Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Beith MP

Sunday Telegraph - the full responses from Sir Alan Beith

At 1028 on Saturday 20 June 2009 Dr Clare Mills, Sir Alan Beith's constituency-based researcher, received a phone call from the Sunday Telegraph, followed by an emailed letter a few minutes later. The letter set out a series of questions concerning Sir Alan Beith's office expenses and asked for a reply by 12 noon.

The full reply was sent to the Sunday Telegraph at 1141 and the questions and answers are produced below.

Since the reply was sent, the expenses have been checked again and arrangements have been made to repay the sum of £11.98 which was claimed twice in error. This is in respect of a stamp for 78p and a train fare for £11.20. The mistake was made while Sir Alan's Westminster secretary was working from home due to a badly broken leg.

The article which has appeared in the printed version of the Sunday Telegraph fails to explain that when a general election is called and Parliament is dissolved, the offices at Westminster are locked and no access is permitted for Members of Parliament of their staff until after the election has been held. However, members and their staff continue to work on constituents' casework during the election period and must have somewhere to work. In 2005 Sir Alan's Westminster-based secretary continued to work on casework from the constituency office.

The article also repeats the insinuation that Sir Alan and his wife double-claimed in accommodation costs which is clearly not the case and details have been published in response to earlier questions from the Telegraph.

The Sunday Telegraph's Q&A in full:

1. In May 2005 you arranged for your Westminster secretary Gill Cheeseman to be paid £911 from your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) for travel from London to Alnwick and accommodation in a flat there during the General Election campaign. You told the House of Commons she would not be taking part in any campaigning, and yet we note the flat at Denwick Court, Bondgate Without was a short distance from your Liberal Democrat office at 54 Bondgate Within. We also note the flat owner had wished your secretary "good luck with the campaign". Did your secretary take part in any campaigning during the 2005 general election? Why could your constituency worker not carry out any constituency tasks? Do you think this claim on your expenses is justifiable?

Answer: My secretary does most of my constituency casework. The offices in Westminster are closed during General Elections and she continues to work full time on constituency casework from my constituency office during the election period. My secretary does not do campaigning work during General Elections precisely because she is paid from Parliamentary allowances. The message on the receipt was from the flat owner and to be passed on to me. This claim is completely justified due to the amount of casework carried out during an election period, including casework which began before the start of the election period.

2. In 2005 you claimed £153.30 on your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) for "secretarial support on constituency work" from constituency worker Clare Mills while you were attending the Liberal Democrat party conference in Blackpool. In 2006 you claimed £167.47 for "secretarial support on constituency work" from Mrs Mills during the Liberal Democrat party conference in Brighton. What constituency work is done at a party conference? Why do you think these claims are justifiable?

Answer: I continue to deal with correspondence, constituency issues, casework and phone calls on constituency and Parliamentary matters during the Conference.

3. In October 2007 you claimed £12.46 on your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) for petty cash for which the receipt included "10 August 2007 stamp for Israel" for 78p and "1 October 2007 Rail fare for [name of former member of staff removed] to come to Strawberry Hill to collect laptop" for £11.20. In December 2007 you claimed £13.15 on your office expenses for petty cash for which the receipt included "10 August 2007 stamp for Israel" for 78p and "1 October 2007 Rail fare for [name of former member of staff removed] to come to Strawberry Hill to collect laptop" for £11.20. Was it a mistake to claim these items twice, and if so will you be paying £11.98 back to the House of Commons?

Answer: When I have checked this, if an error has been made, I will repay this amount.

4. In 2006 you claimed £30 on your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) for a hanging basket as part of Alnwick in Bloom. Do you think this claim on your expenses is justifiable?

Answer: I felt it was right that the Constituency Office, like other offices in the town, should take part in this event.

5. We note you told the Northumberland Gazette that you realised you had claimed twice for the television license at your designated second home in London in 2007 and would be paying back the difference. Was this for a full annual licence and have you returned the money?

Answer: Yes, and yes.

6. We also note you claimed on your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) £51 in September 2006 for a new toilet handle at your constituency office and £205.43 in May 2007 for a new toilet, cistern and seat at the same location.

Answer: There were necessary repairs to enable staff, visitors and constituents attending surgeries to use the toilet.

7. We also note you claimed £57.83 on your office budget (Incidental Expenses Allowance) in 2006 for a Union flag with rope and toggle but that this claim was disallowed.

Answer: It is national policy that public buildings fly the Union flag on Remembrance Sunday, the Queen's Birthday and other occasions. I paid for the flag myself and will continue to fly our national flag. The flag cost £75.83 and not £57.83.

8. As Speaker, how would you like to see the next annual round of MPs' expenses details published? Should the receipts again be disclosed? If so, with what level of redaction - more, less or the same as this year? Or should the receipts be withheld from publication and some other form of information provided instead? - in which case, please elaborate.

Answer: I hope that the Kelly inquiry will deal with the this issue. As far as future redactions are concerned, I believe that the only redactions should be of bank accounts and credit card details, staff personal information, information included on receipts where no claim has been made, and full private addresses only where there is deemed to be a genuine security issue. As far as reissuing the previous expenses which have been redacted, this should also be done.

9. Given the content of your expense claims, do you believe you are a suitable candidate for speaker and have the credibility to restore public confidence in parliament?

Answer: Yes and yes.