List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal


This article lists the published allegations of expenses abuse made against specific members of the British Parliament in the course of the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. While the majority of these were first made public by The Daily Telegraph on or after 8 May 2009, a few cases had already come to public attention before that date.
On 18 June 2009 the details of all MP's claims for the period 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website together with details of voluntary repayments amounting to approximately £500,000.

Items that became public before 8 May 2009

The John Lewis List

The John Lewis List is the name given to a list used by House of Commons Clerks to ascertain whether or not claims by MPs under the Additional Costs Allowance are a realistic representation of the price of items. The list details items that are considered acceptable to be claimed on the ACA, along with the price such items would cost in the John Lewis department store chain.
Prior to 2008 the list was never published in case MPs saw the maximum permitted claim for each item and such a price "became the going rate", a rule House of Commons' resources chief Andrew Walker upheld in February 2008 despite campaigners wanting it released to the Information Tribunal considering the release of MPs' expenses claims. However, a freedom of information request by the Press Association just a month later, in March 2008, saw the list released into the public domain anyway, revealing that MPs were able to claim for, among other things, dishwashers, television sets and tumble dryers.

Derek Conway

, the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup then under the Conservative whip, was found to have employed his son, Frederick, as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office between 2004 and 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000, despite Frederick being a full-time undergraduate student at Newcastle University. This arrangement was revealed by The Sunday Times on 27 May 2007, in an article which prompted a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn referred the matter to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.
The committee launched an investigation into the matter as a whole, and reported to the House on 28 January 2008. On the same day, Conway apologised on the floor of the Commons, stating that he accepted the report's criticisms "in full". The report's main finding was that there was "no record" of Frederick ever doing any substantive work for Conway, and that the salary he was paid was too high. The committee ordered Conway to repay £13,000 of the money Frederick had been paid, and recommended that Conway should be suspended from the Commons for ten sitting days. These recommendations were approved, in their entirety, by the House of Commons on 31 January 2008.
At the time of Conway's suspension, the Labour MP John Mann announced that he would be making a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over Conway's employment of his other son, Henry, in a similar capacity to Frederick. Shortly after Conway's suspension and the second allegation being made, the Conservative leader, David Cameron, withdrew the party whip from Conway, effectively leaving him sitting as an Independent MP. Conway subsequently announced that he would not be standing for re-election at the next general election.
In January 2009, a year after the first report, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published a further report, specifically in relation to Conway's employment of his son Henry. The committee found that Henry had been employed immediately prior to Frederick and, similarly, had been studying as a full-time undergraduate at the time of his employment. The committee reported that, like the previous case, there was no "hard evidence" of Henry's employment, but also stated that
it would be unfair to conclude that Henry Conway did not undertake sufficient work to fulfil the terms of his contract of employment

The committee ordered Conway to repay £3,758 in over payments to his son, and to also write a letter of apology to the committee's chairman, Sir George Young. Once again, Conway apologised "without qualification" to the Commons.

Caroline Spelman

, the then Chairman of the Conservative Party, became embroiled in the "nannygate" saga on 6 June 2008 when the BBC's Newsnight programme suggested she had paid for her nanny out of parliamentary expenses during her early years in Parliament, between 1997 and 1998. Spelman issued a statement to Newsnight that the nanny in question, Tina Haynes, was also her constituency secretary. The Conservative Central Office agreed with her claim. Immediately after the revelations were made public, the nanny told Newsnight that she only took the odd phone message or posted documents when needed. In the following days, however, Haynes stated that her work had, in fact, been on a more formal basis, providing constituency secretarial work when Spelman's children were at school.
In an attempt to resolve the situation and clear her name, Spelman asked John Lyons, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to investigate the payments to Haynes. However, the commissioner himself suggested that an investigation dating back seven years would be exceptional, especially on a self-referral. Despite this, the commissioner announced on 17 June that he would launch a formal investigation into the saga.
During the commissioner's investigation, Newsnight revealed that nine years earlier, Spelman's parliamentary secretary, Sally Hammond, had raised concerns over the "nannygate" payments with the leadership of the Conservative party. In 1998, Hammond informed Peter Ainsworth, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, who in turn referred the matter to the then Opposition Chief Whip, James Arbuthnot, who investigated and told Spelman to stop paying Haynes out of parliamentary expenses immediately.
In March 2009, the Committee for Standards and Privileges published their final report into the matter, which ruled that Spelman had inadvertently "misapplied part of parliamentary allowances". However, both the Committee and the Commissioner noted that Spelman was, at the time, one of many new members who had taken their seats following the 1997 general election, and was therefore not fully aware of the rules governing the use or purpose of parliamentary allowances. The committee recommended that Spelman repay £9,600.

Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper

In September 2007, the married couple and Labour Cabinet ministers, Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and Yvette Cooper, then the Housing Minister, used the Commons' allowances system to pay for a £655,000 house in Stoke Newington, North London. The couple subsequently declared this to be their second home, despite spending most of their time in London in order to fulfil their ministerial responsibilities and their children attending London schools. The declaration of the Stoke Newington property as their second home meant that they became eligible for a reported Additional Costs Allowance of £44,000 a year to cover the property's £438,000 mortgage.
The Conservative MP Malcolm Moss made a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who agreed to launch an investigation into the matter. The commissioner ultimately found that the couple had acted in accordance with parliamentary rules and as such dismissed the complaint against them. The Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with the Commissioner's dismissal of the complaint.

Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton

and Lady Winterton, the married backbench Conservative MPs, were accused of claiming back mortgage interest through the Additional Cost Allowance on a flat they owned in London, despite having completed payment of the mortgage itself. It was further alleged that the pair had subsequently transferred the ownership of the flat to a trust and then claimed £21,600 a year in rent for the flat.
A complaint was made about this arrangement by two members of the public to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn launched an investigation. The commissioner found that a change in the allowances rules in 2003 appeared to complicate matters as it may have placed the Wintertons' arrangement outside of the rules, and ruled it was "unfortunate" that the couple never reassessed their situation following the change in rules. The commissioner also ruled that a further change to allowance rules in 2006 meant that there was a clear breach of the rules, but noted that the Wintertons would not have received any additional public funds for their arrangement than they would have if they had resided in a different property under more acceptable arrangements. It was also noted that the Wintertons had never attempted to conceal the arrangement. The Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with the Commissioner's report and ruled that the payment of the Additional Costs Allowance to the Wintertons should be stopped. Notably however, they did not order the Wintertons to repay any money they had previously claimed.
In a separate debate, the Wintertons are two of only six Conservative MPs who have refused to disclose their full expenses claims, despite orders to do so by party leader, David Cameron.

Jacqui Smith

In February 2009, the Mail on Sunday reported that the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, had listed her constituency home in Redditch, Worcestershire as her second home, whilst designating a house she shared with her sister in London as her main home, despite sometimes spending as little as two nights there, allowing her to claim £116,000 in Additional Cost Allowance over several years. A key aspect in the debate was the fact that Smith, as Home Secretary, was eligible for a "grace and favour" home in Westminster, and therefore did not need to claim expenses to live with her sister. After the residents of the house next-door to Smith's sister complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, stating that Smith may only stay there for three nights a week, he requested that Smith explain her arrangements.
A month after allegations were made against Smith's second home arrangements, the Sunday Express revealed that Smith had claimed as parliamentary expenses for two Pay-TV pornographic films her husband, Richard Timney, had watched while she was away. Smith and her husband both apologised for the error, and Smith said she would pay back the claim. This, coupled with the previous allegation, led to mounting pressure of Smith to resign, but the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, gave her his full support, before proposing alterations to the existing expenses system.
In April 2009, Smith came under increasing pressure after yet further questions were raised about her expenses by the Mail on Sunday. The newspaper suggested that Smith had claimed for several items that were supposed to allow her to "perform her duties as an MP", including a toothbrush, a patio heater, a barbecue, a flat-screen TV and a bath plug costing 89p. On 2 June 2009, she announced she would stand down at the Cabinet reshuffle on 5 June 2009.

Tony McNulty

In March 2009, Labour minister Tony McNulty admitted claiming expenses on a second home, occupied by his parents, which was eight miles away from his primary residence, after details appeared in the Mail on Sunday. He asserted that the claim was appropriate, but ceased claiming the allowances. In an article headlined "Tony McNulty, Benefit Cheat", The Spectator on 26 March 2009 contrasted the statements made by McNulty regarding benefit cheats with his own claims for expenses. He resigned during the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 June 2009.

Eric Pickles

On 26 March 2009, Conservative MP Eric Pickles appeared on the political debate programme Question Time. While discussing the controversy over Tony McNulty, Pickles admitted he claimed a second home allowance even though his constituency home was only 37 miles from Westminster. Pickles justified himself by saying "the House of Commons works on clockwork. You have to be there. If you're on a committee, you have to be there precisely." Host David Dimbleby responded "Like a job, in other words?" reflecting the reality that many of Pickles' own constituents commute to London each day.

Items made public on or after 8 May 2009

The following details are sorted by party in descending order of parliamentary size of the party at the time of the scandal.

Labour Party

The Telegraph devoted the first two days of coverage to the expenses of the governing Labour Party, beginning with the Cabinet on day one, before turning to junior ministers and Labour backbenchers on the second day, Saturday 9 May. Further allegations were made on Thursday, 14 May. The main allegations the newspaper made, alongside any responses to them from the various MPs are shown below.
Although focusing on Labour MPs on days one and two, on the evening of 10 May, the Telegraph website reported that the newspaper was preparing to publish the expenses claims of Conservative MPs in the next day's edition. It also began publishing the stories online that evening.
The day after these particular revelations began, the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, announced that all questionable claims by the Shadow Cabinet would be repaid, including those made by Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Francis Maude and Chris Grayling. Cameron himself repaid a £680 repair bill that included the clearing of wisteria from his chimney.
On the evening of 11 May, the Daily Telegraph announced it was turning its attention on the claims of backbench Conservative MPs whom the newspaper dubbed "the grandees" of the party.
Those claims and further revelations are listed below:
The Liberal Democrats became the focus of the Daily Telegraph revelations on day 6 of the publications. The allegations made alongside responses from the MPs are listed below.
On 10 May 2009, The Sunday Telegraph reported that the five Sinn Féin MPs together claimed nearly £500,000 in second home allowances, despite never taking up their seats at Westminster due to the party's abstentionist policy. In its defence, Sinn Féin stated that its members often have to travel to London on parliamentary business.