SECOND
HOME
BACKGROUND
3. In its edition of 8 February 2009 the Mail
on Sunday reported that "Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
has claimed more than £116,000 in Commons expenses for a
'second home' while effectively lodging with her sister."[48]
Following that newspaper article, I received a number of complaints
against Ms Smith based solely on the information in that article.
4. Under the rules agreed by the House I am guided
in such circumstances by the view of the former Select Committee
on Members' Interests that it "would not normally regard
a complaint founded upon no more than a newspaper story or television
report as a substantiated allegation."[49]
Nevertheless, when I receive a complaint based solely on a
newspaper report, I consider the content of that report very carefully
to establish whether it provides sufficient evidence to justify
me making an inquiry of the Member. Following a close examination
of the article, I concluded that, while it provided a good deal
of information about the arrangements which Ms Smith had for her
stays in London and in her constituency, it did not provide sufficient
evidence that Ms Smith's claims for her constituency residence
were in breach of the rules of the House. The starting point in
determining this is that where the Member has more than one home,
their main home is normally where they spend more nights than
any other. The article, did not, in my judgement, constitute sufficient
evidence that Ms Smith's London residence was not her main home,
or that she did not spend more nights there than in Redditch.
It did not, therefore, provide a sufficient basis to institute
an inquiry.
5. Ms Smith's arrangements, and my decision,
continued to attract considerable media coverage. Assumptions
were made about the nature of Ms Smith's London accommodation.
Commentators did not accept that a Member should be able to claim
expenses for what they considered to be her main home, in Redditch.
The rules appeared to define a Member's main home in a way which
was not consistent with people's normal understanding of the term.
6. I received a letter of 16 February 2009 from
one of Ms Smith's neighbours in London which suggested that Ms
Smith did not meet the overnight requirement for identifying her
London residence as her main home.[50]
The evidence was based on the neighbour's own observations of
Ms Smith's pattern of residence at the property.
THE COMPLAINT
7. The letter of 16 February 2009 was from Ms
Smith's neighbour, Mrs Jessica Taplin. Mrs Taplin said that she
understood that under the rules, a Member's main residence was
where the Member "spends more nights than any other".
Mrs Taplin wrote:
"Since Ms Smith moved into the street last
April, it has been very clear to all living on the road that
she resides there for less than half the week. Like clockwork
she stays on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights whilst Parliament
is in session.
"Neither my husband or myself can remember
an occasion when there were police positioned outside the house
on a Sunday night or Monday morning
As there are always police
stationed outside the property when she is in residence, this
is a very clear and simple indicator."
8. Mrs Taplin went on to say that during the
summer and at Christmas, and at other times when Parliament was
in recess: "the policemen disappear altogether for months
and weeks respectively at a time."
9. Mrs Taplin said that:
"Having done the simple maths based on three
days a week minus at least a full month at summer and at least
two weeks' complete absence over the Christmas period - there
seems to me to be no confusion as to the simple truth of the matter.
Since moving into the property Ms Smith does not
as the guidance states is required 'spend more nights than any
other' at the address."
10. Mrs Taplin suggested that "a very
simple and open way" to investigate the matter would
be to look at the police log for the period from April 2008.
11. Mrs Taplin sent me a further letter of 16
February following up an interview with Ms Smith which she saw
on a BBC news website.[51]
Mrs Taplin quoted Ms Smith as saying that the place where the
Member spent the most time should be the place which they allocate
as their main home. Mrs Taplin said that Ms Smith was being misleading
since she and her husband had clearly stated that Ms Smith spent
three nights staying at the house in London for the majority of
weeks when Parliament was in session but was not present at the
address when Parliament was in recess. They did not refer to her
staying in London in general. Mrs Taplin added:
"She may very well spend most of her time
in Londonbut being 'in London' does not equate to spending
the majority of nights at the property she claims to be her primary
residence."
Mrs Taplin concluded that the core of the issue was
where Mrs Smith spent the majority of her nights and that impartial
evidence (i.e. police logs) should be provided to support her
claim.
12. Having considered Mrs Taplin's two letters,
I concluded that her evidence as a witness of Ms Smith's pattern
of overnight stays at her London residence was sufficient to justify
me inquiring into whether Ms Smith's expenses claims based on
her main home being in London amounted to a breach of the rules
of the House.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
OF CONDUCT AND RULES OF THE HOUSE
13. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
provides in paragraph 14 as follows:
"Members shall at all times ensure that their
use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided
from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules
laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed
by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities
and services."
