Mr Heald, as a lawyer/barrister in his former life will no doubt be updating himself on the recent Fraud Act 2006 and reminding himself on the Theft Act 1968.

In order to assist I have provided him with the links:

The Fraud Act 2006:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060035_en.pdf

Notes: I am no lawyer but it appears that a case could be brought under both section 3 "fraud by failing to disclose information" ... and section 4 "fraud by abuse of position"

The Theft Act 1968:

http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cu...

Notes: "Dishonestly appropriates the property (includes money) belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Hmmm... that's one for the lawyers to argue but if Mr Heald did not use this as "petty cash" well the the "horse is up and running and over the first hurdle - re. dishonestly".

Happy reading!

Just exactly how Mr Heald do you reconcile your statement in the House, quoted below, with your refusal to respond to your constituent's reasonable request for information here.

Just a tad hypocritical to say the very least.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): "Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the faults has been that we have not had a system of audit that goes beyond the signature and allows proper scrutiny, simply as a check that hon. Members are behaving in accordance with what they have signed for? That is the great strength of the improved arrangements that are being put in place today. As a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I think it important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) was saying from the Front Bench, that we should uphold the highest principles—in fact, the seven principles that Lord Nolan proposed—and the new audit arrangements are a step in the right direction."

Have just made a couple of calls - one to Oliver Heald's office in The House of Commons and one to the number given on his website (perhaps constituency office but no address given at website).

My notes were made during and immediately after these calls.

Call 1 - around 11:45am Tue 23rd June - to House of Commons office

The telephone was answered by a male researcher a Mr Gee. I asked him if he ever handled "petty cash" in that office. He said no to begin with but then suggested he might be given money to pay for things like his train ticket occasionally. I asked him if that cash he is given is recorded anywhere - he said he didn't think so or "did not know". I asked to speak with the "Office Manager". I was told "they are all in a meeting". I asked when that might be finishing and he indicated he did not know.

I asked if the office manager was Mrs Heald (Mrs Heald is Mr Heald's wife). He replied "yes it is". I asked if Mrs Heald works in the House of Commons office regularly and was told yes "she is always here except Fridays when she goes back home".

At this point he hung up without saying anything not even "goodbye".

Call 2: - around 11:50 - to number published on website 01763 247 640

Answered by Mrs Moore who was immediately, I must say, very frosty to say the least when I introduced myself. I asked her how "petty cash" was handled in the Constituency Office.

She initially refused to comment. I asked if Mrs Moore was an employee of Mr Heald's - again she refused to confirm even that. On me asking why she would not comment on the "petty cash" and repeating the question she said that "from time to time I will go and buy ink cartridges for the printer or paper" (must assume she is an employee then). I asked her if these "petty cash" transactions where recorded in a book or ledger? Mrs Moore then said "I am not prepared to answer any of your questions and I am going to hang up the phone".

I told her I thought that a little impolite and asked to speak with the Office Manager. I checked that the office manager was Mrs Heald (Mr Heald's wife) and Mrs Moore confirmed that. I was told she was not available at present and I asked when she might be back at the Constituency Office. Mrs Moore said she did not know. I asked if likely to be today to which she replied "yes". N.B. I was not told that she is in London today at The House of Commons office! (it does sound like Mrs Heald can be in two places at once - see above).

She repeated her threat to hang the phone up again - so I thanked her politely and said "goodbye".

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

So, moral of tale. It won't be easy to get a straight answer. I will call again soon and hopefully speak with the Office Manager - Mrs Heald.

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

Mr Heald's gagging email.

Mr Heald appears to suggest that there is something wrong in quoting conversations a constituent might have with publicly funded employees working in the MP's office. Quite alarming really.

received 23/06/09 @ 19:43

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

I see from your website that you have posted detailed accounts of telephone conversations you had today with my staff. This was done without their knowledge or agreement. I have therefore instructed them not to talk to you again by telephone.

I am your Member of Parliament and you should direct your enquiries to me in writing.

I also note that you falsely allege that I have overclaimed in 2 financial years on Petty Cash. This is incorrect. In 2006/07 I claimed £2,625. In 2005/06 I claimed £3,000. I believe you are including in your calculation one claim which relates to the previous financial year 04/05 and is annotated accordingly. The suggestion that the Petty Cash was used incorrectly is baseless and wrong. These claims are to be independently audited and I am confident that my claims bear scrutiny.

