Written evidence received by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards
1. Letter
to the Commissioner from Cllr Barry Stone, 22 March 2010
I write to ask you to investigate a breach of the
Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament by Anthony Wright, the
Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth.
This relates to an alleged windfall payment made
to Mr Wright in his capacity as tenant of a taxpayer funded flat
in the Dolphin Square complex in Westminster. This was reported
in the Daily Telegraph
on 30 May 2009.
I have read with interest your findings in relation
to six Liberal Democrat MPs, who received similar payments as
tenants of Dolphin Square, who referred their cases to you as
Parliamentary Commissioner. Like those MPs, who have been reprimanded
by you, I believe Mr Wright was in breach of the Code of Conduct
because his decision to accept and keep this financial offer had
the effect of putting his personal interest above the public interest.
It is important that Members of Parliament behave
honourably in their role as elected politicians and uphold the
highest standards in public life. I believe in the case of my
own Member of Parliament that this has not been the case.
22 March 2010
2. Extract
from article in the Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2009
At least 13 MPs have received windfalls worth thousands
of pounds to give up their right to cheap rent in a deal that
led to taxpayers paying substantially more for their second homes.
The Dolphin Square estate in Westminster—originally
owned by the Council—had for many years provided low-cost
accommodation for dozens of MPs. However, after the estate was
bought by a private company, all tenants were offered a lump sum
in exchange for either moving out, or paying a higher rent.
Many MPs accepted the windfalls and stayed in the
flats while the taxpayer picked up their higher rental bills.
Others took the money and used it as a deposit to
buy another taxpayer-funded property, while some refused the money
as a matter of principle and preserved the lower rental claims.
Yesterday, 41 MPs were approached by the Daily
Telegraph and asked whether they had accepted
the payout.
Thirteen admitted they had taken the money, including
Tony Wright, the Labour MP for Great Yarmouth …
The payouts were offered after Dolphin Square, a
large apartment complex, was sold to a US company, Westbrook Associates,
four years ago. It also offered £5,000 to give up the right
to pass the tenancy on to family.
…
Tony Wright, the Labour MP for Great Yarmouth said
he received about £10,000 and declined to comment further.
30 May 2009
3. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright MP from the Commissioner, 31 March 2010
I would welcome your help on a complaint I have received
from Councillor Barry Stone in respect of a payment you are reported
to have received in 2005-06 in respect of your tenancy in Dolphin
Square.
I enclose a copy of a letter of 22 March from the
complainant and of the Daily
Telegraph article of 30 May 2009 to which
he refers.[104]
In essence, the complaint is that you received a
payment from the landlords of Dolphin Square in return for giving
up certain rights as a tenant; that you received this benefit
on account of a tenancy supported by rental payments which were
in whole or in part paid from the Additional Costs Allowance and
that this arrangement may, as a result, have led to claims on
that Allowance which were not necessarily incurred or may otherwise
have favoured your personal interest over the public interest.
The Code of Conduct provides in paragraph 9 as follows:
"Members shall base their conduct on a consideration
of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest
and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two,
at once, and in favour of the public interest."
In his introduction to the Green Book published in
April 2005, Mr Speaker Martin wrote as follows:
"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 scope of the Additional Costs Allowance is set
out in paragraph 3.1.1. of that Green Book as follows:
"The additional costs allowance (ACA) reimburses
Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence
(referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing
Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been
incurred for purely personal or political purposes."
The Committee on Standards and Privileges considered
a memorandum from me in respect of six Members who had accepted
certain payments arising from their tenancies in Dolphin Square
at this time. The Committee's report was published, along with
my memorandum, on 19 March 2010.[105]
I would welcome your comments on this complaint in
the light of this brief summary of the relevant rules and in the
light of the Committee's report referred to above. In particular,
it would be helpful to know:
1. the circumstances in which you came to be
offered a payment from the new landlords of Dolphin Square;
2. what payment you were offered by the new landlords
and what you accepted, together with relevant dates, and any documentary
evidence you may have about the offer;
3. whether you received the advice from the lawyers
to the Dolphin Square Trust referred to in my memorandum, and
which of the options you accepted;[106]
4. why you accepted any payment;
5. what use you made of the payment, together
with any evidence you may have to substantiate that use;
6. what actions you took in terms of your accommodation
following the offer, and what rent you paid before and after receiving
this payment;
7. whether you at any time consulted the then
Department of Finance and Administration, and, if so, what advice
you were given;
8. any views you may have on the decision you
made in the light of the Committee's Eleventh Report of Session
2009-10.[107]
Any other points you may wish to make to help me
with this inquiry would, of course, be very welcome.
I enclose a note which sets out the procedure I follow.
I have written to the complainant to let him know that I have
accepted his complaint and am writing to you about it. It would
be very helpful if you could let me have your comments before
Dissolution or, failing that, within the first two weeks of the
return of the new Parliament. I will need to continue my work
on this inquiry when Parliament returns.
If you would like a word about any of this, please
contact me at the House. Otherwise, I look forward to your response
to this letter.
