Phil Willis latest Lib Dem MP named by Telegraph

by Stephen Tall on May 20, 2009

We have a rather belated entrant into the pantheon of Lib Dem MPs accused by the Telegraph of having abused the expenses system: Harrogate and Knaresborough’s Phil Willis.

The full Telegraph story is here. Tracing the sequence from the newspaper’s (actually rather confusing) report, it appears Phil’s main residence is near Harrogate, and he bought a basement flat as his London base a decade ago (presumably when first elected). So far no story.

However, in April 2007, Phil bought the neighbouring basement flat for £215,000, and designated it as his second home, claiming some expenses for stamp duty, legal fees and refurbishment. His daughter is now the sole occupant in the previous flat. Both flats are registered jointly with his wife and daughter respectively – this was, Phil says, because he had suffered a stroke, and was concerned for his health.

The paper then comments, “This means public money has been spent on a flat now inhabited by the MP’s daughter, and on a property in which she has a joint interest. Rules state that members cannot claim for costs that benefit anyone other than themselves.” Here’s where the Telegraph slightly loses me, as this paragraph seems to imply that Phil spent public money on the former flat at a time when (they claim) only his daughter is living there – I can’t see the evidence for that in what the paper reports. As far as I can make out, Phil’s expenses claims on the original flat relate only to the period when it was registered as his second home for his use while he was in London.

Finally, the paper reports Phil’s response to the paper’s allegations:

Mr Willis on Tuesday night said his daughter had never been a “permanent resident” in the flat. … “At no time have I knowingly made claims that attempted to abuse the Additional Costs Allowance. I have publicly supported Nick Clegg’s campaign that any capital gain made as a direct result of taxpayers’ money should be returned to the fees office on sale of the property, which in my case, means for both flats 1 and 2.”

The Telegraph story has also been picked up the Daily Mail – who (quelle surprise) seem at least as fascinated by the fact that Phil’s daughter is an ex-model. The paper also cuts out Phil’s statement that any capital gains made on either flat will be returned to the taxpayer in accordance with Nick Clegg’s stated policy – I’m sure that’s just an accidental omission by a Mail sub-editor, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead its readers.

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:

No comments

“Phil’s expenses claims on the original flat relate only to the period when it was registered as his second home”

Agreed. But they were expenses that improved/serviced the capital worth of the property. Which she is now living in.

This actually indicates a limitation with the capital repayment solution proposed by Clegg. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card in this case because the taxpayer hasn’t realised the capital gain when they should have done (i.e. when he stopped using the flat). The taxpayer is having to wait while the daughter has the utility of the gain.

So in theory you could lodge family members in taxpayer-funded properties for life, and then belatedly offer back the gain to the taxpayer when they’d finished with them.

by Alix Mortimer on May 20, 2009 at 3:32 pm. Reply #

Although I see they also report: “the deeds for [his new flat] are held jointly between himself and his daughter”

I wonder if this indicates a similar part-private ownership arrangement as for Andrew George? I find it hard to believe the Fees Office would openly accept an arrangement of paying someone else’s share in a property when their name was actually on the title deeds.

Mind you I find it hard to believe a lot of what the Fees Office has accepted.

by Alix Mortimer on May 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm. Reply #

I wrote to Mr Willis several times earlier this year to ask for his stance on the issue of providing VIP travel, food, accomodation and lodging at my expense for the failed asylum seeker, (whose limited right to remain in the UK had expired) Binyam Mohammed -after all, it’s not like he’s an MP.

Mr Willis’ did not feel the need to reply to his constituent until the third communication at which point he declared himself perfectly happy for my taxes to be used to treat this ‘alleged’ victim (of his own misadventure).

I have reminded him of this exchange this morning as he does seem to continue to think that money grows on trees, rather than having to be hard earned.

Will he be taking just a state pension when he steps down, or has the gravy train still got quite a few more stops to call at for him?

I think we should be told.

by Patrick Milne on May 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm. Reply #

Funny coincidence that the two LibDem MPs so far under the spotlight regarding London properties both have daughters in the modelling profession. (The other being Andrew George)

by IanH on May 20, 2009 at 5:31 pm. Reply #

Rachel Willis was also briefly an actress in TV commercials and once on the big screen

Does she not run an agency now?

by Frank H Little on May 20, 2009 at 7:00 pm. Reply #

All within the rules, but in what way was owning two flats next to each other “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” required the performance of Parliamentary duties?

He now has two flats, both purchased and possibly improved with taxpayers money. Even if any capital gain is returned there is a considerable utility gain from the situation.

Stephen’s defence is basically a longer, more elegant version of that good old standby, “it was within the rules and the claims were approved by the fees office”.

by Hywel on May 21, 2009 at 12:46 am. Reply #


Binyam has a right to treated decently in his own country, which isn’t this one. He had no right to come here in the first place, was refused asylum, was given a short period to remain and left of his own volition to be a jihadi wannabe with the Taliban savages – during which time that limited right to stay expired.

I have seen no evidence against or convictions of people who are alleged to have mistreated him. I certainly didn’t.

Perhaps he could go and live at your house?

by Patrick Milne on May 21, 2009 at 11:50 am. Reply #

Stephen’s defence is basically a longer, more elegant version of that good old standby, “it was within the rules and the claims were approved by the fees office”.

