Afternoon:
14°c
Jowell used taxpayers' cash to pay local party
Joe Murphy and Paul Waugh18.06.09
Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell paid hundreds of pounds to her local Labour party from taxpayer funds.
Her expenses records reveal an invoice for the cost of sending letters to tens of thousands of constituents.
The document records that the Dulwich and West Norwood Labour Party was paid £786.14 in March 2008 "to cost incurred in the production of 55,000 letters for constituents".
There is no rule against using a political party on commercial terms and the payment was approved by the Commons fees office.
Ms Jowell, who is also Minister for London, made the payment from the Communications Allowance, which was introduced to give MPs a legitimate way to put public-relations spending on taxpayer-funded expenses.
She spent £5,405 from the allowance, including paying for advertising in local newspapers.
Several payments were made to Public Impact, a Reading-based design and communications firm run by former Labour Party staffers to provide a service for Labour MPs and councillors.
Ms Jowell paid the firm sums of £495.33, £134, and £434 last year for producing leaflets.
Public Impact specialises in producing material to be funded from the Communications Allowance, typically letters, calendars and cards.
It even supplies birthday cards for first-time voters designed to fit into slim postage-paid Commons envelopes.
Among other new revelations were that Mayor of London Boris Johnson was refused a £500 claim for Communications Allowance to pay internet expert Simon Stacpoole.
Mr Johnson, whose claims stemmed from his tenure as MP for Henley, also tried to use his Communications Allowance to claim for taxi bills.
Reader views (5)
What we would all like to know is just why Tessa Jowell is fireproof. Blair would have liked to get rid of her, Brown certainly would like to see her disappear.
More disasters than all the other "Ministers" put together. 24 hour drinking (connection with pub chain?). Gambling casinos in all major British cities (u-turn by Government)
Olympic finances (didn't know she had a mortgage!) Husband under cloud...conflict of interests...and it goes on and on....so what is the hold she has over the Government?
Perhaps it is time for a well known Paper to do a little background investigation.
- I.N.Kling, Cheltenham UK
Like all MPs, I use my communications allowance for precisely the purpose for which it is intended - to communicate with my constituents about local issues.
Last year, I used only around half of my permitted allowance.
I was able to limit this expenditure because my local Labour Party provided printing and freepost services for letters to my constituents at a cheaper rate than I would have been able to obtain commercially.
The Labour Party made no profit from providing these materials at cost price and in using them I saved taxpayers money. None of the letters referred to, or in any way promoted, the Labour Party.
Producing letters at a cost of 0.65p each is extremely good value for money.
Full details of my allowances and some explanatory information is available, and has been for the last month, on my website at www.tessajowell.net/my-allowances
22-06-09
- Tessa Jowell Mp, London, UK
Remind me, what was her husband arrested for???? Is there a trend????
- Jeremy E, Home Counties
She's as corrupt as the rest of them. We need a general election NOW!
- Mark, London
The letter also included a freepost reply envelope each of which would have costs 23p and a total over £12,000 had they been returned, however, she had a very poor response some 1,800 replies.
Elsewhere in her expenses:
She has a BT account in her own name "Mrs T J Jowell" and has claimed a proportion of the bills she pays by direct debit.
However since at least January 2004 we have also been paying BT bills for one "Ms S Jowell."
Who is Ms S Jowell and why are we paying her phone bills?
there's a BT bill for Ms S Jowell claimed by Tessa Jowell for £92.27 (£23.57 calls) dated 13th April 2004,
another for £85.78 (calls £18.33) dated 11th July 2004,
another £94.25 (calls £26.03) dated 11th October 2004,
another £75.34 (calls £8.33) dated 4th January 2005,
another £66.62 dated 4 April 2005,
another £68.42 (but only 25p on calls) dated 4th July 2005,
another £68.33 dated 3rd October 2005 (18p calls),
another £68.12 dated 3rd January 2006,
another £68.72 (51p calls) dated on 3rd April 2006,
a claim for a similar sum as telephone £73.20 in June 2006 but without a receipt,
another £68.12 dated 2nd October 2006,
another £70.33 dated 2 Jan 2007.
Looks odd.
- Bardirect, West Norwood
