The conclusions stated:
(A) WAS THE IDENTIFICATION OF THEIR MAIN HOME A SIMPLE MATTER OF FACT?
78. I do not believe that, given the particular circumstances of these two Members, the identification of their main home is a simple matter of fact. It is possible to imagine circumstances when that part of the rule clearly applies. If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that that Member's main home is in the constituency.This is clearly a finding of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and sets a precedent that should be followed unless there is very good reason.
79. In the case of Ms Cooper and Mr Balls, however, they maintain two properties sufficient for them to conduct their family life in both London and in Castleford. Which is their main home is not a simple or self-evident fact. It is necessary to examine their arrangements more closely in accordance with the remaining provisions in the rules which assist Members in defining their main home.
Jacqui Smith has engineered an ACA claim that goes against what the Parliamentary Commissioner of Standards has stated would “clearly seem a matter of fact”. Surely that is grounds alone for an investigation, at the very least?
50 comments:
Sadly probably won't happen. When I remember the tirade of relatively benign rubbish that helped taint The Tory brand, set against the disgrace of a Party Labour have become, I despair.
So we now need to know if the Family Smith can fit into the accommodation that the Dinner Lady is claiming as her main/family stye.
Keep digging and the spotlight on the sow.
Let's face it. Jacqui does not maintain a second home, she has NO on going costs, she lodges with her sister during the week and goes home to her husband and children for extended weekends when Parliament is sitting and lives with them full time when Parliament is not sitting, there IS NO SECOND HOME. End of story.
IT is a SCAM.
Oldrightie is right sadly.
Cash for Questions caused a HUGE rumpus, Cash for Amendments is largely being ignored in the MSM and the 2nd home Secretary expose is clearly just too boring to even comment on outside political blogs from what I can see.
I just find the whole thing so depressing and one-sided.
I shake my head at the appalling mess the country is in, from prison overcrowding to the ID scheme, and now that one of the most senior Cabinet members are clearly in breach of the rules it's not worth more than a cursory mention.
What on earth does Mr Cameron need to get Mr Brown and his gang on the ropes?? We're all drowning in sleazy evidence and still Labour has 28% of the vote - core or not.
I think you're flogging a dead horse here Iain.
There appears to be no mileage in trying to get the parliamentary authorities to look at it. If anything is to be done, I believe it has to be HMRC that does the dirty work.
Maybe if she would detail exactly what she spent the proceeds of the ACA claim on; I'm sure she didn't give it ALL to her sister.
Can't people realise nothing will happen. These rules are always subject to the caveat "except where a nulab minister is involved"
Oh do keep up Iain
HERE
By the way, I'm now on twitter.
What a load of crap that is. I've made two posts and some idiots have already started following me.
Ye Gods
Bread and Circuses all round
The sooner people realise that there is no democracy left in the UK and that the State is corrupt and malignant, the sooner we can have a proper riot/revolution.
Just Google
Elizabeth Filkin
Then you will see what happens to a Parliament regulator who actually regulates.
It is just sick making.
Or try this link
Hounding of a decent woman:
How can a spare room in her sisters house be considered a home?
Well???
No matter what the result, Smith has absolutely NO moral authority.
Michael Trend MP claimed he "believed that I could properly continue to designate London as 'home' for the purposes of ACA, even though, in domestic terms, Windsor had become my "main residence".
The Standards Committee ruled that "Mr Trend should have recognised that, by claiming ACA in relation to his Windsor home, the taxpayer was meeting some of the core running costs of what was in reality his main residence.
And how does this differ from the Home Secretary's defense of using ACA?
Lyon is bottling it. He's already refused two separate requests for investigation and is relying on being answerable to no one except Parliament.
A reasonable man would have at least asked for evidence and for time to examine that evidence. The very fact that his refusals have been instantaneous and without any explanation shows his complicity.
Any bets on how long it is before, in the finest NuLab tradition, he gets his peerage and can sit alongside Mandelson?
Thank you for your email of 10 February to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has asked me to reply.
The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is to consider complaints where the complainant has provided sufficient evidence to merit at least a preliminary inquiry into whether a particular Member of Parliament may have breached the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and the associated rules of the House. These rules under which the Commissioner operates include the Green Book on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions, the current edition of which was published in July 2006. It can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofCpsap.pdf. The Guide to the Rules under which he operates makes clear that he would not normally regard a complaint founded on no more than a newspaper story as a substantiated allegation. I attach a leaflet which explains his procedures in a little more detail.