31 March 2010
4. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 26 July 2010
I am writing to let you know that it would appear
to me that you may have decided not to co-operate with my inquiry
into the complaint against you about the payment you received
from the landlords of Dolphin Square, about which I first wrote
to you on 31 March 2009.
I wrote to you on 18 May to confirm that I was resuming
my inquiries into this complaint.[108]
I asked for a response to my letter of 31 March[109]
by the end of May. I heard nothing from you. My office telephoned
and wrote to you on 4 June,[110]
and you called back to apologise for not having replied earlier,
saying that you expected to reply within ten days. Since then
my office has telephoned you on 6 and 14 July and has sent you
further written reminders on 24 June[111]
and 16 July.[112]
The last was sent by recorded delivery. You have not responded
further.
As you will know, the Code of Conduct for Members
of Parliament requires that Members should co-operate at all stages
of any investigation into their conduct by or under the authority
of the House (paragraph 18 of the Code). I am sure that as a former
Member, you would wish to continue to abide by the Code. I would,
therefore, ask that you co-operate with my inquiry and do so either
by letting me have by 8 August an initial response to the letter
I first sent you on 31 March; or by letting me know at once why
you need further time.
I look forward to hearing from you.
26 July 2010
5. Letter
to the Director of Strategic Projects, Department of Resources
from the Commissioner, 9 August 2010
I would welcome your help on a complaint which I
received against Mr Anthony Wright when he was the Member for
Great Yarmouth.
The complaint is in respect of a payment which he
is reported to have received in 2005-06 in respect of his tenancy
in Dolphin Square.
I attach a copy of the complainant's letter of 22
March, and my letter to Mr Wright of 31 March.[113]
Despite repeated requests, Mr Wright has not responded to this
matter. In the apparent absence of his co-operation, I would be
grateful for your help in establishing the facts as far as possible
from parliamentary records.
In essence, the complaint against Mr Wright is that
he received a payment from the landlords of Dolphin Square in
return for giving up certain rights as a tenant; that he received
this benefit on account of a tenancy supported by rental payments
which were in whole or in part paid from the Additional Costs
Allowance and that this arrangement may, as a result, have led
to claims on that Allowance which were not necessarily incurred
or may otherwise have favoured Mr Wright's personal interest over
the public interest.
You will know that the then Committee on Standards
and Privileges considered references from six other Members in
respect of payments which they received as a result of their Dolphin
Square tenancy. The Committee reported on the matter in its eleventh
report of session 2009-10 (HC 491).
It would be helpful if you could let me know from
departmental records:
1. whether the Department has any recorded contact
with Mr Wright in respect of any offers he received from the Dolphin
Square owners or any subsequent payments he may have received
from them;
2. the dates between which Mr Wright was a tenant
in Dolphin Square;
3. any change in Mr Wright's accommodation arrangements
in London in 2005-06 and 2006-07;
4. a summary of the claims which Mr Wright made
against his Additional Costs Allowance each year during the period
when he was a resident in Dolphin Square, and the main heads of
those claims including his rental charges;
5. a summary of claims made by Mr Wright while
living in any accommodation to which he may have moved after leaving
Dolphin Square, including any rental charges;
6. copies of any rental agreements held for Mr
Wright's flat in Dolphin Square and in any subsequent accommodation;
7. any evidence that Mr Wright made any payments
to the Department, or forewent any of his routine claims, as a
result of any sums he received from the landlords of Dolphin Square.
Any other points you may wish to make to help me
in establishing the factual background of this matter would be
much appreciated.
If you could let me have a response to this letter
by 6 September, I would be most grateful. Thank you for your help.
9 August 2010
6. Letter
to the Commissioner from the Director of Strategic Projects, Department
of Resources, 1 September 2010
Thank you for your letter of 9 August.[114]
In response to your questions:
1. There is no record that we have been able to discover
of any contact between the Department and Mr Wright in respect
of offers or payments received from Dolphin Square owners.
2. The original lease we hold on file is dated 12
December 1998. Mr Wright stopped claiming rent on the property
with effect from 30 April 2008.
3. There were no changes to Mr Wright's accommodation
arrangements during 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. However a revised
lease was submitted in April 2006. This showed [name] (as opposed
to Dolphin Square Trust Ltd) as the new landlords. From this time,
payments were made on a monthly basis. Previously rent was paid/claimed
quarterly.
4. A summary of claims is attached.[115]
This includes a summary of the claims made by Mr Wright while
living in hotels after May 2008. We only hold records from the
2004/2005 financial year onwards.
5. The rental agreement held for Mr Wright's flat
in Dolphin Square is attached.[116]
6. We have no evidence that Mr Wright made any payments
to the Department, or forewent any of his routine claims, as a
result of any sums he received from the landlords of Dolphin Square.
Please let me know if I can help further.
