MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim

[JER]

Oh dear - he was looking so self assured as well. Sounds like a gay version of Rising Damp

 

 

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim

The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

 

By Holly Watt and Robert Winnett

Published: 10:06PM BST 28 May 2010

Previous1 of 2 ImagesNext

 

Britain's new Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne ®, and new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws Photo: GETTY

David Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, claimed up to £950 a month for eight years to rent rooms in two properties owned by his partner. The claims could be against parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.

On Friday night, Mr Laws apologised and announced that he would “immediately” pay back tens of thousands of pounds claimed for rent and other housing costs between 2006 and 2009. He also referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

 

Related Articles

Claim for renting the spare room in partner's flat

MPs' expenses: Alistair Darling's claim for help with his tax return

How the Telegraph investigation exposed the MPs' expenses scandal day by day

'Secret agenda to score adoptions'

MPs' expenses: Censorship ruins Gordon Brown's pledge over transparent government

MPs' expenses: Geoff Hoon pays back allowances money

Mr Laws said: “I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully.”

His controversial claims were not uncovered by an official inquiry into MPs’ expenses last year because Mr Laws did not admit that his landlord was also his long-standing lover.

The disclosure is the first big setback for the Coalition. Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6  billion.

He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers. However, his hard-line approach could be undermined by the disclosure of his own controversial use of public money.

The Daily Telegraph’s Expenses Files show that between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, south London. This flat was owned by the MP’s partner who was also registered as living at the property. The partner sold the flat for a profit of £193,000 in 2007.

In 2007, Mr Laws’s partner then bought another house nearby for £510,000. The MP then began claiming to rent the “second bedroom” in this property. His claims increased to £920 a month. The partner also lived at the property. Mr Laws’s main home is in his Yeovil constituency. The arrangement continued until September 2009, when parliamentary records show that Mr Laws switched his designated second home and began renting another flat at taxpayers’ expense. His partner remained at the Kennington house.

Mr Laws’s partner is James Lundie, who is thought to work for a lobbying firm. The Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality, but in a statement issued in response to questions from this newspaper, the minister chose to disclose this fact.

“I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him. Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time,” it read.

“James and I are intensely private people. We made the decision to keep our relationship private and believed that was our right. Clearly that cannot now remain the case.

“My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.”

John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner, will now have to scrutinise whether any rules have been broken.

Since 2006, parliamentary rules have banned MPs from “leasing accommodation from… a partner”.

Mr Laws said: “I claimed back the costs of sharing a home in Kennington with James from 2001 to June 2007. In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.

“In 2006 the Green Book rules were changed to prohibit payments to partners. At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.

“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives. However, I now accept that this was open to interpretation and will immediately pay back the costs of the rent and other housing costs I claimed from the time the rules changed until August 2009.”

Friends of Mr Laws said that the decision to disclose his sexuality was an “immense decision”.

“Anyone who knows David, knows he is someone of great integrity,” one friend said. “He has been very private about his life. But he absolutely wants the public to understand the reasons for this arrangement, it has not been about making a profit. He has decided he wants to be absolutely clear. His integrity is obviously very important.”

Mr Laws’s claims for a series of other expenses are also now expected to come under scrutiny. Between 2004 and 2008, he submitted regular claims, in rounded figures, for service and maintenance, repairs, utilities and other items.

He typically claimed between £50 and £150 a month for utilities and £100 to £200 for maintenance. Receipts were not provided to back up the claims.

However, in April 2008, the rules were changed and MPs had to provide receipts for any claims above £25. Mr Laws’s expense claims dropped sharply. For example, he claimed only £37 a month for utilities.

Mr Laws, a former investment banker who is said to be independently wealthy, has been an MP since 2001 and represents Lord Ashdown’s former constituency.

[Travis Bickle]

Dear God! when will this end, im sickened. Fucking gay MP's, what next for fucks sake.

[razor]

Remember, everyone: MPs are reluctant philanthropists whose raison d'etre is sacrificial obedience to the maxim "born to serve".

 

Thank God for MPs: their selfless nobility is quite overwhelming.

[Paul]

Call me naive but, despite my first instincts upon seeing the headline, I feel sympathetic towards him. As long as he pays it all back (which he can clearly afford to do), I wouldn't take it any further beyond a slap on the wrist and a warning about his future conduct. Sad that in this day and age he didn't feel comfortable with his family knowing who he is.

[Rush 346]

Call me naive but, despite my first instincts upon seeing the headline, I feel sympathetic towards him. As long as he pays it all back (which he can clearly afford to do), I wouldn't take it any further beyond a slap on the wrist and a warning about his

future conduct. Sad that in this day and age he didn't feel comfortable with his family knowing who he is.

 

not a chance he will be gone soon

[Paul]

not a chance he will be gone soon

 

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions where politicians are concerned. The coalition will not want to be dealt a damaging blow so early in its life. If he's prepared to ride out the storm, I don't think he'll be sacked.

