We have this week begun a new investigation into the election spending of Zac Goldsmith, Chris Huhne and Ed Balls. We have reason to believe that there was irregular spending in all three of these tight campaigns.

There is evidence of high spending in all of these seats, yet these successful candidates managed to declare their expenditure at the permitted level. Chris Huhne and Zac Goldsmith are both multi-millionaires, while Ed Balls received large amounts of funding from the Unite trade union.

Until last year Spelman co-owned Spelman, Cormack & Associates, a food and biotechnology lobbying firm she set up in 1989 with her husband, Mr Mark Spelman, using her maiden name, Cormack. Less than a year ago she transferred her shares in the firm to her husband and resigned her directorship in May 2009.

According to Companies House records the company’s registered office was in the Secretary of State’s constituency home until May last year. Her husband, Mark Spelman, remains a director of the company still trading under the Secretary of State’s name in sectors closely related to issues for which she is responsible.

Given that the company is still using her maiden name to trade, a name by which she would have been known when active in farming politics in the 1980s, this is clearly of public interest.

The Sunlight Centre has posed the following questions:

1. Will the Secretary of State step back from dealing with matters which impact on her former clients in the agri-business and bio-tech industy?

2. Has the Secretary of State fully declared all the agri-business companies with which her “family business” had dealings, because these do not seem to be a matter of public record?

3. Will she recuse herself specifically from any negotiations with a bearing on the sugar beet industry given her close past relationship to those with a commercial interest in these negotiations?

A full copy of the Sunlight Centre’s letter to Defra is included below.

The full letter:

Helen Ghosh
Permanent Secretary
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

Sent by fax and post to: 0207 238 6118

Dear Ms. Ghosh,

I am writing to bring to your attention a possible conflict of interesting regarding the newly appointed Secretary of State for your department, the Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP.

As you should already be aware, until last year the Secretary of State for your department co-owned Spelman, Cormack & Associates, a food and biotechnology lobbying firm she set up in 1989 with her husband, Mr Mark Spelman, using her maiden name, Cormack. Less than a year ago she transferred her shares in the firm to her husband and resigned her directorship in May 2009. According to Companies House records the company’s registered office was in the Secretary of State’s constituency home until May last year. Her husband, Mark Spelman, remains a director of the company still trading under the Secretary of State’s name in sectors closely related to issues for which she is responsible. Given that the company is still using her maiden name to trade, a name by which she would have been known when active in farming politics in the 1980s, this is clearly of public interest.

The Secretary of State is in charge of negotiating subsidies, quotas and tariff barriers at the EU Agricultural Council, giving rise to a clear conflict of interest between this official role and her close links to a company which has in the past lobbied or may be intending to lobby over such matters. The Secretary of State is also responsible for Genetically Modified food regulations at the same time as her husband’s firm deals with bio-tech industry clients. Ms. Spelman therefore remains linked to a farming and food lobbying firm that she set up, held shares in for ten years, and for which her husband is still using her name and home address for commercially.

In view of this information we ask you to clarify the following:

1. Will the Secretary of State step back from dealing with matters which impact on her former clients in the agri-business and bio-tech industy?

2. Has the Secretary of State fully declared all the agri-business companies with which her “family business” had dealings, because these do not seem to be a matter of public record?

3. Will she recuse herself specifically from any negotiations with a bearing on the sugar beet industry given her close past relationship to those with a commercial interest in these negotiations?

As a result of anti-competitive EU regulations and industry lobbying consumers in Britain pay massively inflated prices for sugar in comparison to world prices, there is therefore a legitimate public interest in knowing that the Minister responsible for negotiating the regime which governs sugar prices is free of any perceived conflict of interest or association with vested commercial interests in this area.

Yours sincerely,

Juliet Samuel
Centre for Open Politics
juliet@sunlight-cops.org.uk

Here’s a reminder of some of Ms Smith’s expense claims:

• She became the expenses scandal “poster girl” after her husband was found to have claimed £10 to watch porn in a hotel. She also pays her husband a full salary on expenses for being her Parliamentary assistant.
• She was found to be guilty of having wrongly designated her main home to the tune of £116,000 extra in expense claims and had to issue a humiliating apology to the House.
• Despite this, she never paid the money back.
• She claimed for decorating her house, fencing the garden, an outdoor patio heater, a barbecue, cleaning her carpet, a Panasonic SCMP31 mini hi-fi.

With all that kit, at least we know she’ll be well-equipped to spend her post-Parliament days in her garden!

Not many people, and certainly not many of his constituents, know the role that Ed Balls played in the scandal around Gordon Brown’s favourite, think-tank The Smith Institute, and its breach of the charity laws covering party political activity.

 

 

 

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

Controversal MP Shahid Malik has today attacked the Sunlight Centre for what he saw as a politically motivated complaint against him put in to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

In response Harry Cole from the Sunlight Centre said:

“For Mr Malik to suggest that the complaint by the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics was politically motivated shows, even now, how out of touch he is with public outrage concerning the expenses crisis. He should also await the publication of John Lyon’s full report before declaring himself a saint. As the length and depth of John Lyon’s investigation shows there was serious concern surrounding Mr Malik’s office arrangements that took nearly a year to unravel. We are disappointed if, once again, John Lyon has been forced to clear an MP who while working “within the rules” has got away with practices that would be wholly inappropriate in any other profession. The Sunlight Centre has argued that it’s not just trust in politics that is broken, but the rules of the game too.”

TUESDAY 10AM

Next Tuesday 30th March, 3 MPs and one Lord will attend the first formal day of their trial for fraud or false accounting. This is the culmination of many months’ outrage, investigation and fury at our parliamentarians’ rank abuse of the expenses system. Hundreds have promised to turn out in protest and the Sunlight Centre and other friends hope you will join us.

IT WILL BE KICKING OFF AT 10AM

SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT:

Stephen Byers MP, former Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1998), Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1998–2001) and Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2001–2002) was caught in a Sunday Times sting operation in which he offered access to the British government for up to £5000 per day. He referred to himself as a “cab for hire” and has disgraced himself.

We believe, in light of these revelations that his membership of the Queen’s advisory body, the Privy Council, is wholly and utterly inappropriate.

We, the undersigned, call on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to strip Stephen Byers MP of his membership of the Privy Council due to his involvement in offering to sell access to the British Government for personal profit.

SIGN

Please click below to donate to the Sunlight Centre.

Mr Devine was first reported to the police by the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics

Commenting today on the news Harry Cole from Sunlight said “this is a great day for transparency. Finally the message is getting through that law makers cannot be lawbreakers.”