News RSS Feed


send_pics

MP Peter Luff explains his bills for running repairs and a £1,300 rug


WORCESTERSHIRE MP Peter Luff today lifts the lid on the expenses he claims for the cost of running his offices in London and Worcester.

A £1,300 rug and a £2,600 redecoration bill were among items funded by the taxpayer over the past four years for the Mid-Worcestershire Tory’s local office – which is located in a wing of his family home in Worcester.

The MP also spent more than £2,500 on three laptop computers and more than £3,000 on two “high-end” printers.

Mr Luff – who was criticised last week for his second home expenses – decided to publish a statement regarding his office expenses in order to “address any likely questions that may be asked in advance”.

The Daily Telegraph, which has been publishing details of MPs’ second home claims, has now turned its attention to the running costs of their offices.

Mr Luff said: “I had not anticipated the way in which the costs associated with maintaining my second home would be interpreted, as a result of which I was criticised.

“I have sought, therefore, to examine my two other main areas of expense claim – travel and office costs. Neither of these areas can reasonably be construed as conferring personal benefit on me and are incurred in pursuance of my duties.”

MPs need office staff to help deal with the huge amount of correspondence they receive each day from interest groups and constituents.

Mr Luff claimed £20,994 last year for the cost of running his two offices, placing him 176th out of the country’s 635 MPs.

He told your Worcester News his claims over the past four years have included £2,600 for redecorating the office in his Worcester home, £900 for replacing an exterior door, £428 for roof repairs and £243 spent on replacing a window.

He said: “It seems reasonable to me that a maintenance cost is something I would claim for – to claim for enhancements would be wrong.”

Mr Luff also claimed £1,300 for a new rug for his office in November 2007, which he said was “the only item I’m doubtful about”.

He said the rug replaced a carpet which had been damaged by a persistently leaky radiator.

He said: “Rather than put down another carpet, we opted for a rug that stops short of the skirting board and therefore the leak.

“This purchase should save the taxpayer money as it will not suffer water damage and should not need to be replaced for many years.

“Overall, the taxpayer has clearly benefited from these arrangements, as I have incurred no rental costs for office accommodation in over 17 years as an MP.”

He said the laptops – which cost £1,500, £659 and £600, and are in addition to the four PCs provided by Westminster – were needed for his office staff and for himself while on the move.

The printers – costing £1,595 each – were necessary due to the high volume of letters printed by his offices each day.

Mr Luff spends a further £83,194 on staff, employing two full-time workers – one being his wife, Julia – and one part-time.

This money also includes more than £5,000 a year he pays to the local Conser-vative Association for parliamentary work und-ertaken by their staff.

Mr Luff also spent about £5,000 on travel expenses.


Your Say Your Worcester

economist, Warndon says...
10:04am Wed 27 May 09

Come on Peter Luff time to hold a Public Meeting about ALL your expenses whether for 2nd homes, office, etc.

The public need and deserve an opportunity to express their anger, concerns, disappointment, disgust, etc. and have the opportunity to ask questions and ask Peter Luff to explain himself.

So, how about a public meeting whereby the electorate and general public (the people Peter Luff represents), not just Conservative Party members, can have a question and answwer session with Peter Luff about this scandal. Such a meeting ought to invite the local and national press and media - obviously including the Worcester News - to help ensure that the meeting is an open and honest affair (and that reporting of the meeting is accurate). Such a meeting should really have been called and arranged before now considering the extent and depth of the crisis.


No doubt, if a public meeting is arranged (can't think of any valid reasons why such a meeting shouldn't be arranged)the public will want to hear how all Peter Luff's claims were in the spirit of the rules of the 2nd Homes Allowance. So people will, no doubt, ask, Peter Luff to complete statements such as the following:

I would not have been able to carry out my work, and complete my duties, as an MP if I had not claimed taxpayers money to pay for a £600+ china set because .....


I would not have been able to carry out my work, and complete my duties, as an MP if I had not claimed taxpayers money to pay for a bed linen set (and a second one, and a third, and fourth, .... and a 10th set of bed linen) because .....

And I'm sure the public will have many other questions and comments to make.

A Public meeting is in the publics interests.