1 September 2010
7. Commissioner's
summary of ACA and PAAE claims by Mr Anthony Wright MP, 2004-05
to 2009-10
| Year | Rent (until 30 April 2008) /hotel costs (from 1 May 2008)
| Food | Utilities
| Council tax |
Phone | Cleaning
| Service/
maintenance
| Repairs | Other
| Totals |
| 2004-05 | £11,669
| £3,820 | £245
| £660 | £320
| £650 | £0
| £0 | £1,129
| £18,493 |
| 2005-06 | £14,796
| £3,800 | £425
| £789 | £327
| £631 | £180
| £0 | £683
| £21,631 |
| 2006-07 | £16,100
| £3,750 | £260
| £900 | £276
| £300 | £85
| £125 | £419
| £22,110 |
| 2007-08 | £16,315
| £3,875 | £325
| £618 | £330
| £400 | £338
| £163 | £855
| £23,083 |
| 2008-09 | £8,684
| £4,025 | £24
| £0 | £22
| £0 | £0
| £0 | £15
| £12,770 |
| 2009-10 | £9,267
| £2,300 | £0
| £0 | £0
| £0 | £0
| £0 | £0
| £11,567 |
| Total | £76,831
| £21,570 |
£1,279 | £2,967
| £1,275 |
£1,981 | £603
| £288 | £3,101
| £109,654 |
Notes
1. Mr Wright's claims for the first quarter of
2005-06 were reduced to take account of the Dissolution period,
when ACA could not be claimed. The figure for rent appears to
include a double claim for rent (£3,050) for the second quarter.
2. The figure for rent in 2006-07 comprises 11
monthly payments of £1,300, plus £1,800 for a security
deposit.
3. The figure for rent in 2007-08 comprises one
monthly payment of £1,300 and 11 monthly payments of £1,365.
4. The figure for rent in 2008-09 comprises one
monthly rental payment of £1,365, and £7,319 in hotel
bills.
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards21
December 2010
8. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 3 September 2010
When I wrote to you on 12 August inviting you to
co-operate with this inquiry by letting me have an initial response
to the letter I first sent you on 31 March, I said that I had
written to the Department of Resources to ask them to provide
me with any information they have to assist me with this inquiry.
I have now heard back from the Department of Resources.
I attach a copy of my letter to the Department of 9 August, and
their response of 1 September with their attached spreadsheet.[117]
As you will see, it would appear that you have been
a tenant of Dolphin Square since 12 December 1998. At the time
when the offer was made by the new landlords, in the autumn of
2005, it appears that your quarterly rent for your accommodation
in Dolphin Square was £3,150, equivalent to £1,050 a
month (I have taken the higher figure in the spreadsheet: there
is a lower figure equivalent to £1,017 a month). It would
appear that you accepted the offer from the new landlord to surrender
the tenancy of the flat and take the same property on a new lease.
According to newspaper reports, you said that you accepted a payment
of around £10,000. Your new lease commenced in April 2006,
at an equivalent monthly rent of £1,300. The cost of that
lease increased to £1,365 a month from April 2007. You terminated
the lease on or about 30 April 2008 after which you stayed in
hotels until March 2010 at a monthly rate varying between £119
and £864.
It would appear from this evidence that you accepted
the "Cash and stay"
option from the new landlords. The monthly rent on the lease of
your property, for which you continued to claim against the ACA,
increased by at least £250 from 1 April 2006, and by at least
£315 from 1 April 2007. That situation continued until April
2008. From May 2008, your accommodation claims reduced substantially
as a result of you terminating the lease and switching to hotel
accommodation.
As you will see, the spreadsheet suggests that you
may have made five claims for your quarterly rent in 2005-06.
It would appear that you wrongly claimed £3,050 in the first
quarter of 2005-06, having already claimed the lesser sum of £2,246,
which I assume took account of Dissolution.
I would be grateful to know within the next three
weeks whether this is an accurate summary of your circumstances,
and in particular whether the rental figures are correct. I would
hope also that you would agree to co-operate with this inquiry
by responding to the points I requested in my letter to you of
31 March, taking account of the Department's letter and this summary.
It would be helpful to know in particular why you accepted the
landlord's payment, and whether you accept that, as a result,
your claims for the same flat in Dolphin Square increased for
two years, and why you decided after that to switch to cheaper
hotel accommodation.
I would be very grateful for a response to this letter
within the next three weeks. If that is not possible, please let
me know and the reasons, so that I can report them if necessary
to the Committee. If I do not hear from you by the end of three
weeks, I will assume that you have decided not to co-operate with
this inquiry. I will then prepare a memorandum for the Committee
on Standards and Privileges on the basis of the evidence which
I have secured and which is summarised in this letter. I would
show you the draft factual sections of that memorandum so that
you can comment on their accuracy, if you so wish. I would then
add my conclusions and submit the full memorandum to the Committee.
The Clerk to the Committee would show you the memorandum and give
you an opportunity to comment on it.
I hope that you will agree to cooperate with my inquiry
by responding to this letter.
3 September 2010
9. Letter
to the Commissioner from Mr Anthony Wright, 24 September 2010
I apologise for not responding earlier to your requests
but after losing at the election priorities are different and
the fact that the signatory to the letter asking for me to be
investigated regarding the Dolphin Square tenancy had admitted
to my wife that he had not been the architect of the letter but
merely signed it off. I know that this was politically motivated
but also recognise that you would still be obliged to investigate,
however I was still concerned that as has been widely reported
that you had already put a report in regarding other MPs who had
been in Dolphin Square and the principle for me as it would be
for others is exactly the same so it begs the question why go
through the same process again when you had determined the legitimacy
or otherwise of the lease being sold.