14. The rules in relation to most of the years
for Ms Smith's claims for her overnight stays away from her main
home are set out in Section Three of the Green Book on parliamentary
salaries, allowances and pensions published in July 2006. Section
Three deals with the operation of the Additional Costs Allowance
(ACA). Section 3.1.1 sets out the scope of the allowance as follows:
"The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses
Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily
incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence
(referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing
Parliamentary duties. THIS
EXCLUDES EXPENSES
THAT HAVE
BEEN INCURRED
FOR PURELY
PERSONAL OR
POLITICAL PURPOSES."
15. In support of this Section, there are a number
of "frequently asked questions" for which one is as
follows:
"What can I claim? Only those additional
costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred to enable you
to stay overnight away from your only or main UK residence, either
in London or in the constituency. If you receive the London Supplement
you will not be eligible."
16. Section 3.2.1 sets out the eligibility requirements
as follows:
"YOU
CAN CLAIM
ACA IF:
a You have stayed overnight in the UK away from
your only or main home, and
b This was for the purpose of performing your
Parliamentary duties, and
c You have necessarily incurred additional costs
in so doing, and
d You represent a constituency in outer London
or outside London
"
17. The principles of the allowance are set out
in Section 3.3.1 as follows:
"You must ensure that arrangements for your
ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds
for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear
in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation,
goods or services funded from the allowances."
And in Section 3.3.2:
"You must avoid any arrangement which may
give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you
is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds
or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political
organisation."
18. Section 3.11.1 gives the definition of the
Member's main home as follows:
"MAIN
HOME
"When you enter Parliament we will ask you
to give the address of your main UK home on form ACA1 for the
purposes of ACA and travel entitlements. Members are expected
to locate their main homes in the UK. It is your responsibility
to tell us if your main home changes. This will remain your main
home unless you tell us otherwise.
"The location of your main home will normally
be a matter of fact. If you have more than one home, your main
home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than
any other. If there is any doubt about which is your main home,
please consult the Department of Finance and Administration."
19. Section 3.12.1 deals with changes to a Member's
living arrangements. It states:
"If you change the location of your main
or second home please let us know promptly, as it may affect your
ACA claim.
"
20. The bulk of the inquiries were to cover a
period of four years starting at the beginning of the financial
year 2005-06. The relevant Green Book for that early period until
July 2006 was the edition published in April 2005. That edition
contained similar provisions to those quoted from the July 2006
Green Book relating to the scope of the allowance (in Section
3.1.1); and relating to eligibility (in Section 3.2.1). It provided
in Section 3.9.1 the same definition of a main home as appeared
in Section 3.11.1 of the July 2006 Green Book. It did not include
the principles of the allowance set out in Section 3.3.1 and Section
3.3.2 of the 2006 Green Book.
21. The major change between the April 2005 Green
Book and its predecessor for June 2003 was that it omitted the
statement that Ministers were deemed to have their main home in
London.[52] The provision,
which was abolished in 2004, read as follows:
"If you are a Minister or office holder
then your main
home is deemed to be in London. Unless you are provided
with an official residence, you will receive London Supplement
with your salary, and you may be eligible to claim ACA in the
constituency."
22. The July 2006 version of the Green Book was
superseded by a new version on 1 April 2009 and further revised
in July 2009. These versions replaced the provisions of section
3.11.1 of the 2006 Green Book with a definition that required
the Member to determine where his or her main home was, based
on his or her circumstances. This complaint, however, relates
to Ms Smith's claims under the provisions of the Green Book of
July 2006 and earlier editions.
MY INQUIRIES
23. I wrote to Mrs Taplin on 17 February to let
her know that I had accepted her complaint. At the same time,
I wrote to Ms Smith.[53]
I noted that the essence of Mrs Taplin's complaint was that Ms
Smith's London residence was not her main home as defined by the
rules of the House and that she should not, therefore, have so
designated it for the purposes of her claims against the Additional
Costs Allowance. I asked Ms Smith to set out the arrangements
she had made for her accommodation in London and in Redditch;
why she considered her London accommodation to be one of her homes
and also why she considered it to be her main home; to explain
the nature of her accommodation in Redditch and why she considered
her Redditch accommodation was not her main home; and to set out
for each of the last three years to the best of her recollection
the number of nights she had spent in her London residence, in
her Redditch residence and elsewhere. I asked her to explain what
costs arising from her constituency residence she claimed from
parliamentary allowances and to set out the nature of the discussions
she had had with the House authorities about her arrangements.
24. Ms Smith responded on 24 February.[54]
Ms Smith said that, contrary to what the complainant had said
about not residing at her London property during the summer and
at Christmas and at other times when Parliament was in recess,
she had spent a "significant proportion of [her]
time at [her] London home" over the 2008 summer
recess and the 2008 Christmas holiday period.