Oliver Heald MP

Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Received by email 23/06/09 @ 13:16

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

In reply to your point about the sale of properties partly funded through the Additional Costs Allowance, I believe that MPs should pay the appropriate Capital Gains' Tax liability and I did so when I moved flats in 2003. The wider question of whether an element of the profit should be repaid to the Exchequer was considered in 2007 by the Senior Salaries Review Body. Their report said

It has been argued by some observers that because MPs may make a capital gain from

owning a second home the cost of which is met at least in part from ACA, there should

be some means of sharing the gain with taxpayers. This seems to us a misplaced idea.

First, gains on the sale of a home which is not the principal residence are already subject

to Capital Gains Tax. Secondly, there would be problems of attributing any gain to any

particular period of time. And thirdly, if an MP were required to pay any reasonable gain

to the tax payer, the quid pro quo would surely be to require the taxpayer to make good

any loss incurred by an MP, thus encouraging MPs not to drive a hard bargain when

buying or selling.

I am sure that the Kelly review will be looking at this point again.

On petty cash, my claims were necessary to the running of my offices in Royston and London. Since my election in 1992, I have worked hard to make myself accessible to all constituents. For this reason I have always offered a local Royston phone number and employed staff in the constituency who are familiar with local issues. There are inevitably occasions when supplies are needed at short notice. The petty cash has also been used with the approval of the authorities to pay incidental expenses to unpaid work experience students and long-term interns, reflecting the high costs of being in London. I believe in encouraging politics students in this way.

All claims are going to be audited by an independent body and I am confident that my claims bear scrutiny.

Oliver Heald
Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

As Mr Heald's response (see above) fails to answer my questions about how the "petty cash" is accounted for - undeterred I try to speak with the Office Manager again.

Call 3 - around 15:45pm Tue 23rd June - to House of Commons office

The researcher Mr Gee answered, as last time. I did not embarrass him by asking why he had hung up earlier - I just asked to speak with the the Office Manager, Mrs Heald. Unfortunately she "was in another meeting". I asked when she might be free as I would call back later. I was told she would be leaving the office directly her meeting finished so Mr Gee suggested I call tomorrow morning. I thanked him and said I would.

Shame that - missing her twice like that.

the sun is shining... she is in the back garden at home on the sun bed.

£41k a year for that too. Nice work if you can get it.

He employs his wife as well. So, £65k a year is not enough, pile on £3,000 petty cash a year into his back pocket - add on the pension and now I find out this, his wife is his Office Manager.

MPs cannot be an impartial, non-conflicted employers of their spouses or any family member for that matter. This simply stinks. Don't tell me she is great at her job, I don't care, there are loads of people out there that are good office managers and need a job.

Who thinks Mr Heald properly supervises his wife, chastises her for poor attendance at work (she couldn't be contacted by Ian today) or time keeping. This is just the last straw for me.

Put that together with the fact that Heald completely fails to address the fact that he has over-claimed on his expenses by at least £500 and you have a sorry sorry excuse for honour here from this so called "honourable" gentleman. Pay that money back Mr Heald - now.

Ian, you have done a great job with this website and your focus on Mr Heald's petty cash pilfering is worthy of credit, but do you not think it is time for a www.oliverhealdmustgo.com website now?

What we all know from this matter is that Mr Heald is evasive. No evidence of expenditure regarding petty cash despite being asked for it and despite knowing each month that he has spent £250.00 exactly. No evidence of withdrawing cash from his account.

Does Mr Heald know that his stance here, the inaction, action is wrong. Yes, of course he does.

Why is he obfuscating here. Because he has been doing something he does not want his voters and those who could censure him to know he has been doing. That is claiming fraudulently against an allowance for petty cash that has not been used for that purpose.

How do I know this. Because I am not an idiot. If Mr Heald faced with such an accusation chooses not to prove his innocence when this would be relatively simple then there is only that conclusion to draw.

A court finding him guilty is something we may never see, but the court of public opinion will deliver its verdict at the next general election.

Why are the local newspapers on to this. I hope they have been informed. In fact, I feel a letter is needed. Where is my pen?

Received by email 23/06/09 @ 20:43

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

I see from your website that you have posted detailed accounts of telephone conversations you had today with my staff. This was done without their knowledge or agreement. I have therefore instructed them not to talk to you again by telephone.

