Labour MP Sadiq Khan has been reported to the Metropolitan Police over his expenses. The Met have confirmed they are considering the allegation and this morning’s Times suggest that the Minister is “facing a fraud investigation”. Mr Khan had expenses claims rejected for birthday cards for constituents after the Fees Office explicitly told him such a claim was against the rules. However when the the printing company “Public Impact”, which is run by former Labour Party staff, sent another invoice, this time without identifying the bill was for greetings cards, the claim was paid the following month. A full copy of the Sunlight complaint to the Met can be found below.

Commenting on the Times article Juliet Samuel, Sunlight’s Research Analyst and  author of “Disinfecting Parliament” said: “Mr Khan has some serious questions answer. It is not enough to simply blame inexperienced staff or a lack of knowledge of the rules when it appears there may have been a deliberate attempt to defraud the taxpayer by Mr Khan and his allies at Public Impact printers.“

The story from this morning’s Times:

A minister faces a fraud investigation after claiming expenses for birthday cards for votes despite being told it was against the rules. Sadiq Khan, the Transport Minister, has repaid more that £2,500 claimed for thousands of cards to mark 18th birthdays and religious festivals. Mr Khan’s initial invoice for £1,051.34 to cover the cost of printing 1,500 cards for constituents’ 18th birthdays had been rejected by Commons authorities. It was paid the following month when the Commons Fees Office received a reminder statement from the printing company, which did not identify the bill as being for greetings cards. The company, Public Impact, is run by former Labour Party staff. The Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, a campaign for transparency, has contacted the police. Scotland Yard said the allegations would be considered. John Lyon, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, said in reply to aconstituent’s complaint that Mr Khan had apologised, blaming the fact he was a new MP and all his staff were new.

The full letter:

T/AC Janet Williams
Economic and Specialist Crime Command
New Scotland Yard
London
Broadway
SW1H 0BG

25rd March 2010

RE: Rt. Hon, Sadiq Khan MP

In the light of recent charges brought against a number of parliamentarians under Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, I would like to bring the following matter to your attention.

In June 2009, John Lyon CB, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, was asked to investigate an expenses claim made by Rt. Hon. Sadiq Khan MP. In March 2010 that investigation was concluded (a copy of the report is enclosed). The report points out:

• Mr. Khan attempted to claim £1051.34 for 18^th birthday cards in December 2005.
• This claim was rejected as claiming for greetings cards is not permitted.
• Mr. Khan would therefore have been fully aware that claiming for 18^th Birthday cards was not a legitimate expense.
• In January 2006 Mr Khan presented a new invoice for the same amount. This invoice did not state that it was for birthday cards.
• I have not had sight of the originals and have therefore been unable to compare them. The invoices were sufficiently different – despite being for the same expense – to convince the parliamentary fees office that the renewed claim was now legitimate.
• Mr. Khan has now repaid the £1051.34 (along with two other expenses claims for cards).
• Mr. Khan has stated that he was a new MP at the time of the claim and that he was not fully aware of what he was entitled to claim.

My concern is this: when Mr Khan’s initial claim was rejected he became aware, if hitherto he had not known, that he was not entitled to claim for greetings cards. Despite this, he re-presented an invoice for that claim. On the second occasion, it had been altered so that the authorities were not aware that it was still for the same 18^th birthday cards.

The presentation of the new invoice enabled Mr Khan to obtain £1051.34, to which he must have known (by dint of the first refusal) that he was not entitled.

It follows that Mr. Khan may deliberately have requested a new invoice in order to make a claim to which he was not entitled. If so, he would be guilty of

• fraud (perhaps under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
• false accounting (under Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968); or
• obtaining property by deception (Sections 15 to 21 of the Theft Act 1968 and sections 1 and 2 of the Theft Act 1978) – under which, as you know, “property” can include money.

I believe that this matter should be investigated by the Police because there is good reason to suspect a crime may have taken place.
Yours faithfully

Juliet Samuel

Sunlight Centre for Open Politics

Share this item with your friends and help the Sunlight Centre grow

•