25. Ms Smith noted that the complainant placed
"great store by the visibility of the police presence
outside [her] home to support her assertions".
While it would be inappropriate to give detail about the nature
of her protection, she had specifically asked the police to be
as unobtrusive as possible. Furthermore, given the unpredictable
nature of events that she dealt with as Home Secretary, there
was no set pattern to her arrangements, so the complainant's statement
that: "like clockwork she stays on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday nights whilst Parliament is in session" was
"just wrong".
26. Ms Smith said that she was confident that
she had abided by both the letter and the spirit of the guidance
laid down by Parliament for ACA claims. In 1997, after her election
to Parliament, she had rented a house in London with her sister.
She already owned a house in her constituency with her husband.
She realised that being a Member of Parliament would involve her
having two homesone in London and one in her constituencyand
being away from her young family. She therefore wanted her London
home "to be more than simply a bolt hole."
27. Ms Smith said that, in May 1998, she moved
into a different house in Redditch. Later in 1998 when she returned
to Parliament from having, in effect, taken maternity leave, she
moved in London to a flat on her own. Her sister had moved to
another job that meant she lived outside London so they could
not share. In October 2001, however, she moved to a house in London
which she again shared with her sister.
28. In May 2004, Ms Smith moved to her current
Redditch home, a four bedroom house bought for £295,000.
She had a joint mortgage on this property with her husband. In
April 2008, she moved in London to her current address where she
lived with her sister and her sister's partner. This was a three
bedroom house bought for £450,000. Her sister had a mortgage
on the house. Ms Smith was a guarantor of the mortgage. Newspaper
descriptions of her living arrangements in this house were mostly
wholly inaccurate. She did not "rent a room", she
shared the house. Ms Smith said that she paid a rent of £700
per month to her sister, on which her sister paid tax. In addition,
she contributed to other bills, such as utilities and cleaning.
She bought the TV licence. They ate together and Ms Smith contributed
about £150 a month towards food. She had bought fixtures,
fittings and furniture throughout the house. She recently paid
£1,000 as a share of having a new boiler. She had entertained
friends and other family members at the house. In particular,
they had chosen to have a third bedroom partly so that her children
could have a room to sleep in when they came up in school holidays
and for weekends. Ms Smith and her sister provided emotional support
for each other.
29. Ms Smith concluded that for all these reasons,
and most importantly because it was her base for most of the week,
she considered her London residence to be her main home in the
terms set out in the guidance for the Additional Costs Allowance.
30. Ms Smith stated that she had been appointed
as a Minister in July 1999. Up to February 2004, when the Fees
Office had circulated a letter, she understood that Ministers
had no choice over which of their homes to nominate as their main
home: it had to be their London home because it was assumed that
Ministers would spend the majority of their time in London. In
the judgements that she had made about the nomination of her main
home, this precedent seemed to her to be an important factor.
Ms Smith said it weighed strongly with her in the decision not
to change the designation of her main home after 2004, when the
rules changed to allow Ministers to nominate either their constituency
or their London home. Furthermore, by 2005 she was a senior Minister
and she entered the Cabinet in 2006. She believed that she would
be spending more time in London as a Cabinet Minister, as in fact
had been the case.
31. Ms Smith said that she was aware that some
people had argued that, as her children lived in Redditch, this
must be her main home. When she became a Minister, she and her
husband had considered whether to move their children to London.
Because of their children's circumstances, they took a "conscious
decision to split the main family home from [her] main
home".
32. Ms Smith also understood the need to seek
advice in cases of doubt. That was why her husband, on her behalf,
had made contact with the Department of Finance and Administration
in June 2007 to seek further advice. Ms Smith enclosed a copy
of the letter that she had then sent to follow up the phone call,
and a copy of the Department's response.[55]
33. Ms Smith said that, to identify where she
had spent her nights in each of the last three calendar years,
she had requested copies of her Ministerial diaries. She had compared
these with her constituency and personal diaries and "with
my recollection when the diaries are not clear or are incomplete"
and provided her best estimates.
34. In commenting on this information, Ms Smith
noted that she had undertaken more overnight and overseas ministerial
trips during 2008. It turned out that they had taken place on
nights that she would usually have been in London. She noted also
that "some of the discrepancy between the number of days
and nights spent in each location" was due to her being
able and prepared to travel to her Redditch home very late at
night and to set out from there very early in the morning in order
to conduct ministerial business.