[Rush 346]

He broke the rules so his position becomes untenable Paul, the media will be dining on this for days

[JER]

Call me naive but, despite my first instincts upon seeing the headline, I feel sympathetic towards him. As long as he pays it all back (which he can clearly afford to do), I wouldn't take it any further beyond a slap on the wrist and a warning about his future conduct. Sad that in this day and age he didn't feel comfortable with his family knowing who he is.

 

 

I feel sorry for him being outed to his family in this way - it is sad that someone his age is not comfortable with his own sexuality. He would hardly be the first openly gay cabinet member.

 

Why would he claim money he does not need to claim if it put his private life at risk - it is not just greedy, it is insane. The Liberals have taken a holier than thou approach to expenses - they are going to clean up politics, remember? Over to you, Nick.

 

This is from his local party last year

 

 

LAWS IS AGAIN FIRST MP TO RELEASE NEW EXPENSES FIGURES, AS OVER HALF OF ALL MPs TOLD TO MAKE REPAYMENTS

 

David Laws, MP for Yeovil Constituency, has today become the first MP to publish all of his expense claims up to 31st December 2009, on the day that Parliament publishes expense data for all MPs – but Parliament has only today published figures up to 30th June 2009. David’s figures show that he continues to claim way below the limits for his personal expenses, including renting a flat in Westminster when Parliament is sitting.

 

The Report by Sir Thomas Legg into MPs expenses has also been published today, and this confirms that David Laws has not been asked to repay any of his expenses, as Sir Thomas found all his claims for London living costs to be in order. However, over half of MPs (390 out of 650) have been ordered to repay expenses, including many from the Somerset and Dorset area.

 

The amounts which have been repaid already by MPs or which Sir Thomas has requested include:

 

 

David Laws MP (Yeovil): ZERO.

David Heath MP (Somerton and Frome): ZERO

Jeremy Browne MP (Taunton): ZERO

Iain Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater): £350.00

David Heathcote-Amory (Wells): £29,691.93

Oliver Letwin MP (West Dorset): £3,883.70

Robert Walter MP (North Dorset): £1,228.32

Jim Knight MP (South Dorset): £3,451.67

 

 

David Laws MP said:

 

“I am pleased that Sir Thomas Legg’s Inquiry into MPs expenses has indicated that all my claims for London living costs are in order. The crisis over MPs expenses has been hugely damaging to confidence in British politics and politicians, and Parliament needs to act swiftly to introduce all of the recommendations of the Kelly Review. These must not be watered down in any way.

 

“I am today publishing all of my expenses up to 31st December 2009, 6 months before these will be published by Parliament. I believe in giving constituents as much information as possible about how their money is being spent. As my office in Yeovil is one of the busiest of any MP in the country, I will need to use my allowances to pay staff and to fund office costs such as rent, equipment and postage. But I will continue to be as prudent as I can with my own personal expenses, and this is what local residents expect from all MPs.”

 

He makes Tom Hicks sound like Abe Lincoln

[cochcaer]

'New politics' will haunt this coalition as 'back to basics' did to Major. Parliamentary rules are clear on family and partners, and taking 40k to 'protect my privacy' is bollix.

[dennis tooth]

Scumbag. Can't beleive Paul 'feeling sorry', he's insanely rich and been stealing money from taxpayers, a large amount. Yeah, let's all send him a GET WELL card.

[SammyAftershave]

It's very reassuring to see there's no two-faced, greedy, robbing bastards in the new coalition government and we've all been saved that other crowd of robbing cunts.

 

BTW What's the current hourly cost of a rent boy?

 

[YOUTUBE]VDeKKbrGngE[/YOUTUBE]

[Anubis]

Call me naive but, despite my first instincts upon seeing the headline, I feel sympathetic towards him. As long as he pays it all back (which he can clearly afford to do), I wouldn't take it any further beyond a slap on the wrist and a warning about his future conduct. Sad that in this day and age he didn't feel comfortable with his family knowing who he is.

 

I'm fully on board with the sympathy for his private sexual orientation, but I think he's made his own position untenable given the quotes JER has posted above.

 

Still, no doubt Stronts will be along to spin this soon.

 

I wonder if The Mail, a definite Tory old school paper, is attempting clear out a Lib Dem MP to allow a Tory MP to take up the position? It'll be interesting to see if those right wingers in the press against a coalition will start running stories on Lib Dem's.

[Section_31]

Call me suspicious, but my instant reaction is that it's a Tory ploy to gradually remove and destroy the more influential Lib Dems they've allowed into their midst for appearances sake, while keeping their hands clean. Brown apparently wasn't against using the press to attack enemies in his own circle, and they were in his own party.

[Anubis]

Call me suspicious, but my instant reaction is that it's a Tory ploy to gradually remove and destroy the more influential Lib Dems they've allowed into their midst for appearances sake, while keeping their hands clean. Brown apparently wasn't against using the press to attack enemies in his own circle, and they were in his own party.

 

That's what I was hinting at in my last paragraph.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Call me naive but, despite my first instincts upon seeing the headline, I feel sympathetic towards him. As long as he pays it all back (which he can clearly afford to do), I wouldn't take it any further beyond a slap on the wrist and a warning about his future conduct.

 

But Paul, what sort of message does that send out? You're allowed to obtain money in very dubious circumstance and on the occasion you get caught, if you pay it back you'll be alright?

