Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
More MP sleazeThis is simply unbelievable.
| Quote: | Wintertons defend flat expenses
A husband-and-wife MP couple have defended their use of Commons expenses for a London flat, even though they paid off the mortgage six years ago.
Tories Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton transferred their second home to a trust, to which they said they paid rent of £21,600 per year.
The couple said they had agreed the arrangement with the Commons Fees Office at the time it was set up.
They said they would not have gone ahead unless this had been the case.
The pair issued a statement defending their actions, following articles about them in the Mail on Sunday.
'On-the-spot' checks
It also comes in the wake of the furore over Tory MP Derek Conway employing his sons at taxpayers' expense.
Senior MPs from all parties are meeting on Monday to discuss calls for spending watchdogs to carry out random spot checks of their expenses.
Before we proceeded, the arrangement was agreed by the Fees Office and we clearly would not have gone ahead unless this had been the case
Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton
The Wintertons, who both represent constituencies in Cheshire, say the arrangement they made on their London flat came about following advice from their solicitor and accountants about their likely inheritance tax liability.
"As a result of the advice given to us, we paid off the mortgage on the flat with the proceeds of a small legacy and an insurance policy which had just matured," their statement said.
They were then advised to put the flat into a trust, administered by their solicitor and themselves, on behalf of "the beneficiaries".
"We no longer own the flat and in order to meet the objectives and terms of the trust, we are obliged to pay the full market rent which is recommended by an independent valuer/estate agent," they said.
"The current rent is not £30,000 per annum as stated in the press articles, but is in fact £21,600 per annum.
"Before we proceeded, the arrangement was agreed by the Fees Office and we clearly would not have gone ahead unless this had been the case.
"If we did not use our present accommodation, we would have to rent or buy other accommodation, for which legitimate expenses could be claimed as now, and there is, therefore, no additional cost to the taxpayer from the present arrangement."
'Ban' on relatives' work?
The couple said they often travel together by car off peak "saving both on mileage allowance and very substantially on the high cost of rail travel".
"It is also a fact that we are both in the lowest quartile as far as parliamentary expenses are concerned and we seek to use the allowances available as prudently and responsibly as possible."
The Wintertons' statement comes as the Commons Estimates Committee, chaired by Speaker Michael Martin, is set to discuss several proposals for reform of the allowances system.
The MPs are likely to consider a ban on the recruitment of relatives to posts paid from the public purse.
There is a plan for the National Audit Office to check up to 10% of expenses claims, and the cross-party MPs are expected to look at suggestions for a full register of MPs' parliamentary staff.
'Not a crook'
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon is also expected to decide this week whether to instigate a second inquiry into Mr Conway, this time focusing on payments to his elder son Henry.
Reports have suggested that Scotland Yard may be delaying a decision on whether to launch an investigation into fraud allegations until Mr Lyon has made clear how he intends to proceed.
Last week's report by the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee said there was no record of Mr Conway's younger son Freddie, a full-time student at Newcastle University, doing work at Westminster in return for £40,000 of taxpayers' money.
Mr Conway insists both Freddie, 22, and Henry 25, whom he employed earlier, did the work they were paid for.
The Old Bexley and Sidcup MP, who says he will stand down at the next election, insists he has not broken the rules by employing his sons, telling the Mail on Sunday: "I am not a crook...I still believe I have done nothing wrong."
The leaders of all three major political parties have urged MPs to come clean about whether they employ family members, resulting in almost 180 confirming that they do.
Tory MP Ben Wallace published his expenses in full, including payments to his researcher wife Liza.
Ex-cabinet minister Peter Hain confirmed that his mother, Adelaine, 80, works for him as a part-time secretary and was paid £5,400 last year. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7226069.stm
|
Holebender
|
I actually don't see a problem with them renting their flat. They'd have to have somewhere to live and if it wasn't this flat it would be another. As they've put it into a trust for tax purposes they can't just live there rent-free, or they'd be in breach of the trust agreement.
|
The Lithgae Jambo
|
| Holebender wrote: | | I actually don't see a problem with them renting their flat. They'd have to have somewhere to live and if it wasn't this flat it would be another. As they've put it into a trust for tax purposes they can't just live there rent-free, or they'd be in breach of the trust agreement. |
it's pretty similar to the Home Robertson situation when his son (aged 17) bought (?) a flat near Holyrood days before the 1999 election then rented it to his father.
Within the rules.
But totally immoral.
|
Holebender
|
No, this is different. The couple bought a flat to use as their London base, like many MPs do. At that stage I am sure they were claiming their mortgage interest like other MPs do. What changed is that, at some point, they used some of their own money (a legacy and an insurance pay-out) to pay off the mortgage so the property was theirs free and clear.
Now their accountant or their lawyer or somebody advised them to transfer the title to a trust to avoid inheritance tax in future. Lots of people do that. At that point they had no further legitimate claim to live there rent-free and the trustees would have had a duty to make the best of the asset by renting it out. They're entitled to reclaim their rent payments, and they do.
What do you find immoral? The fact they're working within the rules to reclaim legitimate expenses? Maybe it's their wealth you find immoral?
What if they, as MPs, bought a house each in London and claimed two mortgage payments? That, I think, would be a bit underhand but probably perfectly within the rules. I think they're being pretty moral to only claim for one residence when they could have manipulated the system to get two.
|
|
|
|