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?