Oliver Heald - A Public Apology
Submitted by Ian on Fri, 19/06/2009 - 09:45
Dear Mr Heald
I owe you a very public apology. After writing my letter yesterday, questioning your use of The Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) - with particular regard to your repeated monthly claims against "petty cash" (43 months out of 48) at the absolute maximum allowed, to the penny, of exactly £250.00, I have had time to reflect.
I know realise that far from attempting to "milk" the system for all it is worth by focusing on a weak point (no receipts needed for petty cash claims up to the maximum of £250) there is an explanation. You have simply been too humble, too shy, too honourable to share this explanation with us.
You are obviously one of the "saints" in this whole sorry mess. You have - month after month - been selflessly digging into your own pocket to cover the clear OVER-SPEND on "petty cash" each month. The £250 monthly provision is quite obviously just not enough. Why oh why didn't you just say so? After all - this is the ONLY explanation possible. How else could your "petty cash" claims be at the absolute maximum - month after month, after month, after month, after month......? How else could we explain the repeated "double claims"?
I do hope that your honourable colleague Shahid Malik over in Dewsbury is not being misunderstood in the same way - as he has been covering obvious "petty cash" over-spends each month, after month, after month just like yourself and is no doubt out-of-pocket also. However, he was the only MP from our little list of the "top five most shameless MPs" I could find who is actually as honourable as yourself here - no doubt there are other unsung "saints".
Really Oliver - you are admirable in the way you restrained yourself from wiping the floor with me after my letter. After all, what with you being a fully trained barrister and with a clear defence to deliver - I would have been toast. Thanks for sparing me and giving me a chance to right my own wrong with this public apology. Your short, simple, elegant and understated reply - "The Prime Minister has announced that all these claims will be independently audited" - speaks volumes as to your character and is befitting of your office.
Your personal display of financial sacrifice here probably goes some way to explain why you thought it OK to claim for "food" on top of us paying for a flat for you in London (even though you are just 50 mins by train). Some would say it should be one or the other - tax payer funded flat with tax payer funded kitchen etc. OR a subsistence allowance for food while "away from home". But, now we know about your selflessness and sacrifice with regard to the "petty cash" over-spends, I think we should cut you some slack there. Same with the cleaner too. Hey - I enjoy cleaning anyway - so happy to do it - you probably don't - fair enough. Oh and the newspapers - again - you're worth it. Bottled water though Olly - think of the environment - please.
In fact, I feel so terrible about my last letter that I want to try to make amends. Let me know how much you have over-spent on "petty cash" over the last few years and I will set up a campaign to raise funds to have you reimbursed. It's really the least I can do Oliver.
If you have the "petty cash" ledger knocking around - just get it over to me or even better stick it on the Internet. Probably best to have that in the open - what with transparency and all.
You would be very clear Oliver, wouldn't you, on such things as openness, integrity, honesty, accountability etc.. as they are all "principals of public life" and don't you sit on The Committee for Standards in Public Life?
I should have considered that before writing you that devilish letter asking impertinent questions about your use of "petty cash". How on earth could someone in your position stoop so low. I am truly sorry for doubting you Oliver. I tell you what - as part of making amends I will write to Sir Christopher Kelly (chair of the committee) and tell him all about your truly selfless behaviour here with the "petty cash". It's good to know you are on that committee looking into all those dodgy MPs' expenses.
Keep up the good work.
Yours Sincerely
Ian (your new best friend)
-
- Ian's blog
- Login or register to post comments
The guy should go!
I'm sure there will be others to add to Heald and Mailk in relation to "maxing out" the petty cash claims. The fact that Heald sits on The Standards in Public Life Committee is truly ironic.
How does he think he can just bat it away like that? At least his boss Cameron had the decency to fess up yesterday and cough up too.
Oh dear
I had resisted the temptation to google Oliver Heald on his expenses until today. I almost wish I hadn't.
I moved to Royston the year Oliver Heald became MP. I didn't get to vote for him in '92 as the election had passed but i have voted for him every time since and as far as I know he has been a very good MP for Royston and the area. He seems very visible in and around Royston and seems to work hard for the town.
But, I must say I can see no explanation for this. It looks like he has been milking the system and why would he not reply to defend himself cleraly and protect his reputaion unless he does have something to hide.
Who do i vote for next time?
I want my money back!
i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...
did you get that Oliver!
The broader perspective
Let's get this into perspective. All MPs have fallen foul of a very poor system of allowances that has morphed itself over the years. No party comes out of this well and I would say this MP is no worse than many many others.
What's important is that the broken system is fixed and we move forward with a new system we can all have faith in.
Pillorying individual MPs like this might make us all feel a little better for a short time but the truth is there is a lot of things that need doing and many of these MPs will be the best qualified and experienced to get on with that in what will undoubtedly be very tough years to come.
Seeing them hounded out may not be in our own best interests.
Good point Roy
but.........
i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...i want my money back...
did you get that Oliver?
I like it
Yes, if we can't shame them then yes let's ridicule them. Only problem here with Olly Heald is he looks relatively honourable compared to Janet Anderson who has "double claimed" virtually every month and says she aint paying it back!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5581618/MPs-expe...
At least Olly scammed within the rules (well almost) LOL
Sorry Frank - you are wrong
"at least Olly scammed within the rules". No he didn't. The MPs own Green Book for the relevant period states:
In general for all allowances
"Use of Parliamentary allowances
It is your responsibility to satisfy yourself when you
submit a claim, or authorise payments from your
staffing allowance, that any expenditure claimed
from the allowances has been wholly, exclusively and
necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing
your Parliamentary duties."
Later specifically for the IEP (where petty cash claims can be made)
"5.1.1. Scope of the allowance
The Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) is available
to meet costs incurred on Members’ Parliamentary
duties. It cannot be used to meet personal costs,
or the costs of party political activities or campaigning."
It is not an allowance that can be paid regardless of a commensurate cost incurred.
Unless we believe that Mr Heald actually incurred exactly £250 per month (to the penny) or that he always incurred more and generously covered the rest out of his own pocket, well then there is a serious abuse here.
A legitimate claimant of this allowance would be claimng amounts like £134.87 then £185.25 etc etc. - you get the idea. When you see £250, £250,£250,£250,£250,£250,£250,£250, - what you are seeing is a "scam", an abuse.
Moreover anyone with any integrity and an understanding of how to behave as a public servant would certainly be able to account for the costs incurred. Can Mr Heald? Let's see. He hasn't chosen to to date and apperas to think it acceptable to not attempt to account for this. After all his own rules do not require receipts. To be frank (sorry Frank - no pun intended) if Mr heald's claims were of the more likely type e.g. £125.56, then I wouldn't see too much of a problem. It is the "maxing out" that belies an intent to abuse and actual abuse of these tax payers monies.
So, yes, not needing receipts is within the rules - but when a pattern presents itself as with this MP of maximum claims each month - then it strongly indicates that the are not genuinely "to meet costs incurred" but to benefit the MP financially.