You already have the details of the increases in
rent after the lease was sold and of course accept that there
was an increase in the rent, for the two years I stayed in the
flat and whilst I accept it was a higher increase in rent than
that to be paid under the old agreement the fact was that the
Additional Costs that the rent came from was limited to a maximum
figure as has always been the case. In fact when I moved into
the flat the annual amount for the Additional Costs did not cover
the total costs for living away from home and I, and no doubt
others, were in a position where we had to accept that position
and never complained of that fact as it was our decision and accepted
it. In later years the amount for the allowance did increase and
was enough to cover those costs more often than not.
I did seek advice from the Fees Office by phone query
and the opinion given was that the lease was signed by me and
therefore it was my responsibility as to what I did.
This whole process of the rights and wrong of what
we do as Members of Parliament is no doubt correct and I do not
have any problem with this however it does appear that the only
time you are brought to task is if someone makes a formal complaint
against you and then an investigation takes place whereas if you
are not reported then it is OK.
The other principle is that the sale of the tenancy
lease is in my opinion no different to that of anyone selling
a purchased property, as you also sell the leasehold on that property.
It begs the question what is the difference? because no doubt
had I purchased a property on an interest only payment and had
it paid for out of the ACA then it is perfectly legitimate to
do so yet do the same to a rented property and it is deemed as
wrong. Why? In fact having rented a one bedroomed property for
me to carry out my duties as a Member of Parliament conforms to
the Green Book rules on allowance expenditure but I could have
purchased a two or three bedroomed property on an interest only
mortgage and it is legitimate, surely this is not right, So for
me to be reported for selling my lease is in my opinion no different
to having purchased a property and sold it yet it is regarded
as legitimate. I know the rules have changed somewhat now but
I am dealing with what is wrong and right at the time I was in
Dolphin Square.
You asked why I moved from the flat after two years.
It was because the owners wanted to increase the rent by 20% and
the flat I rented was not modern in many ways, especially to the
extent the company had modernised the other flats. I did request
that they bring my flat up to that standard but they declined
therefore I had no option but to relinquish my tenancy as I was
not prepared to pay the rent requested and from that point I was
looking for other rented accommodation and stayed in hotels, time
went by and I continued in hotels and the taxpayer benefited from
the fact that the amount claimed for the year was substantially
lower than that from when I was in rented accommodation. I have
to say however it wasn't the most convenient thing to do and having
a permanent base is really still in my opinion a requirement for
MPs to carry out their duties unless you live close enough to
commute.
I did write to Sir Malcolm Rifkind before the last
election and request that in the light of the report his Committee
had carried out on the MPs who had sold their tenancy from Dolphin
Square that he might want to look into my situation as it was
similar. I had no response to that letter presumably because of
the imminent election.
To reiterate my main points
- The signatory to the letter
of complaint was not the architect of the letter
- I see no difference between selling a rented
property lease or a purchased property lease
- The Green Book says clearly that the allowances
are for MPs to carry out their duties but would have allowed me
to purchase a three bedroomed property.
- I moved out because of the excessive rental increase
demanded.
There is no doubt that you will have to come to the
same conclusion of your previous report as the circumstances and
principles are the same but I hope I have explained my situation
and how I think there is some double standards in the process
you have been charged to carry out.
24 September 2010
10. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 4 October 2010
Thank you for your letter of 24 September responding
to mine of 3 September about this complaint.
I was grateful for this response. It might be helpful
if I made the following comments:
1. I have noted what you say about the complainant.
But I hope I am right in assuming that you accept that Cllr Stone
submitted a letter signed by him with his complaint and that he
is, therefore, properly identified as the complainant in respect
of this matter.
2. I have noted your argument that the sale of the
tenancy lease was in your opinion no different than someone selling
a purchased property. Setting aside whether you were selling a
lease, or receiving a payment in return for surrendering your
current tenancy on the flat, this argument was put to me during
the course of my earlier inquiry. I address the point at paragraph
330 (iv) of my memorandum which was published with the eleventh
report of session 2009-10 by the Committee on Standards and Privileges
on 19 March (HC 491). You will see that the Committee records,
and does not demur from, my conclusions on this point. I will,
however, note the view which you take on this.
3. You have asked why you should go through the same
process again when I had already determined the legitimacy (or
otherwise) of you accepting the payments from the landlord. I
note, nevertheless, that you wrote to Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP,
presumably as Chairman of the Committee, suggesting that he might
look into your situation. And I would draw your attention to paragraph
20 of the Committee's eleventh report of session 2009-10 published
on 19 March where they note that "it
would be grossly unfair to seek to apply by analogy the findings
in this Report to the cases of other Members, in the absence of
a thorough examination of the facts in each such case."
It is that examination I have been conducting following the complaint
I received.
