Downing Street reserves judgement in controversy over MP's office expenses

The controversy surrounding the expenses of the Trade minister Nigel Griffiths deepened yesterday after Downing Street failed to back him over allegations that he claimed £40,000 in rent allowance for an office he already owned.

The Tories called for the Edinburgh South MP to resign amid claims that he had failed to declare the £10,000 a year he has received from the Commons Fees Office to support his constituency office in Edinburgh since 1997, or his ownership of the office, part of which he sub-let to an MSP, Angus Mackay, for £4,000.

The Tories and the SNP have written to Elizabeth Filkin, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, to ask her to investigate the affair. Mr Griffiths, who pays the money he receives into a trust fund to help his autistic sister, stated yesterday that he was confident he would be cleared of any wrongdoing.

His friends said there was no suggestion he would resign. "This is not regarded as a hanging offence," a senior government source said. But the Prime Minister's official spokesman conspicuously refused to come to his defence and said that the facts of the case must be established before he could speak in any detail.

The Commons authorities could take at least a week to rule on whether Mr Griffiths has broken any rules.

The controversy has come after similar allegations that led Henry McLeish to resign as First Minister of Scotland.

Mr Griffiths, the minister responsible for small businesses, said in a short statement: "I have already written to the Fees Office on this matter and I am confident that the financial arrangements I have in place will be acceptable. I am seeking to get written confirmation of this as soon as possible."

Mr Blair's spokesman said that Mr Griffiths had asked the Fees Office and the Registrar of Interests for "clarification" as he faced "an unusual and complicated situation.

"It is entirely sensible and proper that it is approached in this way. This is for the Commons authorities to give their view on these arrangements. We are certainly not prejudicing anything. It is important that we deal with the facts and not perception," he said.