my claims. However when the errors on my second home nomination
forms for my second home was raised by the NAO in 2006/7. I asked
the Fees Office to check all my claims to ensure I had not made
any further errors. They did so. I remain certain that I spent
more money than I claimed.
139. Overall conclusions. I am glad the Commissioner
confirmed that I was not in breach of the rules in my claims but
I regret that he has based his upholding of complaints on the
balance of probability. The Commissioner would not have investigated
so thoroughly if he had not believed this at the outset. This
seems to be totally contrary to normal justice. Yet I was not
able to find more evidence of receipts to support my claims from
six years ago. It was not a requirement then and I did not retain
the sort of records which would have been so helpful.
I accept that the priority for my administration
has always been focused on my constituents rather than on myself
and I am willing to accept the criticism that in 2004 my administration
was casual but I was open in my claim forms and in all my correspondence
with the Commissioner.
Given the ten months since the enquiry began, the
in depth nature of the questioning, and the consequences of such
significant accusations it seems very wrong to be accused of serious
breaches purely on the balance of probability.
| 
