Oral and Written evidence received by
the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1. Letter to the Commissioner from
Mr Michael Goggins, 30 October 2009
Further to my letter of 23 October[177]
regarding the Right Honourable Andrew Mackay, Member of Parliament
for Bracknell, and his wife the Right Honourable Julie Kirkbride,
Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, and their respective claims
under the Additional Costs Allowance.
For the purposes of claiming Additional Costs Allowance
towards their family home in Westminster Andrew Mackay registered
their residence in Bromsgrove as his main home, while at the same
time Julie Kirkbride claimed Additional Costs Allowance towards
the same Bromsgrove property, the same being in her constituency,
and registered as her main home their family home in Westminster.
I refer your attention to the attached article published by the
Guardian newspaper dated 14 May 2009.[178]
For the purposes of claiming the Additional Costs
Allowance the Parliamentary Green Book, I refer your attention
to the same as published in July 2006 which applied at the time
and which I'm sure you have at your disposal, states under Section
3.3.1. Principles that:
"Members must ensure that arrangements for
their ACA claims are above reproach and that there can no grounds
for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear
in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation,
goods or services funded from the allowances.
3.3.2. Members must avoid any arrangement which
may give rise to an accusation that they are, or someone close
to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public
funds...
3.11.1. Definitions
Main Home.
That a Member must register a main home which will be a matter
of fact or in cases of doubt a place where a Member spends most
nights."
The introduction by the Speaker of the House Michael
Martin reminds Members that it is their responsibility for ensuring
that their use of allowances is above reproach.
It would appear the rationale behind Andrew Mackay
registering their residence in Bromsgrove as his main home was
because "he was
brought up in the Midlands and has strong connections in the area"
and furthermore he alleges he was advised to do so and not by
reason of the fact that it was in reality his main home as required
by the rules. That Andrew Mackay spent more time at their Westminster
home as opposed to their Bromsgrove residence is evidenced by
the fact that not only is Westminster the principal family home
and from where their child attends school (see article from the
Birmingham Post dated May 25th 2009[179])
but also Andrew Mackay has admitted to spending most weekends
and a considerable amount of parliamentary recess time in his
constituency of Bracknell (see article ... from a newspaper getbracknell
dated May 14th 2009[180])
thereby severely restricting the remaining amount of time which
he would have available to spend at their Bromsgrove residence.
In declaring the family home in Westminster as her main home for
the purposes of claiming ACA Julie Kirkbride has to all intents
and purposes admitted that the main family home is in fact Westminster
and not Bromsgrove and it would be prove strange indeed if when
taking account of how much time Andrew Mackay spends at his family
home in Westminster and his constituency of Bracknell he is nevertheless
in a position to satisfy the requirements contained in the rules
for claiming allowances that his main home was in fact their residence
in his wife's constituency of Bromsgrove.
Contained in the same article [from getbracknell]
is an apparent admission by Andrew Mackay that his claim for expenses
were unreasonable and therefore not beyond reproach and although
Andrew Mackay goes on to state that he intended to pay the money
back there is as far as I'm aware no media coverage of him actually
paying the money back.
In relation to Julie Kirkbride claiming Additional
Costs Allowance for her constituency home in Bromsgrove the question
arises as to what if any account should be given to the fact that
since 2004 her brother Ian lived at the same address rent free.
See an article from the Telegraph
dated 28th May 2009.[181]
That the same property was to all intents and purposes
Ian Kirkbride's main residence is evidenced by the fact that not
only did his name appear on Bromsgrove electoral roll since 2004
but that he also ran a business from the same address. Furthermore
there is apparently evidence that he spent most of his time there
even when Julie Kirkbride wasn't staying there. Unfortunately
I am no longer in possession of the newspaper article.
The rule book for claiming Additional Costs Allowance
states that allowances claimed must be wholly, exclusively and
necessary for a Member to carry out their duties and that close
family members should not financially gain from any arrangement
whereby such an allowance is claimed.
No account appears to be given by Julie Kirkbride
in claiming her allowances for the fact that her brother was staying
at the same property rent free and that she was in fact subsidising
his cost of living at the expense of the public purse; the Commissioner
for Standards having recently stated in the case of Tony McNulty
that the cost of living necessarily includes mortgage interest
payments.[182]
In addition Julie Kirkbride has recently taken out
a loan of some £50,000 part funded through the public purse
by means of Additional Costs Allowance in order to build a third
bedroom at her constituency home so as her son and her brother
no longer have to share the same bedroom when Julie Kirkbride
and her family stay over.
Julie Kirkbride's constituency home is two bedroomed
and therefore sufficiently large enough to accommodate her needs
and that of her son. It is not incumbent on the taxpayer to provide
for the needs of her brother and the same is contrary to the principles
contained in the Green Book for the claiming of Additional Costs
Allowance.
Although Julie Kirkbride insists that her brother
stays at her Bromsgrove home in order to look after her son it
should be noted that the provision of childcare is not claimable
against allowances.
30 November 2009
177 Mr Goggins had initially written to me about this
matter on 23 October, and had been asked by my Office on 28 October
to provide sufficient evidence to justify at least a preliminary
inquiry. That exchange is not included in the written evidence.
Back
178
WE 2 Back
179
WE 3 Back
180
WE 4 Back
181
WE 5 Back
182
Standards and Privileges Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2008-09,
HC 1070 Back
| 