There are three points on which I would welcome your
further help:
1. You say that you that you sought advice from
the Fees Office by telephone and were told that it was your responsibility
what you did about the lease. Could you give me further details
of this conversation? In particular, could you identify to whom
you spoke; and as closely as you can, the date when that conversation
took place? Could you also recall further details of what you
told the Fees Office, and any further details you can recall of
what they told you. I ask because it could be a material factor
if you were given this advice which, as you will have seen from
the previous report, was contrary to the formal advice provided
by the House authorities which they planned to give those who
approached them for their views.
2. You say that you moved out because the owners
wanted to increase the rent by 20%. You will see from the Committee's
report (paragraph 6) that the "Cash
and Stay" offer which you apparently
accepted involved the current tenant being paid a sum of money
by the new owners of Dolphin Square and staying in their flat
at a higher rent, on an assured short hold tenancy, with no security
of tenure on expiry of the fixed term. The executive summary of
the solicitor's advice sent to tenants of Dolphin Square was at
document 17 of the evidence enclosed with my memorandum to the
Committee.[118]
Could you let me know whether you recall receiving this legal
advice? And could you confirm that rent increases (at a higher
level than if you had kept your protected tenancy) were an inevitable
and expected consequence of you accepting the payment?
3. Could you confirm, or otherwise comment on,
the statement I made in my letter to you of 3 September that it
appears that you wrongly claimed £3,050 in the first quarter
of 2005-06, having already claimed the lesser sum of £2,246,
which I assume took account of Dissolution?
It would be very helpful if you could let me have
a response to this letter within the next three weeks.
4 October 2010
11. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Mr Anthony Wright, 29 November 2010
Further to your letter dated 4 October, my response
is as follows.
1. My conversation as far as I can recollect
with the Fees Office took place late 2004 or early 2005, I am
sorry not to be able to be more specific. The person I spoke to
was as far as I recollect [first name] as I would normally speak
to him when I had a query. My conversation would have been along
the lines of the offer from the new owners and what the position
would be, and as far as I can recollect the response was that
the lease was signed by me and therefore my responsibility as
to what I did with it. I never received any formal advice from
the House Authorities as to this issue.
2. I am sure I would have received the legal
advice from the solicitors however the rates of the increase that
was to be implemented at the time of my leaving Dolphin Square
was somewhat more than anticipated, I think in the first year
the increase was around 5% however it was also the case that an
annual increase was set by the original tenancy from Dolphin Square.
I do accept that the increase was more than that of my original
agreement but with regard to the significant increase of 20% there
was never any indication that it would be at that level and bearing
in mind my flat was somewhat in need of modernisation it was in
my opinion not what I would deem as value. I did originally intend
to find another flat but used hotel accommodation and time just
went by and I continued to use hotels resulting in the lower level
of claims for ACA.
3. I am certainly not aware of making a 'wrong'
claim as you put it. Everything I claimed for was with the knowledge
that it was legitimate and bearing in mind the detailed audit
of our ACA[119]
from that point I would have thought this would have been raised
at that time if there was an issue but I received a final letter,
after confirmation of some details, that there were 'no issues'
with my allowance claims. I no longer have the details of my claims
and cannot therefore comment on the claim but remain confident
it was legitimate.
4. Without getting copies of bank statements
the figure of £14,500 was I think the amount from the new
landlords, it was around that figure.
Finally can I add that whilst noting your comments
regarding my response of 24 September I am still at a loss to
understand the difference between selling the Dolphin Square lease
or selling a property that is owned and even more so now that
the authorities have decided that any profit made after April
2010 will go to the House authorities. Clearly the view was that
whilst it was legitimate at the time to buy a property and claim,
in some cases, in excess of £20,000 in interest payments
and then sell and keep any profits it has now been decided any
profits in excess of the valuation after April 2010 will be reclaimed.
I would also point out that the Green Book states clearly that
the allowance is to enable the MP to perform his or her duties.
How can someone legitimately claim interest on a property that
is clearly over and above that required and possibly in excess
of £1,000,000?
29 November 2010
12. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 29 November 2010
Thank you for your e-mailed letter of 29 November
responding to mine of 4 October.
I am now consulting the Department of Resources,
both about your reported telephone conversation with a member
of that department, and about the possible duplicate ACA claim.
Your conversation with the official appears to have
taken place sometime before the new owners of Dolphin Square sent
their offer letter to tenants. The evidence I received from my
previous inquiry suggested that was in October 2005 (see paragraph
13 of my memorandum to the Committee published with the Committee's
eleventh report of session 2009-10). While I appreciate that,
according to the evidence I received, this came at the end of
long negotiations with the Dolphin Square Trust, it would be helpful
if you could confirm my understanding of your evidence, which
is that the prospect of receiving a payment from the new landlords
for giving up the tenants' current tenancy of their flats was
known by you from late 2004/early 2005.
It would be helpful if you could give me a response
to this within the next week so that I can if necessary pass it
to the Department and so that they can take account of it in the
further advice which I have sought from them.
29 November 2010
13. Letter
to the Director-General of Resources from the Commissioner, 29
November 2010
I would welcome some further help from the Department
in respect of the inquiries I am making into a complaint made
against Mr Anthony Wright when he was the Member for Great Yarmouth.