 

That's not the best message to be sending out.

 

Sad that in this day and age he didn't feel comfortable with his family knowing who he is.

 

''Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time”.

 

That is a shame and he should have the right to privacy, should he want it. However, this doesn't give him the excuse to pay his lover nearly a grand a month to stay at his house. That's wrong, in my opinion.

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

Classic

 

"The only reason I stole £40,000 of taxpayers money was to keep my family from knowing I am Gay"

 

Still can't figure out exactly how him paying rent was essential to keeping his sexuality secret from his family, unless of course his Mother did all his banking, which considering his position in Government, is unlikely.

 

Regardless, if it was that important to him, why not just pay it himself and not claim it back?

 

I actually think him playing the "Gay" card as a get out us worse than the rule breaking.

[JER]

Nick Clegg: "Tell us the laws that you want scrapped".

Answer: "David"

[Strontium]

Why would he claim money he does not need to claim if it put his private life at risk

 

 

Look at it the other way around: if he was ostensibly renting a room from this fellow and NOT claiming for any rent, then that raises (unwanted) questions about his private life.

 

Okay, he's been renting a room from the guy since 2001 and claiming the rent for it. In 2006 the rules changed to mean you can't claim for renting from a partner. If he suddenly stops claiming rent that he's been claiming since 2001 following this rule change, he basically outs himself.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for him here, it's obvious he's not been out to rip people off and was only motivated by a genuine desire to keep his private life private.

[BatChainPuller]

Look at it the other way around: if he was ostensibly renting a room from this fellow and NOT claiming for any rent, then that raises (unwanted) questions about his private life.

 

Okay, he's been renting a room from the guy since 2001 and claiming the rent for it. In 2006 the rules changed to mean you can't claim for renting from a partner. If he suddenly stops claiming rent that he's been claiming since 2001 following this rule change, he basically outs himself.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for him here, it's obvious he's not been out to rip people off and was only motivated by a genuine desire to keep his private life private.

 

Oh right, so when his partner moved house in 2007 he made a fresh claim just to maintain appearances...

 

Ah the 'new politics', so refreshing.

[Paul]

I agree that the financial side is wrong here - and unequivocally so - but he's a human being and clearly under huge personal pressure about the issue of his sexuality. Who hasn't done something stupid and regretful when emotionally conflicted? The fact that he could have claimed more and didn't suggests to me that he's telling the truth, no matter how ridiculous that truth may seem. If he pays it back and expresses/displays genuine contrition, I'd be happy to see him given some sort of punishment short of the bullet.

 

As I said, maybe I'm being naive; I suppose I'm just sick of the cynical, self-serving nature of most politicians and therefore want this to be a simple error of judgement for very understandable reasons, rather than one of greed.

[dennis tooth]

"I agree that the financial side is wrong here - and unequivocally so - but he's a human being and clearly under huge personal pressure about the issue of his sexuality. "

 

Well if he had a drug problem, you could argue the same:

 

I agree that the financial side is wrong here - and unequivocally so - but he's a human being and clearly under huge personal pressure about the issue of his drug problem.

 

 

Bet you wouldn't be saying that if that was the case. He should be proud of oreintations

[Anubis]

The reality for all these false claims by is simple. In any other walk of life, if you obtain money from your employer by deception, then your employer reports the matter to the police. You are interviewed, charged, and brought before the courts.

 

Theft from your employer is a breach of trust and is seen as an aggrevating feature by the courts. For an amount of £40,000 you would be before the Crown court and a Judge would tell you unequivocally that the breach of trust was so great that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.

 

His position is untenable.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Look at it the other way around: if he was ostensibly renting a room from this fellow and NOT claiming for any rent, then that raises (unwanted) questions about his private life.

 

Okay, he's been renting a room from the guy since 2001 and claiming the rent for it. In 2006 the rules changed to mean you can't claim for renting from a partner. If he suddenly stops claiming rent that he's been claiming since 2001 following this rule change, he basically outs himself.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for him here, it's obvious he's not been out to rip people off and was only motivated by a genuine desire to keep his private life private.

 

I take that on board, and think you have a point. However, there are other ways that he could have gone about it and claiming money for staying at your boyfriend's place is, lets be charitable, a bit off. However, it does seem clear he wasn't being greedy, but his boyfriend was still making money out of it. Not the best practice.

 

I don't think not claiming anything would have been too bad. He does exactly that with his other property, doesn't he?

 

Paul puts it well with the question ''Who hasn't done something stupid and regretful when emotionally conflicted?''. Quite. Taking money for staying in your boyfriends house it certainly stupid and, since 2006, against the rules.

[SammyAftershave]

He's hardly the first is he?....'chase me, forgive me, I was going bald.'

 

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Hair today, gone tomorrow

 

 

 

Shithouse, hand-wringing, fence-sitting cunts.

 

Lay with dogs, you get flea's.

 

Goes with the territory.

[dennis tooth]

It wasn't a 'cover', loads of MP's don't claim for every little tiny thing including other places in which they reside, how can fools claim £40,000 was not being greedy with a straight face?

 

Double standards the lot of you