The Commissioner has carefully considered the complaints he has received about Ms Jacqui Smith. He has concluded that they have not been supported by sufficient evidence that she may have broken the rules of the House in her claims for her living allowances. The Additional Costs Allowance reimburses Members for expenses incurred when staying away from their main residence. Where Members have more than one home, the rules provide that their main home will normally be the one where they spend more nights than any other. If there is any doubt, Members are asked to consult the House authorities. The Commissioner does not believe that he has been provided with sufficient evidence that Ms Smith may be in breach of these rules and he does not, therefore, propose to institute an inquiry.
Yours sincerely
Alda Barry
Registrar of Members' Interests
Completely contradicts his own ruling.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Mr John Lyon last year said: 'If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that Member's main home is in the constituency.'
And the Trend case is surely IDENTICAL?
In 2003 Michael Trend MP was found guilty of abusing the allowances system and ordered to repay £90,277. He was also suspended from parliament and stood down in disgrace at the following election.Trend claimed he "believed that I could properly continue to designate London as 'home' for the purposes of ACA, even though, in domestic terms, Windsor had become my "main residence"." It was not accepted. There was no doubt in the Standard's Committee's minds that there was no "real scope for doubt that the words "main residence" were intended to have other than their natural meaning."
The Parliamentary Standards Committee ruled that "Mr Trend should have recognised that, by claiming Additional Costs Allowance in relation to his Windsor home, the taxpayer was meeting some of the core running costs of what was in reality his main residence. He should have realised that this was wrong. Accordingly, we agree with the Commissioner that Mr Trend was negligent and has breached the Code of Conduct by making improper use of the Additional Costs Allowance and by failing strictly to observe the administrative rules relating to the Allowance."
The Penguin
@ Penguin
Not only is his ruling contradictory, but he also says that he will not investigate newspaper stories without other evidence. Who obtains and presents that? Surely his job is to investigate complaints - and he's received them in plenty. Or does he merely act as a judge in his own unanswerable Star Chamber, refusing to consider anything which is not presented to him on tablets of stone?
Is this an example of Parliamentary probity? I think it probably is.
If we lost the wonderful home secretary over this, we would be overrun with criminals and terrorists so quickly it would make your head spin. Come on, what's a few hundred thousand pounds to ensure Ms Smith's hand stays on the tiller and keeps us safe in bed at night.
Dear Alda Barry,
I confess to being absolutely amazed. Ms Smith has not refuted one word of the newspaper articles, now carried and referred to across the mainstream media, and most definitely bringing Parliament into disrepute.
So it is not that there is only an unsubstantiated allegation. If it were untrue Ms Smith would be seeking legal redress through the courts.
And in view of the facts as disclosed, and Mr Lyon’s own previous findings – viz : 'If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that Member's main home is in the constituency.' plus the precedent set in the exactly similar case of Michael Trend MP, there is an obvious case to investigate, and the Commissioner is in dereliction of his duty in ignoring it.
Of course, he may be fearful of his position, following the disgraceful treatment of Elizabeth Filkin, but as I understand it he cannot be considered for a further term, so I respectfully ask that he do his job?
Yours truly,
The Penguin
She will get away with it. They will all get away with it until such time as the rules of corporate governance and those of HMRC apply in full to the law makers.
Of course it won't happen because they will always find ways of wriggling additional tax free money from the taxpayer's diminishing coffers. It's what they do.
Estate agents are beginning to look quite respectable...
Jacqui smith does need further investigation.
Her constituency house is undoubtedly her main home and her ludicrous claim about her sisters house,surprisingly accepted by Commissioner Lyon, is only a vehicle to pocket more taxpayer cash.
However apart from this compliant official, there is as Simon Heffer describes, a "consensus of self-interest and cowardice" amongst our parliamentarians which causes them to remain silent.
To achieve further investigation will require courage from our MPs and that seems in short supply when the subject of expenses comes up.
Well done Iain! :o)
I see you found another angle on this story after all.
Great stuff....keep the attack up; it's being studiously ignored by the Guardian, where needling them about it and their so-called Comment is Free (which should be re-named - Comment is Anything BUT Free) has earned me the threat of expulsion from .....er?....Comment is Free?
:o)
I agree that this whole thing needs a proper investigation. It stinks to high heaven.