The complaint relates to his acceptance of a payment from the
new landlords of Dolphin Square in return for giving up his tenancy
rights.
I consulted the Department about this case on 9 August
and received a response of 1 September from the Director of Strategic
Projects. I enclose further copies of those letters, and attachments
from the Department. Following that correspondence, I wrote to
Mr Wright on 3 September; he responded on 24 September; I wrote
to him on 4 October; and he responded on 29 November.[120]
I enclose copies of all those documents.
There are two points on which I would welcome your
further help. First, could you let me know whether the Department
has any records or recollection of the conversations which Mr
Wright says he had with a member of the Department in late 2004
or early 2005? This conversation would appear to predate substantially
the advice prepared by the Department, and would appear also to
predate the formal offer from the new tenants.
The second point on which I would welcome your advice
is whether I would be right to conclude from the spreadsheet which
the Department sent me that Mr Wright claimed £3,050 in the
first quarter of 2005-06 in respect of his rental payments, having
already claimed for the same period the lesser sum of £2,246
which I had assumed took account of the Dissolution.
It would be very helpful if you could let me have
a response to this letter within the next two weeks.
29 November 2010
14. Letter
to the Commissioner from the Director-General of Resources, 3
December 2010
Thank you for your letter of 29 November.
As [the Director of Special Projects] said in his
letter of 1 September 2010, there is no record that we have been
able to discover of any contact between the Department and Mr
Wright in respect of offers or payments received from Dolphin
Square owners. Mr Wright recalls that he may have spoken to a
member of staff called [first name]. The only current member of
staff with this name who worked in this area in 2004/05 does not
believe that he spoke to Mr Wright about Dolphin Square and certainly
did not discuss Mr Wright's expenses on a regular basis, as Mr
Wright suggested in his e-mail of 29 November was the case with
the official with whom he spoke. There was at least one other
employee of this name who worked in this area at that time, but
he no longer works for the House. The EAT log[121]
only came into existence in 2005 and therefore cannot be used
for records from before that time.
I can confirm that Mr Wright did claim five payments
in respect of rental in 2005/06. A claim for £3,050 was submitted
on 30 March 2005 in respect of the period 1 April to 30 June 2005.
This was reduced to £2,245.60 to take account of the Dissolution
period. A further claim for £3,050 was submitted on 2 June
for the period 9 May to 31 May. This appears to have been assumed
by the Department to be the first claim for the April to June
quarter (in other words, no account was taken of the fact that
rent for this quarter had already been claimed). This claim was
reduced to £2,558.06 to cover the Dissolution period (the
calculation used to determine the appropriate amount due differed
from that which was used in the earlier claim). However a handwritten
note, made by a member of the Department's staff on a copy of
this 2 June claim indicated that the rent period which it covered
was in fact 1 July to 30 September. The residual amount of £491.94
was therefore paid. Thus the whole of the amount claimed on 2
June was paid.
Three further claims for rent were submitted during
the course of the financial year (on 2 September for £3,050;
on 5 December for £3,150; and 1 March 2006 for £3,300).
Each of these claims was paid in full.
There were, therefore, five claims for rent made
in respect of the financial year 2005/06. However, it would appear
that the problem arose in respect of the second quarter's rent
rather than the first.
Please let me know if I can help further.
3 December 2010
15. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 6 December 2010
I have now heard back from the Department of Resources
to whom, as you will know from my letter of 29 November, I wrote
following your e-mailed letter of the same day.
I enclose a copy of my letter to the Department of
29 November, and their response of 3 December.
As you will see, they are not able to throw any further
light on your reported conversations with a member of their staff.
I will, therefore, need to come to my own view on this matter.
It would still be helpful, however, if as requested in my letter
of 29 November, you could confirm my understanding of your evidence,
which is that the prospect of receiving a payment from the new
landlord for giving up the tenants current tenancy of their flats
was known by you from late 2004-early 2005. It would be helpful
also if you could confirm that you did not consult the Department
later in 2005, in particular in the late autumn of 2005, when
it would appear you would have received your formal offer letter
from the new landlord.
You will see also that the Department has confirmed
that you over-claimed—and were over paid—for your
rental payments for the year 2004-05, by the sum of £3,050.
I would welcome any final comments you may wish to make about
the Department's calculations.
I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could
let me have any comments you may wish to make on the Department's
letter or any other final points you may wish to make on this
complaint. I would be grateful if you could let me have these
within the next two weeks.
As you know, I am minded to prepare a memorandum
for the Committee on Standards and Privileges on this matter.
You should draw no particular inferences from that. Once I have
your response to this letter, therefore, I will prepare the draft
factual sections of my memorandum. I will show you these so that
you can comment, if necessary, on their factual accuracy. I will
then add my own conclusions and submit the full memorandum to
the Committee. I will let you and the complainant know when I
have done so. The Clerk to the Committee will let you have a copy
of the full memorandum so that you can respond to the Committee
as you wish before they come to consider the matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
6 December 2010
16. Mr
Anthony Wright MP: Commissioner's calculations of increases in
rent for Mr Wright's Dolphin Square flat, 2004-05 to 2007-08
| Year | 2004-05
| 2005-06 | 2006-07
| 2007-08 |
| Annual rental | £11,669
| £12,550 | £15,600
| £16,380 |
| £ increase on previous year
| | £881
| £3,050 | £780
|
| % increase on previous year
| | 8%
| 24% | 5%
|
Notes
1. The rent figures are derived from the rental claims listed
in the information provided by the Department of Resources. See
WE 7.