I am your Member of Parliament and you should direct your enquiries to me in writing.

I also note that you falsely allege that I have overclaimed in 2 financial years on Petty Cash. This is incorrect. In 2006/07 I claimed £2,625. In 2005/06 I claimed £3,000. I believe you are including in your calculation one claim which relates to the previous financial year 04/05 and is annotated accordingly. The suggestion that the Petty Cash was used incorrectly is baseless and wrong. These claims are to be independently audited and I am confident that my claims bear scrutiny.

Oliver Heald MP

Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Mr Heald

Thank you for your email of yesterday, Tue 23rd June. I am glad to see that you follow my blog. Feel free to sign up/register and you can then post comments directly to the website.

We live in depressing times Mr Heald. Times when an MP instructs his staff not to speak with a constituent on any matter of importance to that constituent. When an MP instructs that constituent to direct any enquiries to him only and then only in writing.

An open, transparent democracy? Well I used to think so.

I am not a lawyer Mr Heald. You need to explain to me what I have done wrong in mentioning conversations with, and answers to questions made, by your staff on my blog. For the record, I did not record the telephone conversations with your staff (i.e. the audio). I made notes and used the notes to help me describe the nature of those conversations. Please explain my crime, if any? Explain your stance here. I am at a loss to understand.

I should remind you that your staff are paid for by me and other tax payers. I hope my blog, in some small way, helps address issues of openness, transparency, accountability etc. - all issues I know you hold dear from your speeches and from your membership of The Committee for Standards in Public Life. I want others to appreciate the ease, or indeed difficulty, with which a tax payer and constituent can receive clarification on important issues regarding an MP's expenses. An issue you know only too well is of great “public interest”.

You have refused so far to answer my reasonable questions about how “petty cash” has been handled and accounted for. Your Office Manager is no doubt in the best position of anyone to be able to clarify things for me. I understand that the Office manager is your wife. Could it be that we are witnessing just one unattractive part of MPs employing family members - when that MP becomes over protective perhaps? From following my blog you would have been in no doubt that my desire is to speak with the Office Manager.

I feel sure you will want to re-think your instructions to both your staff and myself. I request now that you rescind the instruction you have given to your staff. I find it completely unacceptable and believe it discriminates against me and for no good reason.

Please clarify also that I can expect to be seen, without undue difficulty, in person, at any of your published surgeries. I will not have my right here curtailed.

I will address the matters you raise with regard to accurate, or otherwise, calculations on your “petty cash” claims by separate letter, as I have found that if I address too many points at the same time – you are prone to ignore many.

I look forward to an early reply to this one important issue.

Your sincerely,
Ian Fairbairn

P.S. I should just state that I have re-checked my calculations regarding your “petty cash” claims and they were not, to the best of my knowledge, in error - based on the claims made and published at Parliament's own website, for the attributed financial years. If I had discovered an error following your last email – rest assured I would have placed a large apology prominently on my website. If on further investigation I have been in error – I undertake to do just that.

Received by email 24/06/09 @ 15:55

Well, I am still not allowed to speak with The Office Manager even though I help pay for her but I am welcome at the surgeries - so that's nice. Let's hope there is something left over from the petty cash for biscuits next time - oh - I forget - it's spent every month isn't it.

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

I am willing to see you at a surgery. My staff are employed to help my constituents and not to be cross-examined and then to have their conversations posted on a web-site without their consent. I am not prepared to have them harassed and upset.

The Petty Cash system was unsatisfactory, which is why Parliament scrapped it. However, the money I claimed in the four years disclosed was used for good and appropriate purposes in providing an efficient service to constituents and helping unpaid interns and work experience students with their incidental expenses. I would give cash to staff to purchase equipment and supplies we needed or buy it myself and store the receipts to the month-end. I would also keep receipts for weekly rail/tube tickets and note down their lunch money. These records informed the claims, which had a maximum of £250 per month. MPs were encouraged to claim Petty Cash in this way to save on the administration costs of processing thousands of small receipts. The current system has no such arrangement and all receipts must be produced.

The records were not required to be retained.

You claim falsely

a) that I have made claims to a value of more than £3000 in each of two separate years; and

b) that I have claimed the maximum £250 in 44 months out of 48.

I invite you in both cases to list the dates and amounts of each such claim by me, on which you rely in making and publicising these untrue allegations on a web-site.

