Labour MP Marsha de Cordova is facing a formal investigation by Parliament's expenses watchdog over controversial claims for taxi journeys, the Daily Mail can reveal.
The Member of Parliament for Battersea, who is registered blind, is being probed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) regarding whether certain taxi trips were properly declared as parliamentary business.
The investigation centres on allegations that the disabled MP may have used taxpayer-funded transport for personal purposes without proper declaration.
Watchdog Scrutiny Intensifies
IPSA has confirmed it is examining "a number of claims" made by the shadow minister following concerns raised about the nature of the journeys. The watchdog has requested detailed documentation and evidence regarding the disputed taxi expenses.
Sources close to the investigation suggest the probe has been ongoing for several weeks, with officials examining patterns of travel and corresponding parliamentary business records.
MP's Office Responds
A spokesperson for Marsha de Cordova stated: "Marsha has always complied with IPSA rules and guidelines. She maintains that all claims were made in accordance with parliamentary requirements and is cooperating fully with the inquiry."
The MP's team emphasised that her visual impairment necessitates use of accessible transport options for parliamentary duties, but insisted all claims were properly documented and justified.
Previous Expenses Controversy
This isn't the first time the Battersea MP's expenses have drawn attention. In recent years, several MPs have faced scrutiny over transport claims, particularly regarding the distinction between parliamentary and personal travel.
IPSA, established in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal, maintains strict guidelines on transport claims, requiring MPs to clearly demonstrate how journeys relate to parliamentary duties.
The outcome of the investigation could range from full clearance to repayment demands or, in serious cases, referral to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Political opponents have called for complete transparency, with Conservative MPs suggesting this case highlights ongoing concerns about expenses oversight. Meanwhile, disability advocates warn against conflating legitimate accessibility needs with improper claims.
The investigation continues as IPSA examines the evidence, with no timeline yet given for its conclusion.