2. The rent figure for 2005-06 excludes Mr Wright's
double claim for £3,050, but includes the rent (£804)
which he was unable to claim during the Dissolution period.
3. The rent figure for 2006-07 is the annual figure
which applied from 1 May 2006. It does not include the £1,800
which Mr Wright claimed for a security deposit.
4. The rent figure for 2007-08 is the annual figure
which applied from 1 May 2007.
21 December 2010
17. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Mr Anthony Wright, 23 December 2010
Further to your letter re Dolphin Square and my claims
for rent of the same, can I make an observation that whilst it
is a fact that there were apparently five claims made it appears
to me that the claim made in March 2006 would have been for the
period of rent 3 months in advance ie covering the next financial
year, I assume this to be the case as the rent is £3,300
(3 months' rent) and that figure would have been the new rent
from the new landlord as the previous rent was £3,150 (3
months' rent) for the preceding quarter, therefore whilst it appears
on paper to be the case of five claims in that year only four
should be relevant in that year. I will have to check in more
detail this issue as I am certainly not aware of making a wrong
claim and if there has been an error I would most certainly want
it to be cleared up.
With regard to the question of my seeking advice
from the Fees Office prior to the offer being made, it was common
knowledge for some years that the Trust were negotiating the sale
of the lease and with regular bulletins from the residents association
it was clear what was happening. I therefore asked about this
issue and it was with an [first name] in the Fees Office. I recognise
that you will have to make a judgement on this but all I can do
is assure you that is what happened and the timing is very vague
but know it was well before the offer was made but with the knowledge
that it was clear that the headlease was being negotiated and
I wanted an opinion.
I hope this is helpful, however I will continue to
look at the question you raise with regard to the issue of an
error being made in the rent payments.
23 December 2010
18. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the office of the Commissioner, 23 December
2010
The Commissioner has asked me to thank you for your
e-mail of 23 December, and to ask you for the outstanding pieces
of information required so that he can complete the factual sections
of his memorandum for the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
The information which he has asked for is as follows:
1. The timing of your consultation with the
Department of Finance and Administration In your e-mail you
said that you sought advice on the Dolphin Square lease "well
before the offer." It would appear from this that you
did not consult the Department again later in 2005, in particular
in the late autumn of that year, after receiving the offer. Could
you confirm that this is correct?
2. ACA claims from 2004-05 to 2009-10
At the Commissioner's request I am forwarding to you a summary
of your ACA claims from 2004-05 to 2009-10, which includes the
five claims apparently made for rent in 2005-06.[122]This
summary has been prepared from the spreadsheet provided by the
Department of Resources, which the Commissioner forwarded to you
on 3 September. The Commissioner has asked, if you consider that
any of this material is inaccurate, that you would let him know.
3. Rent increases for your Dolphin Square
flat. I attach a table, derived from the same spreadsheet
provided by the Department of Resources, which sets out the rental
increases for the allowance years from 2004-05 to 2007-08.[123]Again,
the Commissioner would be grateful to know if you consider any
of this material inaccurate.
The Commissioner would be most grateful to receive
your reply, including your final response on the apparent five
payments for rent in 2005-06, by noon on 4 January, so that he
can complete the work on his memorandum for the Committee on Standards
and Privileges.
Thank you for your help.
23 December 2010
19. E-mail
to the office of the Commissioner from Mr Anthony Wright, 4 January
2011
Further to your letter of 23 December, received 30th
December my response to the points made are as follows.
1. I did not consult the Department again once
the offer was received but note the comment from the Fees Office
that the only [first name of official] in the office has no recollection
of a discussion with me at the time I mentioned but recognised
that there was another [first name] who was no longer in the Department.
I stand by the previous submission of a discussion/ conversation
I had at around the time I mentioned therefore I did not see a
reason to contact the Department again. In hindsight perhaps this
is something I should have done. I did not at any time receive
any communication from the Fees Office regarding this issue.
2. There are some inaccuracies of a minor nature,
I have tried to go through my own bank accounts and it is difficult
without my ACA forms to ascertain some of the claims and payments
however the amounts that are in your letter re the rental charges
are relatively accurate except the 11 rental payments in 2006/2007
when there was 12 payments.
3. Yes in rough terms the increases are as you
have put however it is also a factor that the Dolphin Square agreement
had allowed for an annual increase year on year but [I] accept
that it would not have been at the level in the first year of
[the new owners] and the increase in the year I left was in excess
of 20% which I considered excessive for the accommodation.
Finally, if I had claimed mistakenly in the year
05/06 looking at the details you have sent me that at the time
of Dissolution when it was clear an amount had been deducted from
the rental claim I can only assume that on return after the Election
the assumption by me would have been that the rental claim would
be from the day after the Election, having assumed the amount
deducted from the April claim for rent was for all rent paid after
the date of Dissolution. I have, as I said in earlier communications,
never knowingly made any claim for allowances or expenses that
could not be reconciled with my duties as MP.
4 January 2011
20. Letter
to Mr Anthony Wright from the Commissioner, 4 January 2011
Thank you for your e-mail of 4 January responding
to my office's letter of 23 December following up the e-mail which
you sent my office earlier that day.
I was grateful for your responses. On the points
you have made:
1. I will note the points you have made about consulting
the Department;
2. while you have said that there were some inaccuracies
of a minor nature in the summary of your claims from 2004-05—2009-10
which my office sent you on 23 December, you have not identified
what these are. I will therefore take the summary as a generally
accurate account of your claims, while noting that you believe
there may be some minor variations;
3. I note that you have accepted the accuracy of
the calculations of rental increases which my office also sent
you on 23 December, although of course I note the points you have
raised;
4. finally, I take it from your response that you
accept that you did make an additional claim for £3,050 in
the year 2005-06 and will, of course, note the reasons you suggest
for how this may have happened and your statement that it was
not intentional.
I will now complete the factual sections of my memorandum,
taking account of the correspondence since 23 December. Once I
have completed it, I will send it to you so that you can comment,
if necessary, on its factual accuracy. I will then prepare my
conclusions and add those to the memorandum, which I will then
submit to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I will let
you (and the complainant) know when I have done so. The Clerk
to the Committee will send you the full memorandum and give you
an opportunity to respond to it before the matter comes to be
considered by the Committee.
Unless you have any final points, therefore, you
wish to make, I will be in touch again shortly with the draft
factual sections of the memorandum.
4 January 2011
21. E-mail
to the Commissioner from Mr Anthony Wright, 13 January 2011
Further to your recent letter with your final report
I have briefly gone through the diary of events re Dolphin Square
and by and large the facts are there. Just a small point is that
where you say I had "claimed the lesser amount" on
pages 12 and 19 I believe I would have claimed for the full rental
and the Department reduced the amount subsequently due to the
prorogation. I would have claimed this as if I remember correctly
the rules back in 2001 Election were that as long as the payments
were made prior to prorogation then they would be paid in full
and this was the case for rental agreements etc and I believe
the rent over the election period would have been met in full
including the election period. Presuming this to be the case in
2005 I would, I am sure, have claimed for the rental on the same
basis.
I do accept it is Members' responsibility, however,
in mitigation had the Department raised a query with me on the
basis of the hand written note in the Department for my subsequent
claim from May 9th[124]
I undoubtedly would have had a discussion with them and accepted
an error had been made. In hindsight it was a mistake by me to
assume that the rental had only been deducted for the duration
of the Election, bearing in mind that there was no guarantee of
my return at the election I would have assumed the payments would
only be payable up to the prorogation. On the basis of the information
you have given me I am returning the payment of the £3,050
that was inadvertently claimed in that financial year.
With respect to the Dolphin Square tenancy I reiterate
the discussion I had back in 2004-05 and regret not seeking further
clarification at the time of the offer. And, as you had submitted
in your previous report to the Committee, it is regretful that
all tenants of Dolphin Square had not been sent a letter explaining
the position on such an important matter as things may well have
been different, but it is our responsibility and I genuinely believed
I had done no different to if I had purchased a property with
an interest-only mortgage being paid via the ACA.
Finally I apologise for the delay in responding early
in the inquiry you had been charged with but my point about different
priorities was aimed at the fact that not only have you lost your
seat as MP but you are faced with the reality of what do you do
now? Further to that later in the inquiry I had explained to [your
office] that recorded delivery would not have reached me during
the weekdays and to send correspondence by ordinary mail and copy
to e-mail this would resolve that situation, which it has.
13 January 2011
104 WE 1, WE 2 Back
105
Eleventh Report of Session 2009-10, HC 491 Back
106
Ibid. The advice was appended to my memorandum at WE 17, Back
107
Ibid Back
108
Not included in the evidence Back
109
WE 3 Back
110
Not included in the evidence Back
111
Not included in the evidence Back
112
Not included in the evidence Back
113
WE 1, WE 3 Back
114
WE 5 Back
115
The Commissioner's summary is at WE 7. Back
116
Not included in the evidence. Back
117
WE 5 to WE 7 Back
118
Eleventh Report of Session 2009-10, HC 491 Back
119
Mr Wright was referring to the Review of Past ACA Payments by
Sir Thomas Legg (Members Estimate Committee, First Report of Session
2009-10, HC 348). Back
120
WE 8 to11 Back
121
The record kept by the Enquiries and Advice Team Back
122
The final version of this summary is at WE 7. Back
123
The final version of this table is at WE 16. Back
124
This apparent extra claim was submitted on 2 June 2005, covering
the period from 9 to 31 May. A handwritten note on the claim,
however, indicated that the rent was for the period July to September
2005 referred to in paragraph 49 and WE 14. Back
| 
