Boris deputy Ian Clement reprimanded over expenses claims

Boris's deputy for government and external relations Ian Clement has handed back his corporate credit card after it was discovered he'd used it for personal expenditure. Following inquiries by The Guardian, the mayor's office has issued the following statement:

The Deputy Mayor for External Relations Ian Clement has handed back his corporate credit card following an internal investigation into its use. The investigation established that there were items on the bills that were not related to GLA business. The card had been used on a limited number of occasions to purchase personal items. On every occasion the expenditure had been repaid at the earliest opportunity and it was firmly established that there was no personal gain on any occasion. Nevertheless, personal use of a corporate credit card is a breach of GLA regulations. Mr Clement has apologised to the Mayor and appropriate action has been taken."

The Mayor Boris Johnson said: "Openness, transparency and taxpayer value are at the heart of my administration. I take very seriously indeed any behaviour that could potentially raise questions about that firm commitment. Although Ian repaid the GLA as soon as the credit card statement was received, he should not have used it in this capacity and so appropriate action has been taken."

Clement is the former leader of Bexley Council and was a prominent and personable supporting figure around Boris during the election campaign. His former Labour opponents in Bexley will claim he's overstepped the mark on expenses before. Here's his current job description (pdf).

My information is that the corporate card was used for the purchase of groceries, meals and something relating to a car, and the the total sum involved was in the region of at least £1,300. Given the pledges Boris has made about transparency and taxpayer value - referred to in his statement - and the climate around MPs just now, it's no surprise he's felt obliged to discipline Clement. But is the punishment sufficient?

It isn't clear to me from Boris's statement if Clement's misuse of his corporate credit card was a mistake or a case of pushing his luck. Had he, perhaps, not known or understood that it is against the rules to use a corporate card to make purchases for personal use, even if his intention had always been to pay off those parts of the bill from his own pocket. Or has he been caught out trying to get away with breaking or bending the rules about legitimate expenses and only coughed up as a result?

Either way, should he still be in his job? Some MPs are on their bikes for making expenses claims that were apparently within the rules that applied to them, yet it seems that whether by accident or design Clement broke the rules applying to him. If the internal investigation found that he did so knowingly, I'd say he's got off lightly, even if that "appropriate action" comprised something more than a telling off and losing his card. And if it was a careless or innocent mistake? In that case, perhaps the punishment is fair, though it's maybe worth noting that - though the comparison is imperfect - Boris isn't in the strongest position just now to punish people for making those.