Caroline Spelman is one of those politicians who you know is as straightforward as they can be. Michael Crick’s assertions on Newsnight last night are surprising for two reasons: firstly that he was allowed to, once again, make claims about someone not doing the work they were paid for with no more concrete evidence than a partial transcript of a conversation and a conviction that all Tories are crooks. But secondly, and more importantly, a cursory glance at Caroline’s expenses claims would show that she is manifestly not on the take.
She doesn’t claim the full second home allowance (tax-free, very lax receipts requirements, very few questions asked: Tony Blair managed to remortgage a house which cost him £30,000 for £300,000 when it was worth £150,000 – how does that work?)
She doesn’t claim the full staffing allowance (used by so many politicians to pay members of their family. Some of those family members do the work they are paid for. Some – obviously some Conways, some Chichesters, some Dovers – don’t).
She doesn’t over-claim for travel (Janet Anderson managed to drive the distance to Sydney and back twice in one year).
I don’t know but I suspect that it seemed an easy option to get the nanny to be her secretary while the children were at school. There would be no fuss at all (or would there?) if she had paid her constituency secretary to look after her children – the same situation in reverse.
The problem with this is that, as ever, the stupidly lax rules on expenses open MPs up to the appearance of mismanagement. Some clearly do push the rules to their fullest extent; most don’t. But the fact that they are not required to give receipts; that there are so many different allowances; that the Commons authorities won’t publish the full breakdown all contribute to the miasma of suspicion.
I haven’t been got at by CCHQ this morning – I don’t think they’re being robust enough on pushing this story back (despite George Osborne’s comments on the Today programme this morning). While individually this is so unlikely to be true, the overall narrative of politicians’ expenses is at breaking point. As I have argued before, MPs should be paid more. There should be fewer of them. There should be greater scrutiny of their claims, receipts must be provided, they shouldn’t be allowed to alternate their primary and secondary residences so they pay as little council and capital gains tax as possible. Basically they should live by the same rules as the rest of us.
I don’t agree with the argument that Parliament is above the law in its administration – if an MP murdered someone for political reasons or in carrying out his parliamentary duties, they wouldn’t be protected by parliamentary privilege and I don’t think that they should be encouraged to consider themselves above the law on this either.
No related posts.