Levitt denies rumours he is to be a paid adviser to Nestlé

Tom Levitt today published a press release on his website* about rumours he is to become a paid adviser to Nestlé after he stands down at the General Election.

This denial follows the publication of the following story in the latest edition of satirical magazine Private Eye last week:

Tom Levitt, Labour MP for High Peak, is standing down at the next election - no doubt to the relief of colleagues who were often bemused by his defence of Nestlé, the food giant frequently attacked for its baby milk marketing practices.

Levitt even went on a Nestlé-funded trip to South Africa, returning full of praise for his hosts and even quoting Nestle's own PR on his blog to refute activists' charges.

Announcing his decision not to stand for re-election, Levitt said: "I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment." How fortunate that one of the roles that will help the transition to his "new work environment" will be... as a paid adviser to Nestlé!

Levitt has responded as follows:

"Over the years I have been a guest of Nestlé at Wimbledon, at a cricket test match and on a visit to South Africa in 2008 to look at Corporate Social Responsibility, all properly recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Nestlé is the owner of Buxton Water, an important local employer and an iconic brand of the High Peak area. It is right for the MP to have close relations with important local companies.

"I have no firm plans yet for what I shall be doing in the work environment after the election - though I have some irons in the fire - but the post of "paid advisor to Nestlé" is news to me.

"I am not aware of any MP colleague who has been "bemused" in the way the story suggests. The "practices" to which the story refers took place 30 to 40 years ago and I now believe that Nestlé is amongst the most ethical of traders in this field."

Which sounds to us like a lovely little bit of PR for Nestlé. For further details and background of this story, please visit our new blog - Levitt Watch!

*when this link no longer works, you can view a screen grab here.

Levitt prays for the 'last word' on expenses

Tom Levitt has today published a press release* (which is usually regurgitated as his weekly column) entitled 'Expenses the final word?'. Unfortunately for him, it still leaves some questions about the exact position. We'll go through some of his words (in italics) with our observations (in bold).

Gone is the do-what-you-like atmosphere which allowed MPs, including myself, to claim for things which the public found unreasonable. Note the use of the the word 'public', Levitt seems to be suggesting it's not actually unreasonable, it's just that those who take the view that it is outnumber him in thinking so. How very like Tony Blair!

Let me be clear about my record: I was guided by the law, the rules of Parliament, professional advice and my conscience at all times. All of which were found wanting - they write the rules, they create the law and they want us to forgive them for taking full advantage of it.

The auditors under Sir Thomas Legg disallowed three claims that I had made:


- the inadvertent claiming of 12 months (instead of 10) Council Tax on my London flat for two years, £412 (revealed and paid back last May). This simply isn't true - Legg's report contains no mention of the Council Tax, that was spotted by this blog last June, Levitt only repaying it when the press picked up our story. This was the only money that had been repaid last Thursday.

- a piece of furniture, allowed in 2005 but deemed to have been extravagant in 2009, £389 (revealed last October). That piece of furniture was a sofa bed which had cost us £1599, and which Legg considered was too extravagant to the tune of £389. The £389 had not been repaid by Levitt up until last Thursday.

- a miscalculation of mortgage interest over five years (confirmed in last week’s Legg report) of net £390.95. Wrong again: the mortgage interest was for 2004, 2005 & 2006 (3 years), and the amount outstanding was £800.95 as of last Thursday (nothing repaid then).

All of these sums have now been paid back; nothing is outstanding. We'll have to take Tom's word for it, some proof would be nice given that he has such a poor record of repaying the money that is owed.

We must move quickly to put these issues behind us. But not until May eh, Tom? Not until you're eligible for your massive golden handshake?

Now it could be that Tom is about to get his wish: this may indeed be the last word about Tom Levitt's expenses, given the lack of info likely to be available in future. But there is the whole question of what it is that Levitt will get up to next. Will he go back to teaching? Will he spread the good word about charities? Will he become an ambassador for Nestlé, a company with which he has been huddling in the past (now there's a story in there somewhere...)? Or perhaps Gordon Brown will reward him for his sycophancy by making him a peer of the realm? Lord Buxton anyone?

If this is the end, then keep watching this blog. Depending upon what follows, something else may follow it. We'll be watching...

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

More confusion - exactly what has Levitt repaid?

Shortly after writing the last post, we turned our attention to another document released today on the parliament website. This is a list of exactly who has repaid what - Levitt appears on page 16 of this PDF.

Looking at the document you'll note that he has repaid £412, as today's Legg report made clear. But in the 'comments' column at the end, we learn what this is for:

Two months inadvertent over claim of Council Tax in two consecutive years.

Now you may remember that the issue of Levitt overclaiming £407.60 for his Council Tax was discovered and first brought to the attention of the world by this website last June.

So the questions that now flow from this are:

• Has Levitt repaid anything towards the sofa bed overpayment identified by Legg?
• If he has, then why hasn't it been accounted for by Legg?
• If he hasn't, what the hell is he playing at?

There really is no point in looking to us for the answers when all of the official information seems so hopelessly confused...

Levitt the debtor still owes £777.95

As everyone will know by now, today saw the publication of Sir Thomas Legg's report into MPs expenses. The report (which can be read here - this is a PDF file) mentions Tom Levitt on page 97, and tells us the following:

Mr Levitt was overpaid by a net total of £800.95 for mortgage interest between April 2004 and March 2006.

He was also paid £1,599 for a sofa bed in October 2004. This exceeded the nearest relevant guideline price of £1,210 by £389.

Total repayment recommended: £1,189.95

Total repayments received since 1 April 2009: £412.00

Balance recommended to be repaid: £777.95

Yes, you read that right - Levitt still has not repaid £777.95.

Now let's pay a little more attention to the implications of this news. Our initial post on this blog in May last year dealt with Levitt's first confession-like column, where he admitted to over-claiming for mortgage payments. At the time, following the intervention of the Telegraph a few days later, this figure was shown to be £6,000 and Levitt said he had paid it all back. But now we find out that 4 to 6 years later, £800.95 is still outstanding. May we also remind readers that the issue of overclaiming for mortgage payments is an ongoing issue for Levitt: buried in the files released last October is correspondence between the House of Commons Fees Office and Levitt where they point out he has over-claimed for his mortgage (and broken a previous agreement) to the tune of £1,428.98, which they then deducted from his future claims to ensure that it was repaid (page 66 of this PDF).

The sofa bed issue meanwhile, is one that we are familiar from October last year. Levitt loudly commented that he had repaid it in full, and he indeed seems to have paid £412, i.e. £23 more than requested. But then he still owes £777.95.

When he announced that he was standing down from Parliament in November, Levitt said with regard to expenses reform that "we need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn". But after all that has occurred, his sincerity is still an issue, hence the outstanding £777.95. Levitt this week gave the kiss of death to his successor as the Labour candidate at the next election, Caitlin Bisknell, by loudly trumpeting her success* and having his photo taken with her, shaking her hand. One starts to wonder who benefits from this - is there anyone left in the High Peak who would shake the hand of an out-and-out liar and fraudster like Levitt?

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Levitt - already breaking the new rules

Released alongside the expenses details for the year 2008-2009 were details for the first quarter of 2009-2010, under the renamed Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure allowance (PAAE).

This PDF contains the claim forms for April, May and June 2009, which were submitted on 23rd June 2009. In his weekly column two weeks earlier* (entitled 'Humility', without a trace of irony), Levitt had spoken of MPs "indulgences in an anarchic system of spending rules (sic)". Yet the PDF shows that Levitt had not grasped the now simplified expenses rules at all. The PAAE files contain a letter from the Fees Office reminding Levitt of said rules:

Effective from 20 May Members may now only use PAAE to claim rent, including ground rent, hotel accommodation, overnight subsistence, mortgage interest ... council tax, service charges, utility bills ..., insurance.

Therefore, we can no longer reimburse you for Broadband, garage rental and cleaning charges. Your claims have been reduced accordingly.

Levitt had overclaimed by £335. We'll remind Tom of his words in his column of 1st June** (entitled 'restoring trust in politics') - "Let me repeat that where the law has been broken or rules disobeyed then appropriate punishment should follow". In his column of 18th May 2009*** (entitled 'Statement on MPs' Expenses'), Tom made the following statement:

MPs generally are neither criminals nor fools; but we are all human and therefore fallible. Parliament has lost people’s trust and we need to win it back.

Levitt clearly felt so strongly about winning that trust back that just over a month later, he was submitting illegitimate claims. It must be his fallibility - after all, he's only human.

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab
**when this link no longer works, try this screen grab
***when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

'Hungry' Tom Levitt and the MPs trough

One of the more interesting aspects of the Additional Cost Allowance claim documents released the other week is some of the correspondence between Tom Levitt and the Fees office.

On page 27 of the PDF, Levitt asks for guidance from the Fees Office in relation to his claims for food. Levitt states that for the year 2006-2007, he used a formula he has devised himself of claiming £18 for each day the House of Commons was in session. However, Levitt has convinced himself that this is insufficient, and raised in to £25 per 'sitting day' from April of 2008. Noting that £30 per day has been 'mentioned', he is arguably keen to find out if he can claim even more.

In any case, Levitt claimed £3750 for food in the year 2008-2009. This equates to £72 per week over 52 weeks of the year, or £10 each day (never mind 'sitting days').

But what makes Levitt's figures even more scandalous is the fact that the Houses of Parliament has numerous cafes, bars and restaurants that are already subsidised by the taxpayer. In February 2008, the Daily Mail reported that MPs "can enjoy three-course meals plus coffee for as little as £10.55", with this subsidy amounting to £13,041 each day. Yes, you read that right: MPs can claim expenses to pay for their meals which are already subsidised by us in order to keep the cost down.

Pigs with their snouts in the trough indeed...

Levitt - Ready, Steady, Crook!

We thought we'd walk you through a pictorial selection of Tom Levitt's Additional Cost Allowance claims, specifically those relating to his kitchen. So here we go.

First up is a claim for a cooker hob, specifically a Neff T1323X0 Ceramic Hob in Black. Teresa bought this in June 2008, a bargain at £449, but such a costly item clearly needs a warranty, and Mrs Levitt decided to take out 5 year cover for this item at the cost of £49.

6 days later in July, Teresa ordered a sink, this time a Blanco Classic 6S. This item costs £350, and unlike the one in the picture it had a left hand sink.

No modern kitchen is complete without a microwave, and Teresa's conscience clearly dictated she economise with a Panasonic NNE255, a snip at £59.

The last items on this little spree were a Microplane Fine Grater (£18) and John Lewis' own Soft Grip General Purpose Scissors (£13.50).

In March this year, the Levitt's completely refurbished their kitchen. They spent £189 on a Baumatic BT6-3GL cooker hood.

Strangely, there are no claims for a cooker itself, but the list of items claimed to re-style their kitchen is very long (it can be found on page 86 on the PDF) and they charged the taxpayer £5820.

When you're considering all this, keep in mind that the Fees office considered that all of these items were costs "wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties", as Tom is always keen to point out.

Tom Levitt's Barclays Premier account

One interesting thing that's worth noting from the PDF containing Tom Levitt's expense claims are the copies of bank statements. Whilst most of the details have been redacted, it's not these that interest us anyway. The statements make it clear that Tom and his wife Teresa have a 'Premier' account with Barclays.

If you pop along to the Barclays website for this account, you have to meet one of the following criteria to obtain this type of account:

1. Have an income of £100,000+, or
2. Have an income of £60,000+ if you are less than 35 years old or hold a business relationship with Barclays, or
3. Have £50,000+ to save and invest

Number 2 is clearly ruled out on grounds of Levitt's age. We think that number 3 is the most likely criteria that Levitt has used to get this account - but who knows, perhaps he has other (undisclosed) interests which mean he earns more than £100,000 each year?

Levitt's claims: 2008-2009 ACA claims

We've now updated our spreadsheet of Tom Levitt's expenses claims to take into account the latest figures released for his 2008-2009 claims. The spreadsheet can be found online at this link.

Under the general headings, the official total claimed by Levitt for this period was £20,522.58. However, we have carefully gone through the PDF that contains the details of his claims and can only seem to reconcile the figure of £20,526.18, which is £3.60 more than the official total.

Therefore, using our figures, these are the amounts claimed by Levitt for the financial year 2008-2009 under the Additional Costs Allowance:

Mortgage - £5,952.22

Food - £3,750.00
Utilities - £847.63
Council Tax - £1,093.64
Telephone & Comms - £250.00
Cleaning - £703.00
Service/maintenance - £1,136.67
Repairs/Insurance/Security - £286.96

Below is a selection of 'other' items claimed during the same period:

Bedding - £82.08

Ceramic Hob, Sink Kit, Microwave - £938.50

TV Licence - £139.50

Kitchen utensils - £178.00

Garage rental - £414.00

Valance - £15.99

Low energy light bulbs - £23.97

Cooker hood - £189.00

Kitchen refurbishment - £5,820.00

Hair clippers - £24.99

The Buxton Advertiser slams Levitt over latest expenses revelations

The Buxton Advertiser were this week the only local newspaper to take up the issue of the latest revelations about Tom Levitt's 2008/2009 expenses claims. You may remember that the revelations last week came too late for the newspapers.

Journalist Michael Broomhead - who previously seemed to be letting Levitt off lightly regarding the Capital Gains Tax issue - has now laid into him, choosing to highlight his smaller claims for hair clippers (£24.99) and a wine glass (£21.50), and contrasting this with the hardship being suffered by many at this time of year.

Now just over a week ago, we did promise a fuller analysis. Suffice to say we're working on it, and will be back shortly...

Levitt- shop 'til you drop

It's that time of year again - yes, more revelations about expenses claims is breaking news today. And Tom Levitt has really done himself proud.

A fuller analysis of the revelations today will have to wait, but in the meantime, here are a few tidbits:

• Levitt claimed £938.50 for a ceramic hob, sink kit and other items from John Lewis in June 2008.

• Levitt claimed £24.99 for 'hair clippers' in July 2008, but his claim was refused by the fees office, as it was felt it was a "personal item and not a cost wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties"

• Levitt claimed £5820.00 in March 2009 to refurbish the Kitchen in his London flat. In a letter to the fees office, he explained the existing kitchen consisted of "1970s Kitchen storage units which need replacing. The goods have been obtained at a substantial discount", thank god...

You can view the claims and associated documents in this PDF. There'll be more news and analysis as we get it

Poetry corner - in memoriam, Tom Levitt MP*

So. Farewell

Then Tom Levitt.

So I think
You made
The
Right decision.

You were
Aware
That if Mr Kelly's proposals were implemented
You would not get a good
Payout.

So indeed
Probably time to get out!

E Jarvis Thribb (age 17 ½)

*we're very pleased that an avid reader of this blog sent in a pastiche of the well known Poetry Corner poems that regularly appear in Private Eye.

How much is Levitt's 'Golden Parachute'?

We thought we'd do some research about how much Tom Levitt is likely to cash in when he stands down at the next election.

Aside from a final salary pension scheme and lump sum payment (about which we have no details at present), there's the controversial so-called "golden parachute" payment (aka Resettlement Grant), which is officially paid to "assist with the costs of adjusting to non-parliamentary life".

It is calculated on the basis of the MP's age and length of service. So, by the time Levitt stands down next May, he will be 56, and will have served as an MP for 13 years. Using the ready-reckoner on this page (Table A), we can see that means he will qualify for a lump sum payment of 84% of his annual salary - based on the current MPs salary this will be £54,403. The first £30,000 of this is tax-free.

But that's not all. MPs are also entitled to a "winding up" allowance, which is supposed to pay for office costs and staff redundancy. Of course, this means that Tom will be able to make payments to the family members he has employed. This allowance can be up to £42,068. It is an aptly named allowance, but it is not a wind-up.

Don't believe Levitt's crocodile tears about this whole episode. The weakness of the local Labour Party in not moving to deselect him as an MP sooner means that he is laughing all the way to the bank. For the local newspapers that have chosen to regurgitate Levitt's press release for their 'exclusive story', this is the bit they are missing, deliberately in our view. The gravy train continues to roll on to the final destination.

Breaking news: Levitt to stand down at the next election

The Glossop Advertiser and Buxton Advertiser are reporting the news that Tom Levitt has issued a statement informing the world that he plans to stand down as an MP at the next General Election. The statement from his website* is below:

“I have informed the Labour Party that I shall not be a candidate at the next general election. After the current Parliament I would like to spend more time with my wife, our children and grandchildren. I would also like to do something different in the work environment. Between now and the election I will work as hard as ever, both to support my constituents and help secure a fourth term for Labour in government.

“The last six months have been torrid. Rightly, MPs have suffered collective as well as individual criticism for the scandalous mess of parliamentary allowances. Steps are now being taken to stop MPs deciding on our own expenses, pay and conditions ever again. This is the right thing to do. We need to demonstrate that a line has been drawn. New levels of transparency, compliance and enforcement can restore confidence in Parliament and the democratic system.

“I am proud to serve the people of High Peak in Parliament and I have done my best to be diligent on behalf of constituents. I have also been committed to legislation which, I believe, has improved life for ordinary people in High Peak and elsewhere. There is still much which needs to be done and I will continue to work for the people of High Peak until this Parliament is dissolved.

“I thank so many people in communities across High Peak for their support, indulgence and friendship over 20 years. This group extends beyond my natural political allies. My proudest memories will be the acquisition of the Devonshire Royal site for the University of Derby and the central role of High Peak in the pursuit of the historic right to roam.”

No doubt that because local Labour Party members were so miffed at being unable to deselect Levitt at the last meeting 2 weeks ago, that more and more pressure was piled upon him to step down. Without wanting to sound too boastful, the work of this blog has contributed to that, whereas the role of the local press in High Peak has been to give Levitt an easy time.

What is less than surprising is that Levitt has chosen to stay on in his well-paid and well-upholstered job for another few months rather than resign now, forcing a by-election. One can imagine that the local Labour Party want time to select and campaign for a new candidate, which is not surprising. But it also means that Levitt gets a very generous 'golden handshake', once more at our expense. We may be back with details of what that is likely to be in due course.

In the meantime, we're running a new poll - should Levitt stay until the election, or just go now?


*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Gunpowder, treason and plot

We feel it's highly appropriate to mark the end of a further burst of activity for this blog with a hat-tip to its inspiration: V for Vendetta. Whilst the graphic novel is far superior in political terms to the recent film adaptation, the finale is a timely reminder to all politicians how hated and despised they are, and how fragile is the membrane of consent that exists which allows them to do what they do to the rest of us.

With Tom Levitt seemingly safe until the next election, and with much of the Kelly Report's recommendations no doubt destined for fudge, we may well pop back with more news at some point over the next few months. Until then, enjoy the fireworks!

Kelly's Report is no surprise - and Levitt survives (for now)

Today was the official launch of the report by Sir Christopher Kelly into MPs' expenses. After the leaks last week, there are few surprises from what we already knew.

What has been clarified is that the changes will be phased in over the next five years. So they will only affect Tom (& Teresa) Levitt if Tom manages to retain his seat at the next election - something which we imagine not even he will be banking on (if you pardon the pun).

In addition, there is some clarity regarding capital gains tax. In future, any gains have to be refunded to the exchequer - so Levitt at last learns about that which he had sought clarification back in May in Parliament. Whatever profit Levitt has made through his 'legal tax dodge', he gets to keep.

Back in his constituency, we understand Levitt faced more anger and discontent at last Friday's Constituency Labour Party meeting. Despite the rising discontent, we understand that Labour Party rules do not allow the local Party to deselect Levitt as the candidate in the next election due to the proximity of the General Election.

Whether or not anyone in the local Party will campaign for him next year is another matter.

Sir Christopher Kelly takes the wheels off Levitt's gravy train

Details of the much awaited report into MPs expenses by Sir Christopher Kelly have started to emerge before it is published next week. And the revelations should give Tom Levitt cause for concern (that is if he seriously thinks he stands a chance of being re-elected). The recommendations so far revealed would affect Levitt as follows:

Second homes can only be rented in future, and not have the mortgage interest costs covered: as we know, Levitt has always claimed for his second home in Lambeth. Under the new proposals, if he remained an MP he'd have to sell that home within 4 years.

A ban on MPs employing family members: Levitt employs his wife, Teresa, as his 'Parliamentary Assistant' and also his stepdaughter, Victoria Fletcher, as a part-time junior secretary. If Mrs Levitt is as good at her job as Tom insists*, we wish her luck in her search for employment with another MP when Tom is dumped by voters in the High Peak next year.

One thing that won't change, according to the Telegraph, is the limited scope of the ongoing Legg inquiry in failing to examine the capital gains tax dodge that Levitt has taken advantage of. This is supposedly the doing of the new Speaker, John Bercow, who took advantage of the tax-dodge himself. Whether the Kelly report closes that loophole is another matter that should concern Levitt, as we pointed out last week.

In the meantime, there is a meeting of the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) this Friday (30th October), and we've no doubt that the capital gains tax issue will be on the agenda. Councillor Anthony McKeown, the secretary of the CLP and previously a Levitt loyalist, has already openly criticised Levitt over his behaviour regarding the Legg letter, which is presumably a bad omen for Levitt if not a move towards a Putsch. Will the CLP have the bottle to consider deselecting Levitt, as we have called for them to consider before, or do they wish to share his fate come the election next year? We'll see.

*when this link no longer works, try this screen grab

Levitt Caption competition

Just a little reminder about our caption competition. We didn't set a deadline, but to keep things fresh, let's just say we'll close it a week from now. Keep those captions coming in!

We think it's time we had a little competition here on this website. So given the recent revival of the MPs' expenses scandal (and the inversely proportional decline in Tom Levitt's fortunes), we think it's time the public took the piss out of Tom for a change.

Have a look at the photo opposite, and come up with a caption and/or a quote (in the style of Private Eye). The prize? Just that smug, warm feeling that you're an amusing smart-arse. To enter, you can either email us, or leave a comment on this post.

Levitt confesses to Capital Gains Tax-dodge

Tom Levitt has now publicly confessed to his 'legal' avoidance of capital gains tax:

When asked about the claims ... he confirmed that no tax was paid on the sale

Two local newspapers have decided to take up the exclusive story about Tom Levitt's tax affairs that was broken on this website last Sunday and continued on Monday. There are significant - and contradictory - differences between each story.

So let's start with the contradictions. In the Buxton Advertiser, Levitt is apparently quoted as saying that our allegation that he was able to avoid capital gains tax "is not true" whilst the article in the Glossop Advertiser reveals the quote to actually be a press release which lazy journalists in the Buxton paper - seemingly with a political axe to grind - have decided to 'cut and paste' to suit their story. Here's the same phrase appearing in the (much better) Advertiser story (emphasis added):

The innuendo and implication in the poisonous stories currently circulating is that I was involved in something underhand. This is not true and I resent this...

See how the meaning has been changed?

The Buxton Advertiser is also badly off-target with the main thrust of our blog articles. It mentions that Legg had given Levitt a clean bill of health regarding 'flipping' - but we never accused Levitt of that in the first place. We're not sure the journalist knows what he's talking about.

Ultimately, Levitt is in denial about the main issue before not only him, but his party. That is that he chose to conceal the "legal" capital gains tax-dodge despite concerns raised by those in his party when the expenses scandal broke. This issue is tackled by neither newspaper, and the main focus is on the 'Legg refund'..

What is worse for High Peak Labour Party is that, so far, they have failed to bring this issue to the attention of the public in an open way. Although Councillor Anthony McKeown has criticised Levitt's openness regarding the Legg letter, we know that he knew about the capital gains tax-dodge, but did not speak out about it. And clearly, the atmosphere in the local Labour Party is poor, or we would not have people contacting us with the information. This 'invisible' show of public unity with Levitt by local Councillors may be 'party discipline', but it also means that are busy lashing themselves to the mast of Levitt's sinking ship.

No doubt there'll be more to say about these issues in due course.

Levitt was worried about capital gains tax in May 2009

Our research has discovered that Tom Levitt asked questions about MPs' expenses and capital gains tax in the House of Commons in May of this year, just as the whole expenses issue was breaking out into the open.

You may remember this debate as being the one where the Speaker at the time, Michael Martin, was later heavily criticised for his behaviour, especially the way he dealt with Kaye Hoey MP and David Winnick MP. Earlier in the debate, the MP for Bassetlaw, John Mann, had sought to clarify whether an amendment he had proposed in an earlier session regarding MPs expenses and capital gains tax declarations would be valid (emphasis added):

On 3 July 2008, amendment (f), which I proposed, was agreed unanimously and without dissent by the House. It removed the ability of Members of the House to designate separate homes as main homes for capital gains tax purposes as opposed to main homes for expenses.

Later in the same session, Tom Levitt made his only contribution to the debate with the following (see the video above):

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), Mr. Speaker. Whatever the outcome of the discussions he has with the House of Commons Commission, is it your belief that any such change on the question of the nomination of homes could not be retrospective and therefore would not apply to any of the information currently in the public domain?

Now we wondered at the time exactly what the point of all this was. But because information has been given to us revealing that Levitt avoided capital gains tax, it all starts to add up. Levitt is clearly concerned that any changes in the rules which were retrospective would land him with a large bill, not to mention the embarrassment it would cause. What other reason would Levitt have for intervening in the debate in such a manner?