After having waited for just a little time (almost 5 months in fact) for answers to questions from Mr Heald related to the use, by two of his adult children, of his tax-payer funded London flat (a flat he only partially owns yet claims for in full), I feel justified in filling the void now with a little speculation and conjecture. After all, I have written to Mr Heald on three occasions now and provided ample opportunity for him to simply put the record straight on the use of, and ownership of, his London flat - a flat funded by me and you as tax payers. He has simply chosen not to address the inconvenient and unwelcome questions put to him.

Could it be that Oliver Heald feels that any additional facts supplied by him here will simply damage him more than his silence?

I am writing this blog entry as a letter to Mr Heald (and emailing it to him). That way he cannot claim he has not had every opportunity to address the issues as raised here. Needless to say any reply from Mr Heald will be published here - but I am not holding my breath.

--------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Heald MP

I have tried to understand the purpose of your tax-payer funded London flat, but my attempts have not been aided by your evasiveness. You must accept Mr Heald, that when there is a vacuum in relation to facts on a subject - conjecture and speculation will, naturally, move in to fill that vacuum. Responsibility for a lack of information here lies solely with you.

Are these observations linked by the facts that pertain here?

1) The logic of your recent suspension of use of, and expenses claims for, the tax-payer funded London flat in Aug 2009 would drive any reasonable observer to conclude that the flat is "unnecessary" and, as your role as an MP has not changed, has always been "unnecessary".

2) Your joint ownership of a tax-payer funded flat in London is, in effect, a property investment. You have already traded-up once in 2003 - a £15,000 capital gain accruing with the proceeds (after tax) kept by you. With the sale of the larger property you (along with your co-owner/s) will, quite possibly, make another substantial profit - this after you have once more claimed expenses in full, as an MP, from the tax payer.

3) The Committee for Standards in Public Life (a committee of just 10 - that you yourself sit on), chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, has, in a comprehensive report on amending the MPs' expenses system made a clear recommendation that "capital gains" made by MPs from the sale of second homes funded by the tax payer should be returned to the exchequer.

With possible fore-knowledge of the Committee's view (regardless of the fact you did not sit-in on deliberations here) on stopping future capital gains here, have you sold your flat in London or attempted to sell it? This would explain your suspension of claims in Aug 2009.

Have you taken the opportunity to realise another capital gain from your tax-payer funded property investments - this time ahead of the November 2009 publication date and the possible cut-off point for being able to do so (Kelly Recommendation 13)?

Is it the case that joint-ownership can be explained as part of the tax-planning for your property investment, to help reduce any future capital gains tax due?

Not sold the flat? Has the flat transitioned then into a convenient living space for your adult children perhaps, after having been decorated and re-furbished at tax-payers' expense? If so, when did that transition start? Was it in back in 2003 when you traded up to a larger than necessary two bedroom flat?

You see - vacuums just need filling Mr Heald, and these are my imagination's best attempts. If my speculation here does not relate well to the facts - then answer the questions put to you repeatedly since December 2009 and clarify the issue.

As, unlike previous letters/emails I have sent to you, I accept that this one goes somewhat beyond asking questions and, due entirely to a lack of disclosure on your part, includes an implicit conjecture within the framing of observations and questions.

I put it to you that you can easily clarify the situation with straight forward and simple answers to these (and previous) questions relating to your tax-payer funded flat.

In all honesty Mr Heald I do not expect a reply, but, by writing this blog entry as letter to you (including actually emailing it to you directly), you are being afforded every opportunity to illuminate the darkness here - a darkness brought about by your unwillingness to answer reasonable, but no doubt, unwelcome questions.

In a spirit of openness and valuing transparency, I wish to inform you that I have written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards today to make a formal complaint regarding your possible breaches of the MPs' code in relation to expenses and your evasiveness here.

Yours sincerely

FULL NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED