WHEN MP Ruth Kelly decided to bill the taxpayer for repairing flood damage at her house, many wondered why she did not claim on her insurance policy.

At first, when asked by The Bolton News, the member for Bolton West was unsure whether she had a policy covering her home in Horwich at the time.

Then she recalled she did have a policy — but told us she could not remember why she had never claimed for the damage.

Later still, the former Cabinet member was able to point out that the policy she at first did not think she had would probably not have paid out on her claim.

Finally, yesterday lunchtime, Ms Kelly was able to confirm that yes, she had had a policy, and no, she would not have been able to make a claim as it contained a specific clause which meant she would not be covered as she was not living in the house full-time.

The insurance confusion emerged after The Daily Telegraph published details of Ms Kelly’s second home allowance, detailing a list of designer furniture, electrical equipment and repair work she billed to the taxpayer after a pipe burst at her house in 2005 — Ms Kelly had previously refused to let The Bolton News see her expenses claims.

Ms Kelly hit out at the claims later that day and told The Bolton News she had only been reimbursed from the public purse for around half of the costs, after agreeing with the Fees Office that she would foot whatever part of the bill officials saw fit.

That prompted questions about why she had not claimed on an insurance policy.

Last night, Cllr John Walsh, leader of Bolton’s Conservative group, said: “It is a lame excuse.”