35. Ms Smith said that as the Home Secretary
she needed to be prepared to respond quickly to events and to
spend extended periods of time in Londonas was the case
immediately after she took up post in 2007. At that point she
could not predict how many nights she would need to spend in London,
but it was a reasonable assumption for her to have made that she
would spend more nights in London. She noted that in total, according
to her calculations, in the three-year period 2006-08 she had
spent 462 nights in London and 435 nights in Redditch. Ms Smith
added that she was happy to provide further clarification or details
for each of the last three financial years.
36. Ms Smith said that in the last three years
she had claimed the following for her constituency residence from
parliamentary allowances: £22,110 in 2006-07 and £22,948
in 2007-08. She believed her claims in the financial year 2008-09
were at a slightly lower level.[56]
She had claimed in the categories of mortgage interest, utility
bills, council tax, telephone, servicing and maintenance, repairs
and cleaning.
37. In conclusion, Ms Smith noted that she had
been subject to incidents at both her addresses and that it was
very important that disclosures about her movements and security
arrangements did not facilitate further difficulties or concerns.
38. Ms Smith's letter to the Department of Finance
and Administration had been sent on 19 June 2007.[57]
She noted that since first becoming a Minister in 1999, she had
claimed her London home as her main residence as it was deemed
that Ministers had their main home in London as a matter of course.
She noted that in recent years, that rule had been relaxed with
Ministers now able to say that their main home was not in London.
Miss Smith noted that her ministerial duties continued to extend
her residence time in London. But she was concerned that she had
not formally clarified the designation of her main residence.
She noted that she had in particular asked the Department for
advice about whether the home where her family lived should automatically
be her main home. She said that the advice of the Department was
that this was not relevant. She asked for confirmation of this.
39. In conclusion, Ms Smith said that: "certainly,
whilst I remain a Minister (with the extra London and non-constituency
based duties this entails) it seems reasonable to continue to
deem my 'main home' as being in London
Please could you confirm
that this fulfils the conditions of the ACA."
40. A senior official in the Department of Finance
and Administration responded on 11 July.[58]
Having summarised Section 3.11.1 of the Green Book (see paragraph
18 above) he said: "I can confirm therefore that the location
of a Member's main home may not always be where their family reside.
I agree with your assertion that [it] is reasonable to
continue to claim the allowance against your constituency home
given [that] your ministerial responsibilities require
you to spend the majority of your time in Westminster."
41. Having considered Ms Smith's letter of 24
February with its enclosures, I wrote to her on 2 March about
four matters.[59] First,
I undertook to show Ms Smith in advance all the factual material
I would include in a memorandum to the Committee so that she could
comment on the security aspects of any disclosures in that material.
42. Secondly, I accepted her offer to let me
have the statistical information she provided on a financial year
basis, including the financial year 2008-09.
43. Thirdly, I asked for her permission to approach
the Metropolitan Police Service, and through them West Mercia
Constabulary to ask for information based on their logs. While
I did not need information in more detail than she had provided
to me, and would not wish to put her personal security at risk
in any way, I did think it would be helpful for me to have this
information.
44. Fourthly, I drew Ms Smith's attention to
the answer to the first of the frequently asked questions in Section
3.1.1 of the Green Book, that Members could claim "Only
those additional costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred
to enable [them] to stay overnight away from [their] only or main
UK residence
". I asked Ms Smith to let me know
whether she had considered her claims under the Additional Costs
Allowance against the criterion that her claims must only be for
those additional costs which enabled her to stay overnight in
her constituency, given that I took it from her letter that she
had owned a home in the area with her husband since before she
was elected to the House in 1997.
45. Ms Smith responded to my letter on 26 March
2009.[60] She set out
the information about the number of nights she had spent in London
and in Redditch in each of the last four financial years. Ms Smith
noted that, in terms of the figures for the financial year 2008-09,
had one more night per month been spent in London rather than
in Redditch, the balance would have been "more than reversed".
On the basis of these figures, therefore, she maintained that
she had made a wholly reasonable judgement that she would spend
more nights in London than at any other property. She had based
that judgement on the previous rule in place until the end of
2003-04 that assumed a Minister's main home would be in London;
her experience of previous financial years, in which she spent
more nights in London than in Redditch; and her expectation as
Home Secretary that she would need to be in London with no warning
and could therefore spend more rather than less time in her London
home.
46. On my question about the interpretation of
the requirement that claims had to be for the additional costs
of staying in her constituency, Ms Smith said that her interpretation
of this condition had always been that "the 'additional
element' related to additional costs involved in having to have
two homes in order to carry out both parliamentary and constituency
duties." She had never interpreted "additional"
as being about whether a particular home was added after election
to Parliament. When she was elected to Parliament, there was a
genuine need for an additional residence and the nomination for
which was to be her main residence only changed when she became
a Minister, in line with the rules of the time. The fact that
she had maintained a home in her constituencyin addition
to her home in Londonwas directly related to her role as
a Member of Parliament. Ms Smith said that if she was not an MP,
she would need only one home and she might have sold her Redditch
home to move elsewhere. She therefore believed that the costs
she had claimed for her Redditch home had been precisely to enable
her to stay overnight in her constituency.
47. Turning to my request for information from
the police, Ms Smith said I would wish to judge whether to approach
the Metropolitan Police Service, and through them, West Mercia
Constabulary along the lines I had proposed. Having no familiarity
with the type of records which might be held, however, she was
in no position to judge how accurate they might be. As I would
appreciate, accuracy in these matters was of paramount importance
to her. Ms Smith said that in her view the most accurate records
for her movements were her ministerial and personal diaries, supported
by her own personal recollection. She understood it would be an
unprecedented step to provide access to a Home Secretary's ministerial
diary but she would be "very happy to arrange an opportunity
for us to go through this and [her] other diaries for the
years in question."
48. Ms Smith said that she had considered carefully
my request for permission to approach the police. In view of the
important issues it raised for the relationship between protection
officers and the principals whom they protected, and in view of
the potential implications my request might have for others who
were covered by protection arrangements, she had sought advice
from the Home Office Permanent Secretary. She forwarded his letter
to her of 25 March,[61]
with a letter to him of the same date from the Director of the
Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office.[62]
49. In her letter, the Director noted that there
had been only one occasion she could recall when they had provided
an external body with access to a Minister's diary. However, she
could appreciate in this case how a ministerial diary could provide
an evidence base to establish the Home Secretary's movements.
She therefore agreed it should be provided to me for the purposes
of my investigation. The Director said that she was not aware
of any instances where police protection logs had been provided.
She thought the Permanent Secretary would be better placed than
she to comment on the impact of providing access on overall policy
on personal protection, but she would have thought it raised difficult
issues. Her preference, therefore, would be to rely on the Ministerial
diary in the first instance and to fall back on the protection
logs if at the end of the process, I felt further clarification
was needed.
50. The letter of 25 March to the Home Secretary
from the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office[63]
said that he agreed with the Director's advice.[64]
It would be an unusual andso far as he knewunprecedented
step for police records to be used in this way but, following
discussions with the Cabinet Office Director, he had agreed with
the Home Secretary that, in line with her wish to be as helpful
as possible to me, I could have access to the Home Secretary's
Home Office diary. While "they would no doubt require
some interpretation and commentary" they were, unlike
police records, an official account, prepared by civil servants,
of the Home Secretary's movements. The Permanent Secretary thought
they would provide the basis for verifying the Home Secretary's
stays in London, in Redditch, and elsewhere. But the Permanent
Secretary stressed that they would never normally make the diaries
accessible to anyone.
51. On the question of access to police records
for a similar purpose, the Permanent Secretary commented that
in terms of personal protection within government, the Home Office
did not normally "even confirm or deny whether individuals
receive protection" and they certainly never revealed
any details about the nature of that protection. The police were
responsible for the provision and operation of protection, and
it was entirely a matter for them what records they kept. The
Permanent Secretary did not know how full these records were or
what police resource might be involved in collating usable information.
He added that it would be a highly unusual step to reveal
any information relating to personal protection, even to the Parliamentary
Standards Commissioner. Personal protection was provided to protect
the individual. It was not designed to provide a record of an
individual's movements and private arrangements. He commented
"Many senior politicians accept protection as a necessary
consequence of the job they do, but dislike the intrusion into
their and their families' privacy which it necessarily involves.
If, in the future, they thought that it might be used to provide
personal information to a third party, I fear they may look at
protection in a completely different way."
52. The Permanent Secretary's overall view was:
"We would greatly prefer it, if all other avenues for
resolving this matter could be used before asking the police to
release their records."
53. Having considered Ms Smith's letter, the
letter from the Director of Propriety and Ethics in the Cabinet
Office, and the letter from the Permanent Secretary in the Home
Office, I wrote to Ms Smith on 30 March.[65]
I said I was mindful of both Ms Smith's own security and that
of others who might require police protection. I noted that both
Ms Smith's Permanent Secretary and the Cabinet Office had suggested
that access to police records should only be used as a last resort.
I thought it would be helpful, therefore, if I took up Ms Smith's
offer to go through her ministerial and other diaries. I said
that I suspected this could take a little time and that I would
be happy to discuss the logistics of this with anyone she designated
with the aim of ensuring that the work could be carried out as
quickly and securely as possible.
