A question of transparency

SIR – Thank you for publishing my letter regarding Grant Shapps and subsequent reply to my question about his incidental expenses claim for �23,118. Mr Shapps is wrong to say the total expense claim of �127,152 is the only figure we should be focusing on

SIR - Thank you for publishing my letter regarding Grant Shapps and subsequent reply to my question about his incidental expenses claim for �23,118.

Mr Shapps is wrong to say the total expense claim of �127,152 is the only figure we should be focusing on, far more important to the debate is how this sum is arrived at.

Is there any wonder there is such national uproar when the rules for claiming expenses are so muddled and confusing, the only people who seem know how to claim are the claimants.

How is it that when there are clear clauses to claim for stationary, computers and staffing under separate headings, (which he claims for), it sort of gets included under incidental expenses provisions?

The argument that he needs this amount of money because he works harder and needs to employ more staff, is nonsense.

His own party leader David Cameron claimed a mere �7,588 for IEP in the same period while his staffing costs totalled �103,633.

Mr Shapps claimed �23,118 for IEP with �80,756 for staffing.

I do not wish to suggest or to question the integrity, honesty or hard working nature of our local member of parliament, but you can't preach openness and transparency on the one hand whilst practicing the very thing which prevents it.

Chris Whitelegg,

WGC.