Oliver Heald MP
Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Mr Heald
Thank you for your email of today Wed 24th June.

I see the “gagging order” on your staff remains but I am welcome at the surgeries. I still find the former situation unsatisfactory as you might imagine.

I will tackle your two points under “you claim falsely”:

a) “that I have made claims to a value of more than £3000 in each of two separate years”

I have re-checked my calculations using the published documents at Parliament's website - http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo...

I attach a rudimentary, annotated, spreadsheet for your convenience covering claims against “petty cash” specifically for the years 06-07 and 05-06.

As for the year 05-06:

In your letter/email you helpfully suggest “I believe you are including in your calculation one claim which relates to the previous financial year 04-05 and is annotated accordingly.”

I am including all the claims that the Fees Office have placed in this file: http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo... - the 05-06 file.

There is indeed a claim at the end of this file for £250 against petty cash dated 04/04/05 (in this financial year) and made on a different form a C1. Why would I not include that? It is certainly not annotated in any way that I can see that would tell me, or anyone else, this is in the wrong file - the file for the year 05-06. There is censorship/redaction at the bottom – perhaps you know something we don't Mr Heald - ironically, the whole essence of our exchanges here. If you mean the 04/05 written in hand at the top – well that could be safely assumed by any reader to refer to April 2005?

In addition if you look at the file for the previous year 04/05 - http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allo... - you have indeed claimed the maximum petty cash for the period 01/04/05 to 01/05/05 (April) on another claim form. So, no. You with the help or otherwise of your staff, are in error.

So, the reasonable total, including all petty cash claims in the 05/06 file as published by Parliament at their website is as suggested - £3,250 and not as suggested by yourself £3,000 (the maximum possible allowed for the year). An over-claim.

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

As for the year 06/07:

There is a claim in period 02/01/07 to 21/02/07 higher up in this file for the year in question were the claim for “PETTY CASH” at the maximum £250 is clearly made. Yes, it is crossed through by hand – but by who we do not know? The form is censored/redacted so that does not help. I have, reasonably in this context, assumed the claim was made and then rejected by the fees office. This highlights the problems associated with a lack of transparency here i.e. censorship.

There is another similar claim in period 01/03/07 to 31/03/07 higher up in this file again for the year in question were the claim for “PETTY CASH” at the maximum £250 is clearly made. Again, it is crossed through but by who - we do not know? The form is censored/redacted too. The amount £40.56 is written in. I have, reasonably in this context, assumed the claim was made and then rejected/reduced by the fees office.

Also you have double claimed for November as mentioned in my original email on this matter.

So you see that, quite reasonably, the total “claimed” is apparently £3,085 as previously suggested.

So, it is fair to say you have over claimed for two years. The new double claim – inadvertently brought to my attention by yourself for April 05 (detailed above already) needs accepting by you – or here you accept that my total for the year is correct – you cannot have it both ways – although that is what you would seem to want.

You clearly need to address the double claims alluded to in my previous emails:

You have claimed twice for September 07:
Double claim – petty cash £250.00
Claim form period 01/08/07 – 01/10/07 “£250 petty cash (sep)” Fees Office stamp dated 03/10/07
Claim form period 01/08/07 – 22/09/07 “£250 petty cash (sep)” Fees Office stamp dated 24/09/07 & 28/09/07

[N.B. you made claims for October and August at the maximum].

You have claimed twice for Nov 06:
Double claim – petty cash £250.00
Claim form period 01/09/06 – 12/11/06 “£250 petty cash (Nov)” Fees Office stamp dated 14/11/06
Claim form period 01/10/06 – 04/12/06 “£250 petty cash (Nov)” Fees Office stamp dated 05/12/06
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b) that I have claimed the maximum £250 in 44 months out of 48.

I have checked back and I was in error. For that I apologise unreservedly and have altered that statement to read 43 months out of 48. I trust you will accept my apology . I will publish a prominent public apology at my blog.

I attach a spreadsheet for your convenience covering the four years in question and this supports my amended assertion – 43 out of 48 at the maximum amount claimable – to the penny.

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

However, an apology from you for your errors might be appropriate now – do you not think. I am quite shocked that you have not addressed the obvious double claims. You need to apologise for the error and pay the money back. If, on any subsequent analysis you want to present to me - I am shown to be in error here Mr Heald - I will publish an apology speedily and fully. But, right now – I am not convinced that I have misrepresented your petty cash claims at all - from the available documentation.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Fairbairn

Received by email 24/06/09 @17:59

N.B. No mention at all of "double claims" for same month on at least two occasions.

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

My husband is in the Chamber and will reply to your latest email when he sees it. In the meantime I believe I have identified where you have given the wrong figures.

2007/08 – we agree. Amount claimed for the year £2,700.

2006/07 – claim dated 2/1/07 – 21/2/07 Petty Cash £250 crossed through. This amount was not claimed as you can see from the total figure, which relates solely to a BT bill and the amount paid, which covers the BT bill.

- claim dated 1/3/07 – 31/3/07 Petty Cash claimed £250 but reduced by Fees Office to £40.56 due to insufficient funds remaining.

Amount paid for the year £2,625.56. Even if the full £250 is included in a ‘claims’ figure, the total for the year is below the maximum at £2,835.

2005/06 – claim dated 1/4/05 for £250 is marked in manuscript by Fees Office as relating to the previous financial year 2004/05. We are not responsible for the ordering of the documents. The total for 05/06 is therefore £3,000.

2004/05 – the £250 mentioned above needs to be included. But claims dated 1/8/04 – 2/9/04 and 1/10/04 – 8/11/04 were both for £150, not £250.

Amount claimed £2,000.

Your figures for the maximum £ 250 claimed by number of months is still wrong, because of the errors shown above. Fees Office paid £ 250 in 38 months out of 48.

Christine Heald

Office Manager for Oliver Heald MP
Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Mrs Heald

Thank you very much for taking the time to address issues around your husband's "petty cash" claims. However, I have been explicitly requested by your husband not to direct any enquiries to any of his staff, as he does not want to see them/you "harassed" (my response will have, albeit repeated, enquiries within). I find his request odd to say the least, however, I feel I should, out of common courtesy, comply with it.

So, I will respond by separate email to Mr Heald directly. I will naturally assume that you will get to see it.

Yours sincerely

Ian Fairbairn

Dear Mr Heald

Your Office Manager has been kind enough to supply some analysis of your “petty cash claims”. However, at your explicit request, I am addressing my reply to you. I will respond to your own email of 24/06/09 on how you used the petty cash and accounted for it separately.

Whereas I am more than happy to get to the correct figures here for total value of claims and total number of claims at maximum – I should remind you that the main issue is the suspicious coincidence that exactly £250 (to the penny) is required to reimburse you specifically for “petty cash” used - £250 of “petty cash” exactly, supposedly used in the vast majority of months that you claim. This, along of course, with the apparent lack of proper accounting for “petty cash”.

Mrs Heald's email of 24/06/09 addresses concerns you have about my accounting. I note that you choose not to address the issue of “double claims” detailed in my original letter/email of 18/06/09 – for your convenience I reproduce the relevant detail below:

You have claimed twice for September 07:
Double claim – petty cash £250.00
Claim form period 01/08/07 – 01/10/07 “£250 petty cash (sep)” Fees Office stamp dated 03/10/07
Claim form period 01/08/07 – 22/09/07 “£250 petty cash (sep)” Fees Office stamp dated 24/09/07 & 28/09/07
[N.B. you made claims for October and August at the maximum].
You have claimed twice for Nov 06:
Double claim – petty cash £250.00
Claim form period 01/09/06 – 12/11/06 “£250 petty cash (Nov)” Fees Office stamp dated 14/11/06
Claim form period 01/10/06 – 04/12/06 “£250 petty cash (Nov)” Fees Office stamp dated 05/12/06

Please be kind enough to address these apparent “double claims” – as I understand you must not claim more that £250 against “petty cash” for any one month or, indeed, it could be argued from your Green Book rules - in any one month?
As for the year totals.

06/07:
* The issue with the crossed out “petty cash” claim. I am unwilling to accept responsibility for this untidy accounting on your part. Relying on a heavily censored document, as I am forced to do here, I am incapable of knowing whether that claim was made and then rejected by the Fees Office, regardless of the total alluded to by Mrs Heald. For all I know the Fees Office may have been asked to total for you based on whether or not the “petty cash” claim was allowed.
* As for the “reduced by fees office” claim for £250. All along my assertions are based on “claims” not payments.

