The
Commissioner's findings
5. The Commissioner sent us the report of his investigation
into the allegations against Mr Duncan in October. It is reproduced
in full as Appendix 1 to this Report. The Commissioner has established
that:
Mr Duncan purchased a property in London in 1986
for £235,000. He paid for this property through a combination
of savings, the proceeds of the sale of a flat, and a small mortgage.
The mortgage was paid off around June or July 1991, although the
legal charge remained on the property as he expected to purchase
another property shortly afterwards and wanted to keep open the
option of using the charge to facilitate a new loan.[8]
6. The Commissioner records that before being elected
to the House, Mr Duncan purchased a further property, in Rutland,
for £275,000, which he funded by securing a mortgage for
£271,000 against his London home. He left the legal charge
in place on the London property, because he regarded it as more
suitable than the Rutland property to be offered as collateral
for the loan.[9] Once elected
as the Member for Rutland and Melton, Mr Duncan nominated his
London home as his main home and from 1992 to the beginning of
2004 claimed from the Additional Costs Allowance for the interest
on the mortgage used to buy the Rutland property in 1991, which
remained secured against his London home.[10]
7. In January 2004, Mr Duncan took up a new mortgage
of £271,406, this time secured against the Rutland property,
and redeemed the previous one. He told the Commissioner that he
did this in order "to try to set the highest possible standards
of conduct" and "to make all [his] affairs absolutely
tidy".[11] Mr Duncan
paid the redemption costs with his own money.[12]
8. The Commissioner finds that it was reasonable
for Mr Duncan to have claimed for the interest on the mortgage
which had been secured on his London home solely to enable him
to buy his Rutland property.[13]
The rules at the time in relation to a Member's claims
for their additional costs required only for the amount claimed
to have been spent on additional costs necessarily incurred in
overnight stays away from the Member's home. The costs incurred
as a result of Mr Duncan's mortgage secured on his London home
were solely and exclusively for his constituency property. They
were incurred as a result of his overnight stays in his constituency
home and away from his London home on parliamentary duties. The
costs arising from his occupancy of his constituency property
were in my judgement a legitimate call on his Additional Costs
Allowance.[14]
9. The Commissioner concludes:
I conclude, therefore, that the rules as they were
from 1992 to 2004 did not preclude a Member raising a mortgage
secured on another property for the purchase of the home against
which they intended to claim parliamentary allowances. Mr Duncan
was not in breach of the rules in doing so.[15]
…
I conclude that Mr Duncan acted reasonably and fully
within the rules of the House at the time, in the mortgage arrangements
he made for his Rutland property, from when he came to the House
in 1992 until he changed the arrangement in early 2004. His mortgage
interest costs were necessarily incurred to enable him to have
a second home based in his constituency in order to fulfil his
Parliamentary duties. There is no evidence that Mr Duncan has
wrongly benefited from the arrangement or otherwise acted in a
way which was not consistent with the rules of the House at the
time.[16]
Conclusion
10. We agree with the Commissioner's conclusion
that there was nothing in Mr Duncan's mortgage arrangements that
was in breach of the rules. We are grateful to the Commissioner
for conducting such a thorough investigation and for setting out
his findings so clearly and comprehensively.
11. We wish to re-emphasise that we will agree to
the Commissioner investigating allegations against Members in
the absence of a formal complaint only in exceptional circumstances.
Investigations of this kind cost public money and can divert resources
away from other work. We will not allow the Commissioner's office
to be used by Members simply as a means of refuting unfounded
allegations that appear in the press. But where the Commissioner
informs us that in his judgment an allegation raises wider issues
or is particularly serious, we will in the public interest continue
to allow exceptions to the general policy.
1 Appendix 1, paragraph 3 Back
2
Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, June 2009, paragraph
104 Back
3
Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, June 2009, paragraph
104 Back
4
Appendix 1, paragraph 2 and WE1 Back
5
Appendix 1, WE2 Back
6
Appendix 1, paragraph 8 Back
7
House of Commons, Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules,
June 2009, paragraph 104 Back
8
Appendix 1, paragraph 43 Back
9
Appendix 1, paragraph 44 Back
10
Appendix 1, paragraph 45 Back
11
Appendix 1, paragraph 48 Back
12
Appendix 1, paragraph 46 Back
13
Appendix 1, paragraph 50 Back
14
Appendix 1, paragraph 53 Back
15
Appendix 1, paragraph 54 Back
16
Appendix 1, paragraph 56 Back
