Update: I have not received a reply from Mr Heald MP to my letter/email of Jan 8th. I think almost two months is a reasonable time to wait and I find it hard to understand Mr Heald's reluctance to reply, unless, he has something to hide in relation his tax-payer funded flat being used by his kids and the basic ownership information (see here: blog post with previous letter).

I am putting my concerns here to Mr Heald, with previous questions (most put to Mr Heald for the third time), in another attempt to elicit answers to this issue. If no response is forthcoming (which looks possible), I feel I will have little choice but to complain formally to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about Mr Heald's conduct in relation to his tax-payer funded flat, including his evasiveness.

My letter to Mr Heald MP sent today 04th March 2010

Dear Mr Heald MP

I have not received answers to reasonable questions regarding the use of your tax-payer funded London flat by two of your adult children and basic ownership details - first put to you in writing on 10/12/09 and again on 08/01/10 - despite your brief and largely evasive response of 14/12/09.

I repeat again that the audit conducted by Sir Thomas Legg, to which you allude in an attempt to suggest implicit exoneration here, cannot satisfy me, as its published terms of reference limit it: "...To conduct an independent review of all claims made by Members of Parliament (except those who have since died) for the Additional Costs Allowance during the financial years 2004/05 to 2007/08...".

So, clearly, and as you must surely have known, the Legg audit could not have addressed issues stemming from your revelation in a hand-written note of 2nd May 2009 (albeit removed from the public record at your instigation) - that your children used the tax-payer funded flat. Nor, for that matter, could it have addressed the fact that, as reported in the press in December 2009, you only "partially" own that tax-payer funded flat - but that you have claimed for it in full.

I find this evasiveness and your baseless attempts to "brush-off" my inconvenient questions extremely disappointing - coming as it does from my MP and a member of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, and on an issue that involves your use of very large sums of tax-payers' money. Surely you must realise that by evading questions you simply underline, rather than allay, genuine and reasonable concerns?

I put those same questions to you again here (most for the third time) at the bottom of this letter/email.

There are two additional points arising that I would ask you to answer as a matter of some importance as they raise questions as to whether or not you have adhered to the very "Principles" of your own code of conduct - let alone the rules based upon those very "Principles" - clearly elucidated in your Green Book.

1) JOINT OWNERSHIP OF TAX-PAYER FUNDED FLAT:

The Cambridge news reported in an article published on 17/12/09 that ...

"Costs Mr Heald claimed for in FULL include mortgage payments, council tax, water and service charges for the flat, which he PARTIALLY owns." (my emphasis).

The article is available here: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_roystonnews/displayarticle.asp?i...

This raises a most serious question. If you jointly own the flat (as suggested in the press reporting) and have "claimed for in full" (as evidenced by your published ACA expenses claims) - then it would appear that either yourself, or the joint owner/s, have benefited financially from this arrangement. The joint-owner has clearly benefited if they have not been required to meet their share of costs (including mortgage repayments, refurbishment and redecoration etc.), or, you have benefited if they have. Please clarify. It would appear that it has to be one or the other?

Whoever may have benefited (at the tax payers' expense) from this arrangement - you or the joint owner/s - the House of Commons' basic "Principles" appear to have been breached. I quote MPs' own Green Book - "Principles":

3.3.2.
You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation.

In addition, due to joint-ownership and depending on the arrangements pertaining, it could be that "Principle" 3.3.3 (below) may also have been breached

3.3.3.
ACA must not be used to meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing accommodation from:
* yourself;
* a close business associate or any organisation or
company in which you - or a partner or family
member - have an interest; or
* a partner or family member.

I would suggest Mr Heald that the full circumstances need explaining clearly. Who/what entity is/are the joint owner/s? What level of ownership have you personally? What financial arrangements pertain/ed between you and the joint owner/s?

P.S. You appear willing to provide information to the press that you have failed to provide to me as a constituent and tax payer, despite my specific question on "ownership" of the flat, put to you in my original letter of 10/12/09. Why is that Mr Heald?

2) BILLS FOR APRIL - JULY 2008 SPLIT THREE WAYS:

You have divided utility bills three ways for April to July 2008. However, your hand written note to the fees office (still missing from the public record but available elsewhere on-line) declaring that two of your children were using the flat is dated 2nd May 2009.

The submission of the 2008 bills would suggest that the use of the flat by your adult children could date back as far as April 2008 - a full year before you informed the fees office and made very limited deductions to your claims - deductions that in no way fully recompense the tax payer.

This particular anachronism needs explaining fully, as do the full circumstances and facts around the use of your tax-payer funded flat.

See this PAAE file: http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo...

Bills shown as divided three ways:

9th May 2008 - 7th June 2008 - Gas Bill.

29th April 2008 - 10th July 2008 - Electricity Bill.

N.B. These bills appear to have been claimed for twice as the exact same receipts (not divided) appear in the ACA claim for a previous period in this file: http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo...

What were the true amounts for 2009? Were your children using the flat between April and July 2008 (as suggested by your submission of gas and electricity bills divided three ways for that period)?

It is hard to know what is going on here Mr Heald so, I trust you would agree, full clarification on all aspects, including all periods of use of the flat by anyone other than yourself, is essential.

IMPORTANT: Your hand written note of 2nd May 2009 informing the fees office that your children were using the flat, and helping explain to the public your expenses claims, is still missing from the public record. I have informed you of this, in writing, on three separate occasions now. As you concede that this was removed at your instigation, I put it to you that it is your responsibility to see that it is re-instated.

Whereas there is now a backlog of some 13 or so questions that go unanswered by you, they are all simple to answer for anyone who feels an obligation to be open and transparent. I fully understand that an MP has a busy schedule, but, I believe I have extended all reasonable opportunity for you to provide answers for me here Mr Heald. I hope that I will here from you with a full response within a reasonable time-scale, say, four weeks.

If you persist in being evasive on this issue Mr Heald, I put it to you that any reasonable observer may suspect that you have something to hide.

For the avoidance of doubt you should be aware that this letter, along with any response from yourself, may be published online and shared with relevant local and national news outlets.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Fairbairn

ADDRESS SUPPLIED

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

PREVIOUS QUESTIONS - BEING ASKED FOR THE THIRD 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?

PREVIOUS QUESTIONS ARISING FROM YOUR LIMITED RESPONSE - BEING ASKED FOR THE SECOND TIME:

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?

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.

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