I am reminded of the Labour councillor in Hull who has a "glamour" photography "business" on the side. Dizzy Thinks originally posted the story. I picked it up from him. Then it emerged that he "lived" with his father in Hull, but his wife and children lived in a house in Beverley. They are not separated. When asked about this, the councillor claimed the house in Beverley is owned by his wife. If he lived outside of the area, it calls into question whether he can legitimately be a Hull City councillor!
Story here
I have difficulty with somebody being in two places at the same time (alibi in criminal law). Ms Smith appears to be in three places at the same time.
Some years back the Prison Service stopped the prison officers "perk" of claiming expenses for "staying" in hotels when they actually stayed at a mate's house and spent the money on beer.
This whole thing with Ms Smith appears to be giving herself a "pay rise" not authorised by the government or Parliament. She is "fiddling", and definitely a fat cat, whilst the rest of the world moans about the economic downturn, her standard of living is upwardly mobile.
Of course she should be investigated but that is not the society we live in. Remember it was only a few weeks ago that a phalanx of anti terrorist police raide the office and home of an opposition MP who was busy exposing the incompetence of the Second Home Secretary and today the police announced that they saw nothing at all shady in Labour Lords taking substantial sums from lobbyists to amend legislation.
On that scale Miss Piggy's snuffling in the trough is relatively insignificant.
Let us all despair together!
I can see why Cameron did not raise this at PMQs but surely he is not going to let it drop.
Surely not?
It makes him and the Tories complicit.
What we need is a committee made of non-Parliamentarians to sort out allowances. A High Court Judge, someone from the Revenue, some objective, decent people - which is why no parliamentarians.
What needs to be raised again and again is the question of security. The Home Secretary, properly installed in her grace-and-favour accommodation, might be expected to be secure from the attentions of the putative terrorists who, we are told, continue to pose a fundamental threat to the British way of life.
After the royal family and Prime Minister, the Home Secretary must surely be ranked as the prime target for Al Qaeda.
The fact that she chooses for venal gain to dwell, guarded by only a couple of coppers, in a perfectly ordinary attached house in a South London street, should suggest to anyone with half a brain that the terrorist threat has been vastly overstated.
We are being lied to.
Now we must ask the reason for this -- the reason for the introduction of ID cards, the proliferation of cameras, the increasingly restrictive legislation touching upon every aspect of our age-old liberties.
There is of course only one answer: it's ulterior, an excuse. It gives the government here, as in the U.S., a chance to construct the apparatus of a police state.
Speaking as someone devoid of political ambition, I cannot understand this. What sort of nutter wants complete control of the population?
But then again, what sort of nutter sets out in life to get himself elected to high office?
We finally have an MP with the balls to stand up to Smith ... only thing is, he's a Dutch MP!
Old Holborn
We are singing from the same song sheet my friend.
The internet needs many more of us brave individuals. Safety in numbers perhaps.
We are of course well past the point of utter despair. However worry not, the world will wake up soon enough. Hunger does for a while at least, concentrate the mind, even of the seemingly mindless.
Oliver Drew ... yes it is Wilders but being banned doesn't seem to be stopping him. He's stated that he's still coming but with a film and news crew ... should be interesting if he keeps his word. He doesn't seem afraid of Strupenfuhrer Smith.
Oliver Drew: "his presence would endanger public security".
I feel that there is a greater threat to public security than this Dutch MP might pose.
For example
Dear Mr Dale,
On the basis of what has been reported, there is a clear case to answer. The rules, whilst badly drafted, and perhaps deliberately obscure in their detail, are nevertheless crystal clear in their spirit and intent. The need for the reputation of a Home Secretary to be beyond reproach, and for her to be properly investigated is self-evident.
Your question; "Surely that is grounds alone for an investigation, at the very least?"- is one to which the only possible answer is yes.
Unfortunately, all of this is based on a number of totally incorrect and naive assumptions. Namely:
1)That we have a regulator who will fearlessly pursue the facts, establish the truth, come to an independent conclusion and recommend the severest penalties for the filthy, thieving bastards guilty of feathering their own rotten, carrion encrusted nests.
Sadly, we have only the obsequious toady Lyon. Not quite the same thing.
2)That the person at the head of government, the Prime Minister, is a person of the utmost personal honour and integrity, who understands his duty to uphold the bond of trust and confidence between politicians and the people, and will take immediate and decisive action against any politician, especially any minister, and in particular the HOME SECRETARY for Christ's sake, who offends against the rules of propriety.
To our everlasting shame, and likely damnation, we have Gordon Brown. Nuff said.
3)That we have a sufficient number of MPs who are not as bent as a three bob bit, who have some sense of their responsibilities to their constituents and the long-suffering, downtrodden, taken for f***ing granted taxpayer, as well as the dignity of Parliament, who will stand up and be counted and demand action to remove the stain of suspicion over all their heads.
Alas, at this point, I begin to lose the will to live, as utter despair sets in!
I think this passage pretty much disposes of the argument:
"The advice given in the Green Book says that, "If you have more that one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other". A quick analysis of the estimated time spent in each location (taking the days away out of the equation) shows that Mr Balls and Ms Cooper spent approximately 53% of their days and 47% of their nights in Yorkshire. This does not seem to me to be significantly at odds with the guidance.
The word normally in the above guidance allows for the possibility that a Member, or on this occasion Members, can put forward a case that will be at variance with the guidance."
That straw at which you were clutching just broke off. No evidence of Spelmanism here.
Here's a cheering thought.
When the Conservatives got in in '79, despite the economy being shite when they took over and the beeb harassing them from pillar to post 24/7, they stayed in for 18 years.
When nulab got in in '97, despite having a golden legacy in the economy and the full-hearted , across the board, unstinting support of the whole of the beeb from teaboy to director-general 24/7, they are going to be out next year after 13 years.
The great British public may be slow to react but they get it right eventually.
They know that this mess is all brown's fault and they are going to punish him.
Iain, Smith's position wouldn't stand up in any court. A judge woiuld just look at the customary meanings of main and second residences and decide that based on the fact that neither Smith nor her family are in the habit of remaining in London during parliamentary recesses, the London accomodation is not her primary residence.
If Smith can't see that plainly then she not fir either to propose and debate our legislation, nor to manage the people who are responsible for the operation of our legal system.
If she wants more money, she should go and work for a bank.
an ex apprentice
Love it and very well put.
Gordon Bennett.
My concern is that the British people will not get a chance to punish anyone.
I personally believe that there is a fair chance we have actually had our last general election.
The manner or excuse by which our democracy will be finally ditched in the English channel is yet to be witnessed. However I truly do suspect and have published evidence to prove my fears, that the establishment are not planning for further British general elections.
A government of national unity could be forced on us. This as a interim government to prepare for a European and World government.
At least this is what I believe the plan was or still is.
However there is many a slip between cup and lip, so a 2010 general election with a consequent Conservative Party whole continent-slide is still at least a 50-50 chance.
an ex apprentice
Love it and very well put.
Gordon Bennett.
My concern is that the British people will not get a chance to punish anyone.
I personally believe that there is a fair chance we have actually had our last general election.
The manner or excuse by which our democracy will be finally ditched in the English channel is yet to be witnessed. However I truly do suspect and have published evidence to prove my fears, that the establishment are not planning for further British general elections.
A government of national unity could be forced on us. This as a interim government to prepare for a European and World government.
At least this is what I believe the plan was or still is.
However there is many a slip between cup and lip, so a 2010 general election with a consequent Conservative Party whole continent-slide is still at least a 50-50 chance.
Jimmy said...
'I think this passage pretty much disposes of the argument:
"The advice given in the Green Book says that, "If you have more that one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other".'
That might hold water if both homes were big enough to accomodate your entire family. How many nights have Smith's husband and children stayed in her bedsit? I suspect the answer is none.
That's a recent gloss on the green book guidance. Of course if that is the rule now then she'll have to change the designation, but I'm still struggling to see the scandal. It's an exrecise in semantics. It's not like pretending your nanny was your secretary and getting her to lie about it.
A postscript to my earlier comment on Ms Smith:
"A Chinese court has sentenced the former chairman of a state-owned holding company overseeing 30 airports, including Beijing International, to death for bribery and embezzlement amounting to more than 100 million yuan, according to a report late Tuesday by the state-run Xinhua News Agency."
This is the sort of thing we need. A few summary examples pour encourager les autres.
Only in the bizarre parallel universe inhabited by the Labour party could your 'main home' be a bedroom in someone else's house when you also own a substantial house in another part of the country where you, your spouse and your children actually live and where, crucially, your children go to school.
The fact is that Jacqui Smith owns exactly one house. How therefore can she conceivably claim money for the costs of running a 'second home' she hasn't got?