05/06:

You allude to “Claim dated 1/4/05 for £250 is marked in manuscript by Fees Office as relating to the previous financial year 2004/05”. It is marked 04/05 which can easily relate to April '05 as already mentioned in my previous email and is quite clearly placed in the document for year 04/05.
So, based on apparent “claims made” from the documentation (censored as it is) I stand by my assertion that you appear to have “claimed” more than the annual allowance for two out of the last four years.

As for the two £150 claims that I included in my total for months claimed at maximum – again I accept my administrative error here and offer my apologies. So, this would reduce the total months that a “claim” was, apparently, made at the maximum from 43 out of 48 to 41 out of 48. Thank you for your assistance in arriving at an accurate figure here. I will amend mention of this total immediately and place a prominent apology at my website.

However, once again I must ask you to address the “double claims” (Sep '07 and Nov '06) - something you have singularly chosen not to do since my original letter of 18th June.

Yours etc...

Why isn't Mr Heald apologising for the double claims it is obvious he has made?

Why isn't he apologising for handling petty cash in an abjectly unsuitable way with no proper system and it would seem using it as some kind of fund for extra staff. Not what it is supposed to be used for.

He seems to want to pick holes in your figures where he can but simply as a means of avoiding his errors or over-claiming. It's one or the other Mr Heald, you are not allowed to claim £500 against petty cash for the same month.

Another thing while I am at it. He says in one reply "On petty cash, my claims were necessary to the running of my offices in Royston and London." Where is his office in Royston? There is no office address at his website to help me, a constituent, find this office?

Could it be a "home office". How nice. And no doubt Mrs Heald works from "home" in the recess. Nice for her - not so convenient for the constituents as i am guessing it isn't possible to pop 'round there to visit.

Dear Mr Heald

Thank you for your email of 24/06/09 where you explain how the “petty cash” was used and accounted for.

You state that “The Petty Cash system was unsatisfactory”. I would put it to you that system may have been too lax, but, it was your misuse of it that was unsatisfactory.

You had a stewardship role for these “cash” sums. That role could not be adequately fulfilled without a proper system of accounting including a “petty cash ledger”, “petty cash vouchers” etc. You chose not to implement this basic accounting system - a system that would ensure both you and your staff would be “above reproach” and immune to false accusations of misappropriation.

You assert that “the money I claimed in the four years disclosed was used for good and appropriate purposes in providing an efficient service to constituents and helping unpaid interns and work experience students with their incidental expenses.” The money should be used for one purpose and one purpose only – to replenish a “petty cash float or floats” and nothing else. In addition, without proper accounting for these monies, we have to take your word on this - which, in the light of the MPs' expenses scandal, and your own assertion that many MPs have behaved in a way that has been “unacceptable” - is unsatisfactory for me. You appear to have chosen to destroy (fail to retain) documents you relied upon to justify these claims - documents that could reasonably be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. As I understand it, this should not happen.

Q 1) Why did you fail to retain/destroy these records? Even if the fees Office did not want to see them they were of obvious use and relevance in fulfilling your duty for “accountability” - one of only seven of the basic principles of standards in public life – a principal you should uphold in practice - particularly due to your membership of the ten person Committee for Standards in Public Life.

Claims against “petty cash” should be used for just that – to replenish a “petty cash float” - not for the purposes you allude to, that appear to amount to helping to fund additional unpaid staff. It strikes me that to claim explicitly against “petty cash” but to use those funds for something else could be construed as acting “dishonestly”. You have mentioned in a previous email that the Parliamentary Authorities may have condoned this apparent misuse of the “petty cash” allowance.

Q 2) Do you have any documentary evidence of this? If so, please share it with me.

Q 2.1) If you do not have evidence of approval from the Parliamentary Authorities will you admit that your use of a proprtion of sums claimed specifically against “petty cash" is not "above reproach", apologise and consider repaying a proportion of the sums involved?

Your statement “These records informed the claims, which had a maximum of £250 per month” is a typically, carefully constructed, lawyer's statement. It admits nor denies anything. It does not say if the records indicated an over-spend or an under-spend on “petty cash” for a given month. It fails to illuminate here – it further obfuscates. You leave it for a sympathetic observer to assume an over-spend each month but you carefully do not compromise yourself by explicitly claiming this.

