Alan Duncan has, once again, found himself in the spotlight of 'Expensegate' with this report in the Daily Telegraph.
To paraphrase, something is rotten in the state of Duncan, or so it would seem.
Duncan admits that he secured a mortgage on his main (London) home to purchase his second (constituency) home in 1992. Why secure the mortgage against his London home? Why not take the mortgage out, immediately, against his Rutland home? Why the reluctance to state how much he actually paid for the property in 1992 and whether this mortgage of £271,000 was more or less than the price paid in 1992? If this is this because the mortgage of £271,000 is more than the original purchase price, then Duncan is guilty of abusing the ACA system.
It was not until 2003 that MPs had to provide evidence of a home loan when claiming mortgage interest payments, so how much did Duncan claim 1992-2004? On the basis Duncan's spokesman (why a spokesman has to answer, heaven only knows - Duncan lost his voice has he?) said that London has always been Duncan's main home for tax and parliamentary purposes and that Rutland has always been his second home for tad and parliamentary purposes, presumably there was no ACA claim for the years 1992-2004? Yet the Telegraph report states:
"Mr Duncan is thought to have claimed mortgage interest for his Rutland property throughout the 1990s............."
As Duncan has 'outed' himself, should he not 'out' all his expenses and ACA claims since becoming a Member of Parliament?
Afterthought: No, Duncan old chap, we are not getting 'sick' of hearing about MPs financial 'arrangements'!
2 hours ago