Seeff Challenges Iain Duncan Smith on Expenses

10.09.00am BST (GMT +0100) Fri 12th Jun 2009

In a letter published in the Waltham Forest Guardian (11th June) Geoff Seeff, prospective parliamentary candidate for Chingford and Woodford Green, issues a direct challenge to Iain Duncan Smith about his claims for office costs in the period 2005 to 2007.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed that he had claimed sums totalling £11,000 in respect of payments to a company controlled by a former Tory party "spin doctor" for work done in compiling the reports for the Commission for Social Justice, the think tank established by Mr Duncan Smith. Although not picked up by the Telegraph, Geoff points out that claims for "Office Costs" are to facilitate the conduct of an MP's parliamentary and constituency duties ie in connection with running an office, not for the development of Tory Party policy. Those costs should have been borne by the Tory party or the think tank, if it was supposed to be "independent".

Geoff says that although the claims were not for Mr Duncan Smith's personal enrichment or pleasure the claims were inappropriate and the money should be repaid. He also explains why Mr Duncan Smith's new found zeal for "wholsale reform of the expenses system" reported in the Guardian ring hollow.

The text of the letter, which was inevitably edited in publication follows:-

"I had wondered why, throughout all the brouhaha on MP's expenses, we had not heard anything from Iain Duncan Smith. With the disclosures in the Daily Telegraph about his office cost claims totalling £11,000 for work on the preparation of reports for the Social Justice Commission and your report last week on his "furious" reaction, his reasons for living up to his reputation as "a quiet man" become clear.

The House of Commons Green Book states precisely the purpose of allowances for office costs. Essentially they are intended solely to provide facilities that enable MPs to carry out their parliamentary and constituency duties. Apart from rent and property costs, payments to third parties are limited to "maintenance, interpreting services, recruitment and work that would reasonably be undertaken by a member of their staff". It is obvious to me, and should have been equally so to Mr Duncan Smith, that the cost of developing Tory party policy does not fall remotely within that definition. The costs in question, which incidentally were paid to a former Communications Director of the Tories, should properly have been borne from party funds or the Think Tank itself. The fact that the claims were not for Mr Duncan Smith's personal enrichment or pleasure is neither here nor there - they were inappropriate and should be repaid.

You report Mr Duncan Smith saying that he now "wants to see wholesale reform of the expenses system". Hmmmm!!!!. He was leader of a major political party for two years at a time when similar abuses to those exposed would have been taking place - the Daily Telegraph has been able to review only those claims made since 2005 but the system has been operating since 1981! Irrespective of his own claims, it is not credible that he was oblivious as to how his own colleagues were exploiting the situation for their own benefit. Where was his call for reform then?

When in 2007 the Liberal Democrats opposed a Government motion that sought to prevent the Freedom of Information Act applying to MPs or when, last summer, they proposed a motion to ensure MP's expenses would be subject to independent audit, where was Iain Duncan Smith? Conveniently absent from the House.

The first responsibility of all politicians is to challenge constructively any administrative or legal process that is not in the interests of the electorate. By passively accepting and in effect endorsing the status quo on what are, to say the least, questionable practices, Mr Duncan Smith is guilty of a dereliction of duty to his constituents".