54. Following contacts with Ms Smith's Special
Adviser, Ms Smith, that Adviser, myself and a member of my staff
met on 1 and 3 April to go through Ms Smith's ministerial and
personal diaries to identify her overnight locations. I had a
further meeting with her Special Adviser on 6 April to conclude
the work on Ms Smith's diaries for March 2009. At that meeting,
Ms Smith's Special Adviser provided me with photographs which
Ms Smith had told me were taken at her London home on Christmas
Day 2008, and at a London location on Boxing Day 2008 and on the
House of Commons Terrace on New Year's Eve. Her Special Adviser
subsequently sent me on 21 April the digital properties file for
each of these photographs identifying the date and time they were
taken. Ms Smith's Special Adviser also provided me some information
about missing diary dates.
55. Having considered carefully the diary information
which I had collected, the degree of certainty which I considered
it was able to provide, and the advice Ms Smith had received from
the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office and from the Cabinet
Office, I decided that it would be helpful if I could also have
information from the police about Ms Smith's overnight stays.
This was because, despite our careful analysis of Ms Smith's diaries,
there were unavoidably a number of nights where it was necessary
to make a judgement because, theoretically, Ms Smith could have
travelled to Redditch between her last appointment in London on
one day and her first appointment there the following day, and
there were other days where the evidence was not sufficient to
form a wholly reliable judgement. These days were enough significantly
to affect the final figures.
56. I therefore wrote to Ms Smith on 22 April.[66]
I enclosed a summary of the overnight stays which we had identified
following our analysis of her diaries. I noted that the figures
were very close to the ones which she had sent me in her letter
of 26 March; that a comparatively small number of nights spent
in Redditch (or, in the final year, in London) would have a significant
effect on the overall figures; that a significant proportion of
the conclusions were based on a reasonable estimate of where Ms
Smith was likely to have spent the night; and that for a small
number of nights the diaries alone provided insufficient evidence
to make a wholly reliable judgement. For 2007-08 and 2008-09 the
number of nights for which there was insufficient diary evidence
could affect significantly the overall balance across the year.
In the light of this, I concluded that it was necessary for me
to ask the police whether they could reliably provide such information.
Whilst I noted that I would not describe it as a last resort,
this information was, I believed, necessary in view of the comparatively
narrow gap between the London and constituency locations in the
final two years, the proportion of nights which were necessarily
estimated from her diaries and the potential impact the most uncertain
nights would have on the overall figures.
57. Accordingly, I wrote to the Commissioner
of Police of the Metropolis on 22 April requesting his help in
identifying the number of nights Ms Smith had spent at her London
residence compared to the number of nights at her constituency
residence.[67] I noted
that Ms Smith had emphasised to me that accuracy in these matters
was of paramount importance to her. These figures would only be
of value to me if they could be produced with a high degree of
assurance as to their accuracy, and if they could be produced
within a reasonable timescale. Nor would I want to incur a disproportionate
use of police resources. I noted that I had consulted Ms Smith
to seek her agreement to my approaching the police for this information.
I summarised the advice that she had received from senior officials
and noted that Ms Smith had said that it was for me to judge whether
to approach the Metropolitan Police Service, and through them,
West Mercia Constabulary with this request.
58. I received on 30 April a response from an
Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police.[68]
She said that they had consulted the West Mercia police who shared
their views. She said that "the privacy versus security
concerns could cause principals, where risk decrees that they
need to be protected, to understandably reconsider their position
over concerns of a breach of privacy if material were to be released.
This could cause significant problems around future protection
arrangements." Regarding Freedom of Information, the
Assistant Commissioner said that the Metropolitan Police regularly
received requests asking for details of protection provided to
individuals, and their policy had been to use a "neither
confirm or deny" response. She was concerned that
supplying the details requested could "undermine that
position when considering future FOIA requests". Security
arrangements were a serious and ongoing concern.
59. On Data Protection, the Assistant Commissioner
said that she had been advised that the details of the whereabouts,
movements and timings of the Home Secretary amounted to 'personal
data' within the meaning of the Data Protection Act, and said
that "such information should only be released with the
express and clear written consent of the subject".
60. The Assistant Commissioner concluded that:
"Whilst I am keen to provide appropriate
assistance, having taken all these issues into account my view
is I am not in a position to release the information requested
upon the basis of considerations as they pertain at this time.
Should the position change, I would be content to reconsider that
view."
