Thanks for your reply. As I understand it Lyons will be asking for your support on 24th October, I take it from your reply that you do not feel it is appropriate to give it, which is fair enough.
As for the expenses I listed, the internal union report makes it clear that these were not claims for ‘hospitality’ but were for ‘sustenance’. The total value of similar claims comes to £7,300 according to the union’s accountant's independent (sic) audit report. This Guardian article Union chief 'claimed expenses worth fifth of salary' indicates a figure of £14,000 a year
The same ‘independent’ audit report did not come to a similar view to yours about claims for; petrol whilst on holiday, claims for a radio and video recorder, and unauthorised loans totalling £6,000.
Please may I recommend that you acquaint yourself with the large amount of evidence on the web site in case you're asked for support and do not wish to abstain.
Thank you for your email.
Could I say first of all that I do not believe that it would be appropriate
for me to become involved in this matter. It is not the job of MSF
sponsored MPs to intervene in matters which can quite properly be dealt with
by the union’s executive, a number of whom as I understand are not
supporters of Roger Lyons. You ask my view of the “sanity” of Roger Lyons claiming for
the cost of drinks after meetings with MSF MPs. While I have not been the beneficiary
of this hospitality, as an individual member of MSF, I would suggest that
this is potentially good value for money to the union. The cost of a few
pounds (varying, you say, from £2.50 to £11.40) to continue talking to
Labour MPs about issues of concern to MSF members is probably well spent in
terms of making sure that MPs work effectively to get MSF’s message across
to Government. I note that the independent audit report came to a similar
Bill Rammell MP