Mail On Sunday - December 2010

 I thought I had done well when the Press Association news agency described me as one of the ‘saints’ given the relative modesty of my latest published expenses. Indeed, I have been boring colleagues, journalists, constituents and anyone prepared to listen to my description of how frugally I now live in London. So this week’s accusation in the Mail on Sunday that I am exploiting a loophole and continuing to rip off taxpayers came as a shock. The accusation was printed alongside a very attractive property described as my flat. It isn’t. Mine is out of the picture down the dark alley.

These are the facts: Sir Christopher Kelly concluded his report into MP’s expenses just over a year ago: he ruled that the practice of charging mortgage interest as an expense for living in London should cease; that MP’s should terminate these arrangements   at the very latest by the end of the next parliament; that they should share capital gains with the taxpayer when they sell the property; and that in the future only rent or hotel charges would be an allowable expense. As soon as Kelly reported I announced that I would comply immediately and not wait for the lifetime of another parliament.  I moved out of my London flat in December last year and I have been staying in Hotels for three nights per week ever since. The approved parliamentary standards rate for a night in a hotel is £130. I have got it as low as £25 and I am currently paying £28.

Of course, I still have a large interest only mortgage to pay on the flat. It is not a good time to sell so I have let it. Under the Kelly regime I will still be liable to share capital gains and, of course, pay tax on my share. I am paying tax on the rent.  I bought the house with my own capital and a mortgage years before I was elected. I alone will repay all the capital sum of the mortgage.

My expenses were amongst the lowest in the last parliament, now I have made them much lower still. My conscience is absolutely clear. There was one other accusation: it was implied that I had used to public funds to renovate the kitchen before letting it: I paid for the kitchen in full.