Appendix 2: Letter from Mr Denis MacShane
to the Clerk of the Committee
Thank you for your two letters in connection with
the Parliamentary Commissioner's report. I shall reply to both.
I unreservedly accept Mr Lyon's view that I am in
breach of the rules in respect of claims he identifies. At no
stage during the period of claims under review was it my intention
to do anything improper and I wish with hindsight the old supervisory
system of claiming expenses had called me in to raise concerns.
But I accept unreservedly Mr Lyon's rebuke.
Before proceeding let me clear up the misunderstanding
of the conversation I had with the Chairman in September.
When Mr Lyon referred the BNP complaint to the police
for criminal investigation in October 2010 I fell into a state
of depression I have never encountered in my life before.
The papers in October 2010 depicted me a criminal
suspended from many parliamentary activities. My children at school
and university were told "Your Dad is going to jail"
and that was also the tenor of many emails and tweets.
To face court charges related to expenses as an MP
held out only one prospect especially as writers like Peter Oborne
and others regularly depicted all MPs as thieves and fraudsters.*
Every jury in the land shared this view.
I had to beg and borrow from family and friends the
£40,000 to pay my legal costs.
Shortly before the House rose for the summer break
in 2012 I received the news that the police were not taking the
matter further. I was euphoric. A dark cloud had been lifted.
I was welcomed back into the full parliamentary and political
fold.
I then received two phone calls from Mr Lyon's office
saying he was going to re-open the investigation even though the
police had poured over every claim form, my bank and credit card
accounts, interviewed people and of course interrogated me.
My happiness evaporated and I fell into a deep shock.
I was unable to even look at or open any letters from the Commissioner's
office. I received medical advice to take as much time off in
the summer period to try and recover some equilibrium. I did very
little work and let mail pile up. I explained to the lady who
called me from Mr Lyon's office in July that I was in no fit state
to confront him since I had assumed with the police decision the
BNP complaint would now be shelved.
The conversation with the Chairman of the Committee
took place in the September session of Parliament. It was brief.
I said I just did not know how to take the matter forward given
the depression I was in. My solicitor will confirm (if necessary
by letter to the Committee) that following my conversation with
Mr Barron I telephoned him to say that Mr Barron had said I had
better go through my solicitor. I am absolutely clear in my mind
that was an exchange between us and my solicitor will confirm
that was what I told him. There was no advice or suggestion from
Mr Barron other than it would be a good idea to talk to my solicitor
and it was my decision to go to my solicitor.
This did not relate to the July phone calls from
the Commissioner's office but was a tea room conversation in September.
I apologise to Mr Barron if I have given the impression that he
was telling me how to respond to the Commissioner. This is absolutely
not the case, simply that Mr Barron agreed that handling the matter
via a solicitor might be advisable in the sense that I needed
some outside advice.
I had not been asked by the Commissioner to attend
an interview in 2009 or 2010 before he referred the matter to
the police. (There was a brief friendly 10 minute meeting at my
request at an early stage in the inquiry but no request from the
Commissioner for me to attend an interview prior to the criminal
investigation.)
After consultation with my solicitor in September
2012 I decided that, as I had made clear in correspondence which
is annexed to the main report, given I took full responsibility
for all actions relating to the contested claims and that as I
had already cooperated fully with the police I should rest on
my clear written submission to the Commissioner. I intended no
disrespect in not being interviewed by the Commissioner. I had
accepted my wrong doing.
How had this wrong doing come about? In a nutshell
because much of my parliamentary life has been pretty much devoted
to European affairs and after 2005 to combating anti-semitism
as an international ideological threat.
I received death and other threats from the BNP locally
and other extremist organisation on account of my work criticising
the anti-Jewish racism of the BNP and related extreme right-wing
organisations. I received no complaints beyond the general abuse
that all MPs received when expenses were given publicity in the
summer 2009. I remain convinced the BNP complaint was malicious
and politically motivated even if I fully acknowledge that I did
not comply with the House rules and guidelines.
Let me turn now to the three specific complaints.
a) I claimed £12,900 between 2004-2009 for
European travel, buying books and papers, work related to my parliamentary
duties there. I claimed using invoices from a small outfit I set
up 20 years ago called European Policy Institute. It was easier
to just send a rounded up sum every few months than submitting
individual receipts for translations, research, fixing, phone
bills, buying €20-€30 worth of French, German, Spanish,
Italians papers and magazines and political books on each trip.