61. I responded to the Assistant Commissioner's
letter on 7 May.[69]
I noted that I would need to consider whether my request was so
central to my inquiry that I had to refer the matter to the Committee
on Standards and Privileges for it to consider whether to exercise
its power to ask for papers and records. But, before considering
this further, I asked if the Assistant Commissioner could give
me some further guidance on the reference in her letter to reconsidering
her view "should the position change". I asked
her to let me know what changed conditions she considered would
be necessary in order for her to reconsider her view. I asked
her also to let me know what reassurances from me might help to
meet her security and privacy concerns, given that I was asking
only for annualised returns, and assuming that the appropriate
level of consent was provided by the data subject (Ms Smith).
62. I received a response from the Assistant
Commissioner on 4 June.[70]
She said that, as she thought she had made clear in her letter
of 30 April,[71] the
main concern that the police had related to Data Protection. She
believed that it was a matter between me and Ms Jacqui Smith as
to whether she relinquished her right to privacy and whether I
would seek "her express consent" for the Metropolitan
Police Service (and the West Mercia police) to release the data
I had requested. The Assistant Commissioner said that:
"Data supplied in a summarised format would
not compromise our current position on the security of protected
persons."
63. Having considered the matter again, I continued
to believe that accurate data provided from police logs would
help my inquiry. Accordingly I wrote to Ms Smith on 8 June.[72]
I asked her to consider giving me her express consent to the Metropolitan
Police Service and the West Mercia Constabulary releasing to me
in a summarised format the information they held relating to her
overnight stays in London and Redditch between 28 June 2007 when
she became Home Secretary; and her police protection started and
31 March 2009.
64. Ms Smith responded with her letter of 15
June[73] giving me her
consent. She noted that she had not opposed me seeking this information
with respect to her specific circumstances. Her only stipulation
was that this information should be as accurate as that provided
from other sources. She was, therefore, content for me to receive
this information from the Metropolitan Police and the West Mercia
Constabulary "on the condition that they can supply me
with the night by night analysis that forms the basis of the summary."
She was writing to the Commissioner and the Chief Constable
to make this request.
65. Accordingly, I wrote to the Assistant Commissioner
on 18 June[74] to request
the release of this data on the basis of Ms Jacqui Smith's express
consent. I attached her letter of 15 June.[75]
I asked the Assistant Commissioner to let me know when she sent
me the information, whether there were any points she would wish
to make about the accuracy of the summaries the police had produced.
66. The Assistant Commissioner replied on 3 July.[76]
Her letter represented the position of both the Metropolitan Police
Service and the West Mercia Constabulary. The Assistant Commissioner
confirmed that she had received a letter dated 15 June from Ms
Smith providing her written consent to the provision of this data
to me. She said that her officers and West Mercia officers had
collated data for Ms Smith's London and Redditch residences. This
had then been checked for consistency with another data source.
Data had been collated by the relevant departments and checked
by independent officers. It was consistent with the other source
on all but two occasions.
67. The figures provided by the police suggested
that for the period from 28 June 2007 to 31 March 2008, the police
guarded Ms Smith for 101 (or 102) nights in London and 128 nights
in Redditch; and from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009, the police
guarded Ms Smith for 137 nights in London and 173 (or 174) nights
in Redditch.
68. The police figures differed significantly
from the diary estimates. For the period from 28 June 2007 to
31 March 2008, police figures suggested that Ms Smith had spent
26 more nights in her Redditch home than she had in her London
home, whereas her diary suggested that the difference was two
nights over the same period. For 2008-09, the police figures suggested
that Ms Smith had spent 37 more nights in Redditch than she had
in London, whereas her diary estimates suggested that the difference
was 9 nights.
69. I wrote to Ms Smith on 7 July, enclosing
a copy of the Assistant Commissioner's letter and drawing Ms Smith's
attention to the difference in the balance of her overnight stays
between her own diary estimates and the police information.[77]
I also indicated that I proposed to class one of the dates for
which the police had no firm records as an overnight stay in London,
and the other as an overnight stay in Redditch.
70. Ms Smith responded with her letter of 14
July.[78] She said "I
have now gone through again day by day my personal and Ministerial
diaries to check any discrepancies with the Metropolitan Police
summary." In her letter, she included a table which provided
in most cases strong circumstantial evidence from her diary records
of her location where it differed from the police records. I have
not included this information in the evidence, to protect Ms Smith's
privacy and that of her family. The references related to ministerial
and political engagements or personal commitments in other parts
of the country or abroad, which either placed her away from both
residences or which strongly suggested that she had spent the
night in London.
71. I considered carefully the analysis in Ms
Smith's letter. I replied to her on 21 July, suggesting that the
objective was to produce the best estimate we could of her overnight
stays and that I proposed to accept her analysis of her overnight
stays where the comments she had made substantiated the amendment
to the location which she proposed.[79]
But where she had not been able to provide such evidence, I thought
it right to accept the police analysis. I attached a revised schedule
as the best estimate of her pattern of overnight stays in each
of the years in question. I asked Ms Smith to confirm her agreement
to this analysis.