Logik, Worcester says...
10:32am Wed 27 May 09

" Mr Luff also claimed £1,300 for a new rug for his office in November 2007, which he said was “the only item I’m doubtful about”.
He said the rug replaced a carpet which had been damaged by a persistently leaky radiator.
He said: “Rather than put down another carpet, we opted for a rug that stops short of the skirting board and therefore the leak.
“This purchase should save the taxpayer money as it will not suffer water damage and should not need to be replaced for many years."

Here's a novel idea, how about fixing or even replacing the radiator - much much cheaper.
Some of these reasoning's and excuses are getting laughable.

Here is the test of reasonableness as far as I am concerned. Had you had to fund all this out of your own pocket, would you have bought the same items and would you have spent the same amount of money. If not then the cost to the taxpayer is unjustifiable.

skychip, Worcester says...
10:36am Wed 27 May 09

Do feel we need a public meeting as stated above to try and understand why all these things were needed - surely not 10 sets of bed linen - how many beds does he have in his accommodation? Let's hope he will come up with a date for meeting

jb, worcester says...
11:16am Wed 27 May 09

Having seen many MP's claim so much for repairs on property makes me wonder if they have ever heard of home insurance? We mortals have to make claims and pay premiums if we want to safeguard our property we can't just dip into a big pot and scooop handfuls of money out to suit ourselves. The more Mr Luff tries to explain the deeper the hole gets that he and many more keep digging with their mouths!

mack18, worcester says...
11:39am Wed 27 May 09

What salary was being paid to his wife and did she get one of the laptops I wonder?

BarryB, Worcester says...
12:01pm Wed 27 May 09

Well, we can expect the leading comment from "economist" because he has a "personal" axe to grind but how about this, Peter Luff has clearly got some questions to answer in order to satisfy many of the electorate but mack18 raises a different issue which I will answer. "Staffing" costs, from April 07 to March 08, our 3 local MPs incurred the following costs, Michael Foster £86,832, Peter Luff, £83,194, Sir Michael Spicer, £46,714.
Now, "office" costs comparisons for the same period.
Peter Luff £20,994, Michael Foster £16,921, Sir Michael Spicer £11,701.
Before we rip into the affections of any of our MPs we need to put the issue into context. Sir Michael Spicer was severely criticised some time ago and yet, if we look at the figures he is, by far our cheapest MP on the budget heads so far. Peter Luff exceeds Michael Foster on "office" costs but Michael Foster exceeds both Peter Luff and Sir Michael Spicer on "staffing" costs.
A number of claims in all our MPs overall costs are questionable. Sir Michael Spicer has indicated that he is to step down at the next election but both Michael Foster and Peter Luff - and I make no differentiation whatsoever, should step down or be sacked.
If Peter Luff is to be "grilled" in public, so should Michael Foster.

economist, Warndon says...
12:12pm Wed 27 May 09

So, in the article above, in which Peter Luff tries to justify the use of taxpayers money to run his offices - including a room in a WING of his Worcester home - it states:

Mr Luff claimed £20,994 last year for the cost of running his two offices, placing him 176th out of the country’s 635 MPs.

176th out of the country's 635 MPs!!! That means 459 MPs managed to run their offices more cheaply than Peter Luff!!!

That is 72% of MPs run their offices more cheaply than Peter Luff in terms of the taxpayers money that they use to do this.
And he thinks this will reassure the public???!!!!

Time for a Public Meeting Peter Luff.


I assume that the office is on the top floor and only the bit of roof above the office was paid for with taxpayers money?? The office isn't on the ground floor surely (do any journalists know which floor the office is on?)??? Just a question - you know, the type of thing people might ask at a Public Meeting.

economist, Warndon says...
12:23pm Wed 27 May 09

BarryB - just when are you going to get to grips with: 2 wrongs do not make a right. Your constant comparisons with other MPs that have also taken advantage of the expenses claims systems for MPs does not negate or reduce in any shape or form the actions taken by Peter Luff over the last 4 years.
As I have said previously you are not helping Peter Luff, quite the opposite in fact.

economist, Warndon says...
12:33pm Wed 27 May 09

BarryB - no I don't have a 'personal' axe to grind in relation to Peter Luff - I just pasionately believe that MPs should not take advantage of taxpayers money, until caught out. I passionately believe that the general public deserve MPs/representatives that they can feel confident about trusting.
If MPs, including Peter Luff, are allowed to get away with this scandal we can be sure that at some point in the future MPs will find ways of using systems and rules in order to access taxpayers money for their own personal benefit and gain.

Simple as that - time for a Public Meeting between the general public and Peter Luff (this article is about Peter Luff if you hadn't noticed).

robe.rtm.29 , fethiye turkey says...
12:33pm Wed 27 May 09

as far as i remember his is by perry wood a 2 story rambling place and his office on the bottom floor i would have decorated it for 4 hundred pounds and a tip

robe.rtm.29 , fethiye turkey says...
12:34pm Wed 27 May 09

as far as i remember his is by perry wood a 2 story rambling place and his office on the bottom floor i would have decorated it for 4 hundred pounds and a tip

economist, Warndon says...
4:11pm Wed 27 May 09

“Overall, the taxpayer has clearly benefited from these arrangements, as I have incurred no rental costs for office accommodation in over 17 years as an MP.”

And yet 72% of MPs manage to run their offices more cheaply than Peter Luff, so how exactly have we taxpayers benefitted?!!

economist, Warndon says...
4:15pm Wed 27 May 09

Mr Luff also claimed £1,300 for a new rug for his office in November 2007, which he said was “the only item I’m doubtful about”.

He said the rug replaced a carpet which had been damaged by a persistently leaky radiator.

He said: “Rather than put down another carpet, we opted for a rug that stops short of the skirting board and therefore the leak.

“This purchase should save the taxpayer money as it will not suffer water damage and should not need to be replaced for many years.

Peter Luff saved us the taxpayers money by spending £1300 of our money??!!! I suspect that most members of the public would have thought that the way to have saved us, the taxpayers, money would have been to do without a rug - there we are, an easy way to have saved us £1300.

Time to arrange that Public Meeting between Peter Luff and the general public.

molecat, worcester says...
5:51pm Wed 27 May 09

The point has been made time and time again over the last few weeks – many of our MPs were diddling their expenses – I think we know that by now! Although the amounts involved are considerably larger, this is no more dishonest than an average worker claiming for more miles than they have actually travelled – sadly if people think they can get away with something because the system allows it, then human nature means that many of them will put through items that should not be claimed for. I find the existence of such a system, and the fact that someone was signing off these expenses and writing cheques to these MPs, more shocking than what was actually claimed for.
This continuing witch hunt is immensely damaging to our political system. I’ve seen estimates that up to 300 MPs could leave or be deselected due to the expenses issue. If a business lost nearly 50% of its highly experienced staff it would go to the wall – if our political system goes the same way then we’re in real trouble. I’m no fan of Luff or Foster but I think like most MPs they are fairly honest. The expenses system clearly needs changing; there was obviously a culture in place at Westminster that allowed MPs to think this sort of thing was OK – the system will clearly now change; the idiots who thought claiming for houses for their pet ducks etc. are now paying back the money, and the culture has changed too. Businesses in the UK are haemorrhaging sums of money each day that make these amounts look like a child’s pocket money. Time to move on and concentrate on sorting out what really matters – THE ECONOMY!

WorcsPhil, Worcester says...
9:30pm Wed 27 May 09

Come on Worcester News, hire some real journalists in place of those sycophantic press-release copiers, please.

Obvious questions:

Is the office used solely for his parliamentary duties, or is it multi-purpose? Were the roof repairs directly over the office? Was the door to the office? Was the window in the office?

We're not told, and should have been. Bad reporting yet again, Worcester News.

Logik, Worcester says...
12:39am Thu 28 May 09

Sorry Molecat but the average worker caught diddling his expenses would have been sacked immediately for gross misconduct.

They have abused their position of trust and what's even worse is their failure to accept that they have done anything wrong. Ultimately though, at some point, the ballot box will be the judge and jury in these matters.

economist, Warndon says...
8:23am Thu 28 May 09

Good to see the Worcester News being cited in the Daily Telegraph today:

"A similar story is emerging in the Mid-Worcestershire constituency of the Tory MP Peter Luff after public revulsion at his spending on furnishings, including a £1,300 rug and £600 china set. Readers' messages posted on the website of Worcester News give a flavour of how his constituents feel. One said: "The public need an opportunity to express their anger, concerns, disappointment, disgust." Another demanded that Mr Luff should go before a public meeting to answer the following question: "I would not have been able to carry out my work as an MP if I had not claimed taxpayers' money to pay for a £600+ china set becausee_SLps"

helen donovan, Evesham says...
9:47am Thu 28 May 09

"of how his constituents feel" economist?

But you're NOT one, are you?





economist, Warndon says...
9:55am Thu 28 May 09

Helen Donovan there you again making wild assumptions and getting it totally and utterly wrong.

You also seem to be completely out of touch with the general publics views, anger and disgust and sense of betrayal.

Good luck in your attempts in persuading the general public and the national and local press and media that they have got it wrong.

Logik, Worcester says...
1:47pm Thu 28 May 09

helen donovan wrote:
"of how his constituents feel" economist?

But you're NOT one, are you?




A pretty cheap shot Helen, this seems so unlike you.

economist, Warndon says...
2:04pm Thu 28 May 09

Thanks Logik.

Helen Donovan - just to be clear - I am a constituent and would be more than happy to attend any Public Meeting.

Helen you do contradict yourself as does BarryB on this issue of being a constituent or not. You keep arguing on the one hand that I and everyone else should be talking about and criticising a range of MPs whenever passing comment about Peter Luff (presumably the other MPs that we ARE NOT constituents of) and then on the other hand are saying that I (and presumably everyone else) should only pass comment on the MP that I/we ARE A constituent of.

Like BarryB you don't understand 'balance', or what moot points are, and don't realise when you are contradicting yourself!!!!! Well done, well done indeed!

helen donovan, Evesham says...
2:31pm Thu 28 May 09

"Balance", economist, is all I am asking for.
As opposed to you copying and pasting with the same postings on many different threads against one single MP.




economist, Warndon says...
11:02am Fri 29 May 09

No Helen Donovan you are not simply asking for 'balance'. You have declared yourself as a keen supporter and admirer (as an MP)of Peter Luff. It is very telling that your attempts to protect Peter Luff have involved trying to employ 'distraction' tactics by trying to persuade the general public that '2 wrongs make a wrong less wrong, or possibly not wrong at all'. This is exactly what many MPs have done and have found that this pathetic and insulting attempt at trying to excuse their behaviour has simply poured petrol on the fire of anger felt by the public about the MPs misuse of taxpayers money to fund their extravagant lifestyles. And you have done this for Peter Luff - I'm sure he is very grateful. In addition your attempts to protect Peter Luff have then involved posting false information about me - and you still haven't provided a retraction.
Just like Peter Luff you have not been able to provide a convincing rationale for all his expense claims, nor how he has utlised the 2nd Homes and Office Allowances. It is very obvious from readers comments that people have not been convinced at all by Peter Luffs press releases - indeed peoples anger, suspicions and resentment has grown and grown.
You must be aware that your view is a tiny minority view - even BarryB has called for Peter Luff to resign several times.


I know many people, from work, the pub and other social environments, and people they know, are now asking why Peter Luff has not organised a Public Meeting (with the local and national press and media present)to let the public ask Peter Luff questions, and to let the public express and communicate directly to Peter their anger, disapointment, concerns and worries about this MAJOR crisis of confidence and trust in him as a representative of the people. Naturally people are questioning the reasons why he has not arranged such a meeting (and why not before now) - and the reasons that people are suggesting do not look good for Peter Luff.

helen donovan, Evesham says...
12:55pm Fri 29 May 09

What's the false information I've posted Economist?

economist, Warndon says...
1:28pm Fri 29 May 09

Helen Donovan you have claimed here and indeed on the Daily Telegraph website that I am not a constituent when in fact I am and have every right to have my democratic say about Peter Luff and indeed to attend a Public Meeting between Peter Luff and the general public about this scandal.
You have claimed that I am a resident of Warndon when in fact I am not. I look forward to your retraction Helen.

Obviously you did not need me to explain or spell this out for you - you are simply using clumsy 'distraction' techniques again and revealing that you are not mature enough to provide a retraction.


Your sayYour Worcester

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Worcester News account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.

DEFENCE: Peter Luff MP EXPENSES: Peter Luff MP

LOCAL ADVERTISERS

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »