Lib Dem MP Ian Sollom accused of spending above limit on General Election campaign - but says it’s an admin error

A Liberal Democrat MP has been accused of spending above the allowed limit during his General Election campaign last year.

The office of Ian Sollom, the MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, has responded by claiming there was no over-spending and an administrative error was to blame.

Mr Sollom overcame the challenge from Conservative Anthony Browne – previously South Cambridgeshire MP – to win the new seat of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire last year, securing 36.91 per cent of the vote to Mr Browne’s 28.17 per cent.

But Electoral Commission data published last week suggests he spent £29,941.76 on his campaign, well above the allowed spending limit of £20,763.80 for the seat. The limit is set by the commission, which allows £11,390 per seat plus 12p multiplied by the number of voters – 78,115 in the case of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.

A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: “The candidate spend in this seat was under the spending limit. A minor administrative error when filling in the form means this was not correctly reflected in the published figures. We are now taking steps to get this rectified.”

A spokesperson for the commission told the Cambridge Independent: “Following our review of the General Election candidate returns, we shared information with relevant police forces where potential offences may have occurred. This information is for forces to consider, and we offer guidance and support as requested.

“Returns that contain inaccuracies or an overspend will not automatically be referred to the police. When sharing information with the police, we consider a number of factors and assess returns on a case-by-case basis.

“Because of the impact it could have on potential future enquiries, the commission does not comment on individual candidates or police referrals. The information is for the police to consider.

“The commission has limited powers with regard to candidate spending and donations, and does not regulate in this area. We publish information as it appears on a candidate’s return so that it is an accurate record of what was submitted to the returning officer.”

A Cambridgeshire Constabulary spokesperson told the Cambridge Independent: “Police have received three referrals from the Electoral Commission related to the General Election last year and are currently reviewing them before considering whether further investigation is required.”

The force would not confirm to whom these referrals related.

Electoral spending can cover areas such as the cost of advertising, leaflets, transport, staffing, administration and expenses.

All of Mr Sollom’s spending was recorded as donations, while none of Mr Browne’s was. Among those to have donated to Mr Sollom’s campaign was county council leader Cllr Lucy Nethsingha, who gave £6,750.

She came under the spotlight of Private Eye last year when it pointed out that her council register of interests suggested she had secured a job in Mr Sollom’s office, although this turned out not to be the case. The inclusion of the job on the register was blamed on an “error” caused because there had previously been discussions about Cllr Nethsingha working for him.

Meanwhile, Pippa Heylings, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Cambridgeshire, was investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for failing to register financial interests, and any other registrable benefits, within one month of being elected, as required by the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct.

She said: “I am fully committed to transparency and to the need to take all actions necessary to conscientiously uphold the Code of Conduct for MPs. Registration and declaration of interests is key to democratic accountability and to maintaining the trust of the public in MPs as public servants.

“I have acknowledged and apologised for being inadvertently late in declaring two of my interests for visits outside the UK to the global climate and nature summits, specifically related to my new role as spokesperson for energy security and net zero. The interests were fully declared and processes and measures have since been put in place to ensure all declarations are timely and that there is no repeat of this unintentional breach of the code.”

The commissioner concluded: “Both late registrations occurred due to administrative issues connected to the setting up of Ms Heylings’ Parliamentary and constituency offices, and because Ms Heylings had recently been appointed as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on energy security and net zero. Having considered the information available to me I was satisfied that the two breaches of Rule 5 could be fairly described as inadvertent.”