Q 3) Did your records for each month where a claim against “petty cash” was made at the maximum level of £250.00 indicate a related expenditure (not claimed for elsewhere) of at least that amount?

It seems then, that due to your failure to retain your records we will not establish any audit trail for expenditure (or “outputs”) from the “petty cash” system - as would reasonably be expected for any properly run “petty cash” system – one not open to abuse. That only leaves the audit trail for “inbound” cash into the “petty cash” system.

Q 4) Can you demonstrate by bank statements (redacted as necessary) that you withdrew cash amounts commensurate with your ”petty cash” claims?

Q 4.1) If yes to question 4) will you publish those bank statements?

Q 4.2) If no to question 4) please explain why this is not possible or why you are unwilling to do so.

Despite having your attention drawn to clear “double claims” (Sep '07 and Nov '06) you have chosen to avoid addressing these. I must insist that you address those now.

Q 5) Your claim forms clearly indicate that you double-claimed for Nov 2006 and for Sep 2007. Why have you failed to address this issue?

Q 6) When do plan to address the issue of “double-claims”?

I have been willing to admit error where I have got things wrong here and quickly apologise – to you directly and publicly. I feel it is time you addressed the “double claims” and where necessary take the appropriate action – including an apology and re-payment.

I look forward to your responses to my numbered questions.

Yours sincerely

Ian Fairbairn

Received by email 29/06/09 @ 14:43

Dear Mr Fairbairn,

You have not understood the Petty Cash system in place in the years 2004 – 08. MPs were allowed to claim a maximum of £250 each month without a requirement to produce receipts to Fees Office. In many months, the amount I actually spent from my own pocket exceeded £250 and I therefore re-claimed to the maximum allowed. I kept a note of outgoings as they arose, but I was not required to produce those notes or to retain them for any specified period. I accept that this may not appear to you to be a proper system of accounting, but it was the system that was in place then.

You are correct in saying that claims in the months November 2006 and September 2007 seem to have been marked incorrectly. This was not picked up by me nor by Fees Office at the time. However, in neither year were more than 12 claims made nor did the annual total exceed 12 x £250. I believe the audit will accept that the mis-marked claims were genuine administrative errors.

The claim dated 1/4/05, as I have explained before, related to the financial year 2004/05 i.e. April 2004/March 2005. MPs are allowed to submit claims for the previous financial year during the first month of the subsequent financial year – in this case April 2005.

The claim dated 2/1/07 – 21/2/07 clearly did not include the Petty Cash element that was crossed through. The Fees Office note of the amount paid on the claim shows this. If you do not accept this, there is nothing more I can say on the point.

I have shown that you have published on your website untrue statements about me. On those occasions when I have pointed out the inaccuracies, you have not given due prominence to my replies. Your apologies could hardly be described as such.

I have a very busy workload helping constituents with pressing personal problems and concerns. I have now spent a great deal of time on your enquiries and I shall not be responding to any more of your emails on this subject.

Oliver Heald MP

Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire

Dear Mr Heald

With all due respect Mr Heald – I have understood the MPs' “Incidental Expenditure Provision” only too well. It has been a lax system of allowances that has allowed those MPs that would - to abuse it. I believe I stand alongside the vast majority of the tax paying public in holding that view.

However, I agree with you that this has taken up too much time for both of us – I am busy too – but I feel strongly enough about this to have wanted answers to reasonable questions. I am convinced that less time and energy would have been expended if your answers where fuller and more readily forthcoming at the outset.

I note that you will not be responding to any further emails from me on this “petty cash” topic.

You will be aware that some questions already asked remain unanswered as I believe your last email “crossed” with my specific email on your “petty cash” accounting system. For example your willingness, or otherwise, in the absence of records destroyed by you, to demonstrate that cash was withdrawn from your account commensurate with your “petty cash” claims. It is, of course, not within my powers (as they are non existent) to demand or necessarily expect you to comply with this suggestion or any others contained in that email.

It is for other agencies to consider whether any further investigation of your claims against “petty cash” are justified.

Contrary to your view, I do feel that I have given due prominence at my website to any errors I have made and to apologies given to you. I note your inability to apologise for your enthusiastic and dubious (in my opinion) use of an “unsatisfactory” (by your own admission) expenses system.

I thank you for the time you have seen fit to devote to attempting to answer my concerns here.

Yours sincerely

Ian Fairbairn