29. Letter to former Head of the Fees
Office from the Commissioner, 10 June 2010
I would be very grateful for any help you can give
me in providing your recollection of a meeting which you reportedly
held with the Rt Hon Andrew Mackay in about September 1997 when
Mr Mackay was the Member for Bracknell.
I need to ask for your help on this in the course
of an inquiry I am conducting into a complaint against Mr Mackay.
I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow in taking
evidence from witnesses. As you will know, my inquiries are subject
to parliamentary privilege and I ask, therefore, that you do not
disclose this letter or your response to anyone else. I expect
to show your response to Mr Mackay in the course of this inquiry
and you can expect it to be published with the other evidence
I have collected and with the memorandum which I may submit to
the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
In essence, the complaint which I am inquiring into
is that Mr Mackay wrongly identified his main home for the purpose
of his claims against his Additional Costs Allowance, contrary
to the rules of the House.
Mr Mackay's evidence to me is as follows:
1. He had a meeting with you shortly after he
married Ms Julie Kirkbride, who was then the Member of Parliament
for Bromsgrove. He dates this meeting in about September 1997.
He reports that he asked you for advice. He explained that his
circumstances had changed; he was now married to an MP; and he
had no idea about what to do with his second home allowance. Mr
Mackay recalls that you asked if he had a property in his own
constituency, and about the size of their properties. He told
you that they jointly owned a family home in Westminster and that
they had an apartment in a listed building in his wife's constituency.
He described the accommodation each offered. Mr Mackay explained
that he had never had a home in his constituency [Bracknell].
Mr Mackay says that you then advised that as the couple had two
"proper"
homes with a joint mortgage and where they were both on the electoral
roll, either could be deemed a main home.
2. Mr Mackay's clear recollection is that you
then recommended that Mr Mackay should nominate the home in his
wife's constituency [address] as Mr Mackay's main home and claim
ACA on his Westminster property. Mr Mackay believes that this
arrangement was put on the file in the Fees Office, but the Department's
evidence is that there is no current record of that.
3. Mr Mackay's evidence is that Ms Kirkbride
was not present at this meeting. He says that nevertheless, you
advised that Ms Kirkbride should nominate the couple's Westminster
property as her main home and so claim ACA on her constituency
property [address], which was to be his own main home.
4. Mr Mackay's evidence is that at all times
he and his wife declared their main and second homes to the Fees
Office in a totally transparent way.
The effect of this arrangement was that the Members
were able to claim against parliamentary allowances for both of
their homes.
I appreciate that this is now quite a long time ago
and you will have had many meetings with Members at that time.
But in view of the emphasis that Mr Mackay has put on his meeting
with you and the advice you reportedly gave, it would be very
helpful if you could confirm or otherwise modify Mr Mackay's recollection
of the meeting, as recorded above.
It would be very helpful if you could let me have
a response to this letter within the next two weeks. If you would
like a word about any of this, please contact me or my office
at the House. I would be most grateful for your assistance on
this matter.
10 June 2010
| 