MPs can travel 3 times a year to Europe but are reimbursed at
full business cost flights, expensive hotels etc. I thought it
better to use Easyjet or Ryanair, stay with friends but have more
than 3 trips a year. This was foolish but not done with any intention
to defraud.
b) I bought lightweight and extra laptop computers
for travel or for staff and interns. I have usually 5-6 people
working for me in Commons or constituency. Commons provides two
clunky desk tops and 2 heavy laptops. Wrongly I didn't give a
second thought to buying more laptops just as I buy Nokias, BlackBerries,
and other bits of kit as when needed provided I did not go over
budget limit. Some MPs insist on working on Apple Macs in their
offices and can buy these without problems. I offered to return
most of these laptops. There was no personal gain and no intention
to defraud.
c) My interrogation. Mr Lyon did not call me
in for questioning between the BNP complaint in June 2009
and his referring it to Met in Oct 2010. After an exhaustive inquiry
including of course interrogating me the police cleared me. As
I explained I was in no state to talk to anyone in July. By September
I felt I had gone through the police mill and my explanation had
been accepted. I had written accepting full responsibility. I
acknowledged I was in wrong. I had repaid all moneys so felt I
had suffered enough
Colleagues will understand I hope that had I made
my parliamentary specialism say, inland waterways or prison reform,
the House of Commons extended travel system would have allowed
me travel and related expenses within the UK. Because by definition
the only way I could sustain my parliamentary knowledge to a high
degree on Europe was by meeting and exchanging views with fellow
European parliamentarians I went on several short journeys to
other European countries.
In addition, it is hard to refuse a request from
one's Prime Minister to carry out specific work for him which
he judges to be in the national interest. So when No 10 in the
form of Sir Kim Darroch, the PM's European adviser or Jonathan
Powell, the chief of staff, said the PM would like me to go to
meet ministers and editors or report on developments in other
countries and report to him in person it was difficult to say
No. So I sought to cover my expenses in a manner which I now realise
was wrong. I accept Mr Lyon's conclusions. I have apologised via
my local press to constituents and of course long since repaid
the money. I made no personal gain and if anything even with the
improperly claimed reimbursement I was out of pocket. I apologise
again to the Committee and to the House of Commons.
How did this foolish and wrong behaviour come about?
I was as Mr Lyon generously recognises under great pressure in
this period. I had lost a daughter in a sky-diving accident in
Australia, gone through a wrenching divorce and held the hand
of my first daughter's mother, Carol Barnes, as she lay dying
from a stroke for a week in 2008.
To overcome these griefs I did what many do and buried
myself in work. I accepted extra parliamentary delegation work
from the Labour Party. I chaired the All Party Commission on Inquiry
into Anti-semitism which was hailed as a model of its kind and
changed government policy. I wrote two books and hundreds of articles
some of them translated but claimed under the wrong heading as
Mr Lyon rightly notes.
Foolishly and wrongly I paid no attention to the
administration of my expenses claims. I believe I could have listed
all the myriad of receipts for my work on European and anti-semitism
issues and been reimbursed for many of them. Instead I used a
short-cut which was wrong. I was not required to pay back more
than £1,000 under the original Legg inquiries into expenses.
I have only ever owned two properties as an MP, the second bought
following my divorce. I claimed nothing under the petty cash heading.
But I did something so foolish and wrong I am still unable fully
to explain to myself my stupidity.
Since Ipsa came into operation I have bought two
extra computers but only after prior consultation with Ipsa. Of
course now I wish I had sought the Fees Office permission and
approval before buying computers for travel purposes and for staff
and interns. I still have a box of disused electronic equipment
in my office including some of the laptop computers bought in
this period. I never claimed a penny in constituency office rent
and thought—again wrongly—that as long as my expenses
were within the limits set under the old system I had the flexibility
to make the purchases I thought necessary.
It is more than 1,000 days since the BNP submitted
its complaint. I have spent my entire professional life since
university in jobs with the BBC, with trade unions and as an MP
in which expenses are claimed and reimbursed. This was the first
time ever I was challenged. I have been through nearly two years
of a police investigation waking up most nights wondering if I
would end up in prison. It has not been an easy time and I apologise
to Mr Lyon and to the Committee if it is felt I failed to do all
that was required of me.
Finally I repeat that I accept I was in breach of
the rules and I apologise unreservedly to the Committee.
26 October 2012
| 
