Oliver Heald MP has failed to address my simple, but, important questions in relation to the use of a tax-payer funded flat by two of his adult chidren. Please see my post "Oliver Heald - A Roof Over Their Heads - For The Kids - And The Car" for the questions put to Mr Heald on this matter by me - a constituent and tax payer - on 10th Dec 2009.

His response is shown below here: See blue box near bottom of this blog entry. As you can see Mr Heald has not answered questions on:

* how long his adult children have used the flat (it is one thing to admit they have used the flat in April - it is another to evade the question on whether or not they used the flat before then)
* what were the circumstances here?
* why the total costs bourne by the tax-payer were not divided three ways (rather than just the relatively small utility bills)?
* do the children stay at the flat now?
* who owns the flat?
* how do three adults share a two bedroom flat funded for the "exclusive" use of the MP?
* why did a garage become necessary?

Therefore I have written to my MP again - see letter/email below.

Dear Mr Heald MP

Thank you for your email reply of Mon 14.12.09 on the subject of the tax-payer funded flat being used by two of your adult children and your division of utility bills (only) in an attempt to partially compensate the tax payer.

You fail to address my specific questions on the issue - mentioning only that you sought guidance from the fees office.

The general audits you allude to (whether "rigorous" or not) have not, and cannot, provide me with the answers to reasonable questions put to you previously regarding the use, by your adult children, of the tax-payer funded flat in London - questions of importance to me as a tax payer and constituent.

I note that you address the issue of your hand-written note being removed from the public record, conceding that this was removed at your instigation. By the way - this document is still missing.

I do note with some interest that the flat that you deemed "necessary" since 2001 (trading up to a larger flat in 2003), having cost the tax payer almost £200,000 to fund since 2001 - has become unnecessary since August of 2009. Please explain the circumstances here - as it raises the question - was the flat ever "necessary" (as you know - a condition for all MPs' expenses claims)? As you may remember, from our face-to-face meeting in May 2009 - I have always held the view that it was not.

I must put it to you that you need to clearly describe fully how your circumstances have changed so significantly since August 2009 that your new circumstances explain how the flat has become unnecessary? Will the flat be necessary again in the future?

Please also clarify when your children became of adult age? This may be of significance in relation to your reasons for "trading-up" to a larger London flat in 2003 - reasons shared with me at our meeting in May 2009 and including - so "my children have the opportunity to visit me during the week and spend time with me in London". Your statement then, along with the fact that your adult children have stayed with you - that bills have been shared (albeit only since April 2009) needs to addressed with clear answers as to when and under what circumstances your children have made use of the flat.

I am asking some questions for the second time - questions originally put to you on 10.12.09 and repeated below for your convenience.

PREVIOUS QUESTIONS - BEING ASKED FOR THE SECOND TIME:

1.1 As this living arrangement was significant enough to be noted and, at least partially, addressed through your expenses claims - please explain to me the circumstances under which, and detail the periods during which, any adult offspring (either individually or together) have lived at the tax-payer funded flat.

1.2 Does any period of residence at the tax-payer funded flat by any of your adult offspring precede your "note" of 02/05/09?

1.3 Please explain for me how, by your judgement, there was no need to divide the total costs borne by the tax-payer (including mortgage interest and service charges etc.) associated with the flat three ways - instead of only the utility bills - whilst your two offspring where residing at the tax-payer funded flat?

1.4 Please confirm, or otherwise, that the tax-payer funded flat has just two bedrooms?

1.5 Please explain to me how, in your judgement, this living arrangement (three adults sharing a two bedroom flat with the tax payer, seemingly, bearing a significantly disproportionate share of the total costs) satisfies MPs' own rules at the time - that all expenses should be incurred "wholly and exclusively" for you to perform your parliamentary duties?

1.6 Is anyone currently residing at the tax-payer funded flat other than yourself?

1.7 Have any other persons, related to you or not, resided at the tax-payer funded flat and if so - who - over what periods - and under what circumstances?

2. Please confirm for me that you own the tax-payer funded flat in London that you claim for as your second home through your parliamentary expenses (the insurance is in the name of Mrs C Heald and some bills are in her name e.g. the £1,950 decorating bill)? If you do not own the flat who or what entity does?

3. How, by your judgement, was/is a "garage" a necessary, additional, public expense - the significant mortgage interest or rent for which has been claimed by you from the tax payer since December 2008 (Royston to central London is a 50 minute commute by rail. Your taxpayer-funded flat is in Lambeth - walking distance to the House of Commons).

3.1 Are the expenses for this garage facility still being borne by the tax payer through your expense claims?

NEW QUESTIONS ARISING FROM YOUR RESPONSE:

4. Please clearly describe fully how your circumstances have changed so significantly since August 2009 to explain why the flat has become unnecessary?

5. As the incumbent MP and, presumably, a prospective candidate for re-election this year - please state clearly whether it is your intention to claim expenses for a second home moving forward, bearing in mind you have not needed a London flat since August 2009?

AND ADDITIONALLY:

6. Please clarify when your children became of adult age. This may well be of significance in relation to your reasons for "trading-up" to a larger London flat in 2003.

Mr Heald, surely you can see that by evading the original questions above (those asked here for the second time) - you are underlining rather than allaying any concerns I and other constituents might have. Bearing in mind this matter is in the public domain - having been mentioned in the local press - I would ask you to live up to the standards you purport to uphold - those of openness and transparency. Otherwise, you may damage not only your own reputation, but further damage that of the very office you hold. I must put it to you - that in the light of the MPs' expenses scandal in general - still fresh in voters' minds - then any appearance of possible obfuscation by an MP on matters related to their expenses is simply not acceptable.

I look forward to your response in due course and trust that it will be a full and frank one.

FULL NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED