This is the person to make a complaint to about your MP. If your MP has been "maxing-out" this allowance too I would strongly suggest you tackle him/her and if not satisfied then get a letter off to Mr Lyon.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS – MR J LYON CB

Dear Mr Lyon

I have grounds to believe that the conduct of my MP, Mr Oliver Heald, in relation to his claims from allowances, is not “above reproach”, has breached Code of Conduct for MPs and requires detailed investigation.

My concerns are:

1.PATTERN OF CLAIMS: Mr Heald's pattern of claims through the IEP against “petty cash”, is suspicious as it shows claims to the exact maximum possible of £250.00 per month (to the penny) for the vast majority of months (in one year to the maximum of £3,000). We are asked to believe that Mr Heald had such a monthly requirement (or higher) specifically for “petty cash” on each of these occasions – even during the recess. Mr Heald may well have breached the basic principal from The Code of Conduct of “selflessness”.

2.SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING: Mr Heald has not put in place a satisfactory system of “accounting” for the “petty cash” in order for him to: fulfil his duty by the MPs' Code of Conduct on “accountability”; fulfil his obligations under the Green Book rules (“members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach”); to uphold the Nolan principals including “accountability” (Mr Heald sits on the Committee for Standards in Public Life); to protect himself and his staff from false allegations of misappropriation. I believe he is negligent here both as an employer and as the trusted “steward/guardian” of these public funds as my MP.

3.DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS: Mr Heald has destroyed the records he claims he used to help establish his “petty cash” expenditure each month. This could be contrary to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and in breach of The Code of Conduct on both “accountability” and “openness”.

4.EVASIVENESS AND “GAGGING” OF STAFF: Mr Heald has been evasive when reasonable questions have been put to him. He took the extreme measure of “gagging” all his staff, including his Office Manager (Mrs Heald) when I attempted to discover how the “petty cash” was handled in the office by simply calling and asking staff politely. He instructed his staff not to speak with me on any matter whatsoever. Mr Heald refused to answer further legitimate questions on his use of “petty cash” from me personally, as one of his constituents, on 29th June 2009. That is when I decided it was time to write to you. I believe Mr Heald is in breach of The Code of Conduct's principals of “openness” and “leadership” here.

5.FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE AUDIT TRAIL: Mr Heald has been invited to publish (redacted as necessary) bank statements that could, in the absence of the destroyed records of expenditure, at least demonstrate that CASH was withdrawn commensurate with his regular claims against “petty CASH”. He has not, to date, done so or addressed this request in any of his replies. I understand that Sir Philip Mawer, in his recent investigation of Shahid Malik (as a minister), looked at bank statements to help establish an “audit trail” in not too dissimilar circumstances (related to purported CASH payments for rent). I ask you to consider this, specifically, in any investigation you might conduct. I believe Mr Heald is in breach of The Code of Conduct's principal of “accountability” here.

6.DISHONEST CLAIMS: From Mr Heald's responses it appears clear that the sums claimed against “petty cash” may not have been used wholly for that specific and clearly understood purpose, for office/s “petty cash”, but rather to help fund non-paid “interns” and “work experience” students. This could be construed as a dishonest claim and I believe Mr Heald is in breach of The Code of Conduct's principals of "honesty" and “selflessness” here.

7.DOUBLE CLAIMS: Mr Heald has double claimed against “petty cash” for the months Nov '06 and Sep '07. I first drew his attention to this on 18th June and it took several reminders for him to address this eventually on 29th June, claiming an “administrative error”. I would suggest that taken with the pattern of maximum claims, lack of proper accounting, evasiveness and destruction of records - this delayed explanation supports a view of Mr Heald's use of this allowance as suspicious. I believe Mr Heald is in breach of The Code of Conduct's principals of "accountability" and “selflessness” here.

I must put it to you Mr Lyon, that if a senior manager (or any employee for that matter) in any organisation was entrusted with these kinds of funds and then displayed: apparent “milking” of the “petty cash” system; negligence in accounting for it; reluctance to address the issue fully and completely; “gagging of staff”; used the funds for inappropriate purposes; admitted the destruction of records – well then – that person would not only probably be dismissed - but the police would probably be involved too on the basis of possible crimes in relation to either The Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968 . MPs – as I know you are aware – are not above the law.

I would particular like to know when you decide on whether or not an investigation of Mr Heald's “petty cash” claims by your office is warranted.

Please note that I would not be re-assured if you were to rely solely on the planned independent audit of MPs' expenses, announced recently by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. My concerns here are current, grave and too specific for me to have confidence that the general audit would focus down in the detail required – as suggested above.

I look forward to your response and would respectfully ask you to address each of my numbered concerns detailed above.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Fairbairn