I hadn’t thought of what I wrote as a defence, Hywel 🙂 – just trying to understand why the Telegraph was alleging Phil had broken rules given that this wasn’t backed up by the paper’s own story.

I think your “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” point’s a fair one – albeit at least partly answered by Phil’s volunteering to repay any capital gains on the flats.

What I don’t like is seeing newspapers sticking in a handful of facts and figures then making allegations unsupported by that evidence.

by Stephen Tall on May 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm. Reply #

“Perhaps he could go and live at your house?”

I just love the way people produce this as if it’s some kind of clincher and we’re all supposed to leap a mile in the air in horror and go “ew! a foreign person in my house? no thank yew!”

The answer is “Yes, in principle why not?” Under the current system I happily pay taxes so that he can live in someone else’s house at my expense. So give me back my taxes, pay for any necessary alterations to the spare room and I’ll put him up no problem.

by Alix Mortimer on May 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm. Reply #


You’re happy to pay tax so that any stray jihadi on earth, no matter how much they hate us, can live cost free in this country? Fine.

Do accept though, that we are not all as keen to bring people who hate us, and have absolutely no right to be here, into our homes.

Your cheap accusation of racism is way off target. (But then I think you knew that, didn’t you?)

by Patrick Milne on May 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm. Reply #

I’m going to sound hard core here. We can’t afford to lose any MPs’ – however Phil Willis should resign. There are no circumstances in which using taxpayers funds to purchase a second London flat can be seen to be acceptable!
If he will not resign, then I hope the local party de-selects him. There should not be room in the Lib Dems for MPs’ who maximise the expenses system for personal gain.

by Marc Bénier on May 21, 2009 at 3:03 pm. Reply #

Doesn’t this make rather a mockery of the pledge about returning capital gains?

Evidently Phil Willis sees this as being quite consistent with hanging on to the flat although he no longer needs it for his Parliamentary duties. On that basis, presumably he would feel equally justified in hanging on to it even if he stops being an MP? Apparently the pledge, as interpreted by Mr Willis, would allow him to continue benefitting from the property until the end of his days.

If the party is proposing this capital gains pledge be written into the rules, I hope it has something rather more watertight in mind.

by Anonymous1 on May 21, 2009 at 3:54 pm. Reply #

Marc Benier,

Phil Willis is retiring and will not stand next time.

Two flats, severance pay and a gold plated pension 10x that of the average pensioner.

Not a bad send off…..

by Patrick Milne on May 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm. Reply #

We can’t afford to lose any MPs’ – however Phil Willis should resign.

Phil was going to step down at the GE anyway, long before any of this came to light.

by burkesworks on May 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm. Reply #

I want to see a full statement by Phil on this one, as it’s very confusing.

He bought a cheap flat for his own use on first election.

Ten years later, he had a stroke, and his London-based daughter said she’d move in with/live next door to him in order to help him out and keep an eye on him. Which sounds completely fair to me as stroke victims are prone to have repeat attacks, etc.

Given the flat was too small for this, he bought the new place, completely legitimately and within the rules, and now only claims for the new place.

Someone, either he or his daughter, is now paying for the old place in place of the tax payer.

At some point, both flats will be sold as he’s retiring. At this point, the capital gains, etc will be paid back as per party rules. Selling the flat to his daughter may be difficult, etc as she might not be able to afford it now, and in the meantime the taxpayer is losing nothing.

In addition, he’s claiming below the maximum allowed, and significantly lower than other MPs, like Cameron, claim as a matter of course. And no single claim for costs is in any way illegitimate. The only fault is that his daughter is living somewhere for which partial costs were, in the past when he lived there, claimed by him. If he’d been renting, there would be no issue to answer whatsoever.

Is that an accurate summary or have I missed something?

by MatGB on May 21, 2009 at 7:23 pm. Reply #


You missed the fact that without the Daily Telegraph lifting the lid and the reaction of an outraged public, Mr Willis and the others would have quietly and happily trousered the capital gains advantage and we would be none the wiser……

by Patrick Milne on May 21, 2009 at 8:34 pm. Reply #

The first flat is in the name of himself and his wife. At any point in time the flat can be transferred wholly to his wife or his daughter without any charge and without breaking the LibDem rules. Once he has retired, he can stick 2 fingers up and not abide by any of these rules.

When he dies, his share of the flat automatically transfers to his spouse, who has no commitment to the LibDem rules, merely to Inheritance Tax law.

Same for the second flat.

Both of these were bought with taxpayers’ money in order that he could carry out his Parliamentary duties.

I would have seen no problem in selling the first flat to buy a larger one to accommodate his family visitng him, using the funds from the first as the deposit. But there are double standards here – he does not need constant help, he merely wants the reassurance of his daughter to be close by, when and if she is around.

It makes a mockery of the MPs who are vilified for claiming mortgage interest payments on houses that had no mortgage any longer. What they should have done was bought another property with the taxpayer’s money, and they would be perfectly okay!

This is so far off the spirit of the rules it’s a,mazing. This is not flipping, it’s tycooning.

by Irritated on May 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm. Reply #

Yes, I don’t think it’s enough to make a pledge that capital gains will be returned at some unspecified time in the future.

I think this needs to happen whenever a property stops being the designated second home, for whatever reason.

by Anonymous1 on May 22, 2009 at 2:04 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.