That said, the government are now so far beyond shame and have been reduced to such desperate chancers that there is exactly zero prospect of its implementing its own regulations.
Why complain? I bet you my left kidney nothing will come of it.
This lot are corrupt beyond redemption.
the IRS brought down al capone so maybe HMRC will oblige in the case of m/s smith (or perhaps not!)
(1) They are (almost all) at it (hence little fuss);
(2) Parliamentary expenses are widely seen by less exalted MPs as a way of getting a pay rise without frightening the horses - ie they think they deserve a lot more than their official remuneration;
(3) The Home Sec seems to have stuck to the rules and the parliamentary officials have frequently confirmed as much to her.
As popular as your blog is Iain, I just wish that the honest, common sense, 'spade is a spade' commentary could be given wider coverage, beyond here and the local pub. Many clearly express opinions very widely held. These are particularly incisive:
Mr Mr: "Jacqui does not maintain a second home, she has NO on going costs, she lodges with her sister during the week and goes home to her husband and children for extended weekends when Parliament is sitting and lives with them full time when Parliament is not sitting, there IS NO SECOND HOME. End of story."
It couldn't be stated more clearly.
trevorsden: "No matter what the result, Smith has absolutely NO moral authority."
And the tragedy is that she and her colleagues cannot even see that.
Old Holborn: "The sooner people realise that there is no democracy left in the UK and that the State is corrupt and malignant, the sooner we can have a proper riot/revolution."
Very sadly I don't believe it is exaggeration to say that we are near such a moment. This incompetent rabble that calls itself a government has caused all politicians to be regarded with utter contempt by a rising number of people. Unfortunately your Mr. Cameron has neither said nor done much to reverse that trend.
@ Jimmy
"A quick analysis of the estimated time spent in each location (taking the days away out of the equation) shows that Mr Balls and Ms Cooper spent approximately 53% of their days and 47% of their nights in Yorkshire"
Your source, please?
Unsworth
The breakdown figures are given in the Standards Commission report (at 61)linked to in the main article.
I believe that teh Standards Commissioner will not conduct an enquiry now.
I had written to him, outlining many of the comparisons between Trend and Smith, as well as quoting his own findings on what would clearly be a main home in the Balls Cooper report.
Unfortunately I have received the same response as others - insufficient evidence.
Hopefully, once the expenses are published under the FOI act, there will be clear evidence of what has been spent by Ms Smith maintaining the family home, and this evidence will demonstrate that the amount claimed far exceeds the reasonable rent for a room at her sisters.
Anyone know how long Brown will dither in publishing the expense breakdown?
This case should be used as an example of why more regulation is not the answer. Regulations can be used as a cover for what is basically wrong or deceitful behaviour. We need oversight and responsibility to the spirit of the law in such cases.
I am quite certain that Jacqui Smith KNOWS she was on the make. PERIOD. She used the system to gain more money than common sense would suggest given her domestic arrangements. Her main home is in her constituency, not a room rented from her sister. That is plain. She is trying to get off on a technicality. This is bad enough for an MP, let alone a Cabinet member and especially HomeSec. That is even worse than the PM doing it in my view.
However, she is a Labour Front Bencher and thus incapable of understanding or caring about fault, error, responsibility, honour or truth.
AFAICT Her moral compass is made of straw. It was never magnetised in the first place.
At last Cameron speraks out.
Home Secretary's rented room home 'hard to believe'
"Why Jacqui Smith Should be Investigated "
The only two options that spring to mind are-
1. from a safe distance and armed with a cattle prod.
2. On a mortician's slab armed with a scalpel
wordver= farti
the smell emanating from Westminster?
Unsworth,
It's pasted from the link.
Jimmy is so entertaining. I used to wonder what the phrase "defend the indefensible" meant. Thanks to Jimmy I now understand. R56
It's my opinion that the Standards Commissioner is in dereliction of his duties. He has steadfastly refused to investigate. His job is to investigate, make judgements and report to the Committee.
I quote - from his web pages - part of his role:
"Receiving and investigating complaints about Members who are allegedly in breach of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, and reporting his findings to the Committee."
Allegations have been made, but the Commissioner has not investigated. Indeed he is quoted as saying that he will not investigate on the basis of a newspaper report. What is his position with regard to the complaints from private individuals, then? Who must complain to him before he bothers to carry out any investigation?
This Office of State is a ramshackle charade. It is time to disband it.
Iain,
Thank you + well done
Post a Comment