| |
|
ACA Repayment Appeal (February 2010) As a long-standing champion of Freedom of Information, I have published below a letter I received from Sir Paul Kennedy (dated 28 January 2010) which outlined the outcome of my security-related ACA Repayment Appeal. I have also published below my response to Sir Paul Kennedy (dated 2 February, the day after I received Sir Paul's letter). As the wording of these letters hopefully make clear, the basis of the appeal was very firmly related to my ongoing priority of protecting the security and safety of my staff. For example it is well known - and has been well-documented elsewhere - that a female member of my staff was the victim of a serious physical assault for no other reason that that she was working for me. Since then there has been further violence, but this has been successfully managed so that incidents have been less serious and less frequent.As an employer I will not do anything that would jeopardise staff safety and security now or in the future. Therefore, in publishing these letters it is my intention to be as open and transparent as possible about the reasons for my appeal. However, as I am sure most of my constituents will understand, my paramount concern to continue to protect my staff means I am not able to provide further detail about the exact security issues referred to, other than is outlined in these letters. Dan Norris MP, 2 February 2010
Letter to Dan Norris MP from Sir Paul Kennedy, ACA Repayment Appeals 28 January 2010 Dear Mr Norris The ACA Review says that you were paid cleaning costs of £9730.19 over a 4 year period (£2,544 in 2004-05, £2,653.85 in 2005-06, £2,424.17 in 2006-07 & £2,108.17 in 2007-08) which exceeded the limit of £2,000 per annum set by the Review by £1,730.19, which sum you are recommended to repay. In your Grounds of Appeal to me you explain, as you did previously to the Review, that your cleaning costs were higher than they would otherwise have been because, for good reasons which I need not develop, you ran your constituency office from part of your second home. As you point out, the Green Book specifically permitted you to do that, and to charge, under the heading of Incidental Expenses, for any additional costs incurred (eg telephone lines, heat, light, but not leasing or mortgage). You chose to claim all of your cleaning costs against your ACA because you were anxious to avoid any suggestion that you had double-claimed, or had used IEP to meet personal costs. You say that when applying the limit of £2,000 per annum to you, the Review failed to have regard to your unusual circumstances, and in particular the need to house your constituency office in your second home with the result that a substantial part of the cleaning cost you incurred were office cleaning costs potentially recoverable as IEP. As it was permissible for any Member to provide space for his or her constituency office in his or her second home, I do not consider it to be of any importance for present purposes why you chose to follow that course. Equally, as it seems to me, any Member with a constituency office at home was free to decide how to deal with cleaning costs. You might have chosen differently if you had known of the £2,000 per annum limit which was to be imposed by the Review, but that, as it seems to me, only puts you in the same position as other Members, and particularly those with offices at home. As you may recall, my Terms of Reference are carefully restricted. For your convenience I enclose a copy. I can only interfere if I find special reasons in your individual case showing that it would not be fair and equitable to require repayment. I can find no such reasons, and I would therefore dismiss your appeal. My report to the MEC will be in the form of an introductory section, followed by copies of my replies to the individual appellants, so this reply will form part of my report. Yours sincerely Sir Paul Kennedy, c/o Department of Resources, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA Kennedy Review Terms of Reference To consider written submissions made by any Member against a recommendation of the Legg review of past ACA claims in his or her case to require a repayment, and showing cause why there are special reasons in the individual case that it would not be fair and equitable to require repayment either at all, or at the level recommended. To reach conclusions on such submissions in the light of any further evidence as may be required and to report in writing as soon as possible to the Members Estimate Committee. Letter to Sir Paul Kennedy, ACA Repayment Appeals, from Dan Norris MP Dan Norris MPHouse of Commons SW1A 0AA 2 February 2010 Dear Sir Paul Kennedy ACA Repayment Appeals I am grateful that your letter summarized the good reasons I had to run my constituency affairs in the way that I did (to improve security following a serious assault and other incidents of violence on my staff) and that I took all steps possible to avoid claiming any expense more than once. I am also appreciative that you have acknowledged that I made every effort to ensure that money for office expenses did not meet any personal costs. I am, of course, disappointed that the measures I took back then to ensure the security of my staff which necessitated the specific expense claims I made, as well as my determined efforts to provide transparency with regard to those claims, are not matters that are now relevant under your Terms of Reference following the Legg retrospective rule changes. However, I welcome the helpful explanation of your remit and I, of course, fully respect your decision. Yours sincerely Dan Norris MP To read the full Review of Past ACA Payments document please use this link |