72. Ms Smith responded with her letter of 24
July.[80] She pointed
out that "The various exercises that we have now completed
have identified the difficulty of arriving at a fully accurate
record of where I spent every night over the last four years."
She added, "
I accept your recommendation that we
should now agree on a best estimate and I am willing to accept
your table as that estimate." The agreed table is as
follows:
RT HON JACQUI SMITH: SUMMARY OF OVERNIGHT STAYS
|
| London
| Redditch | Elsewhere
| Total for year | Difference between London and Redditch nights
|
1. 2005-06 (from 11 May)
| | | |
| |
Number of nights (diary estimate)
| 139 | 128
| 58 | 325
| 11 |
2. 2006-07
| | | |
| |
Number of nights (diary estimate)
| 151 | 131
| 83 | 365
| 20 |
3. 2007-08
| | | |
| |
a. Number of nights (diary estimate) up to and including 27 June
| 43 | 29
| | | 14
|
b. Number of nights (diary estimate and police figures) from 28 June
| 109 | 122
| | | -13
|
c. Number of nights (diary estimate and police figures)
| 152 | 151
| 63 | 366
| 1 |
4. 2008-09
| | | |
| |
Number of nights (diary estimate and police figures)
| 143 | 161
| 61 | 365
| -18 |
73. Obtaining the police information had taken
from 2 March, the date of my initial request to Ms Smith, until
3 July, the date of the Assistant Commissioner's letter with the
requested information. During the period when I was seeking and
analysing the information about Ms Smith's overnight stays, I
had made enquiries of a number of witnesses to see if I could
obtain some eyewitness evidence which could, once it had been
received, be used to reinforce the statistical data.
74. I wrote to the complainant, Mrs Taplin, on
22 April.[81] I noted
that I had been examining carefully documentary evidence to establish
the nights which Ms Smith had spent at her London residence, at
the residence in Redditch, and elsewhere. I noted that the number
of nights spent elsewhere would, of course, affect the overall
arithmetic. I asked whether, on reflection, the complainant had
any further evidence in addition to her letters to me of 16 February.
In particular, I said it would be helpful to know whether she
had any further evidence to suggest that Ms Smith did not spend
some Thursday nights at her London residence up to March 2009;
and any further evidence she had which suggested that she did
not spend some nights in her London residence during the summer
and over the Christmas and New Year of 2008-09, including Christmas
Day.
75. Mrs Taplin responded with her letter of 6
May.[82] She said that
she had no written diary or log of the police presence but noted
that normal police presence was from Monday mid-morning to Thursday
mid-morning and only when Parliament was sitting. She said that
this had increased since my inquiry had begun, with the police
now there more frequently, sometimes appearing on Sunday night
and sometimes being there until Friday rather than Thursday morning.
Referring to my specific reference to evidence suggesting that
Ms Smith did not spend some of her nights at her sister's house
in the summer and over Christmas and New Year, Mrs Taplin said
that she could "only say that during the summer recess
there is no regular police presence". At Christmas, she
and her husband had been abroad, "only returning on 3
January. From memory there was no police presence for a good week
or two after our return, only resuming when Parliament was sitting."
76. Mrs Taplin concluded: "I hope this
helps, but surely the police activity log provides evidence of
where Ms Smith actually spends the night?"
77. I also wrote on 22 April to Ms Smith's sister,
Ms Sara Smith, with whom Ms Smith stays in London.[83]
I set out Ms Smith's description of the arrangement for her accommodation
in London as described in her letter to me of 24 February. I asked
Ms Sara Smith to confirm her sister's description, to confirm
with any evidence she had to support it that most weeks, including
the parliamentary recess, Ms Smith stayed with her from Monday
to Wednesday, with some Thursday nights and a few part weekends.
Finally, I asked her to confirm that Ms Smith and her family had
spent the nights of 24-26 December inclusive and 31 December 2008
at their shared address, with any evidence she had to support
this.
78. Ms Sara Smith wrote on 30 April.[84]
She said that she and her sister shared a house, as they had done
for many of the years during which her sister had been a Member
of Parliament. She confirmed her sister's description of the way
they shared the accommodation. She also confirmed that her sister
spent "three, four, five or more nights a week here, depending
on where her duties as a Minister and constituency MP take her"
but she was not sure she could provide evidence for this "further
than my word".
79. Turning to the Christmas 2008 period, she
enclosed a photograph of Ms Jacqui Smith and her son in front
of a Christmas tree and evidence that it was taken in the early
morning of Christmas Day 2008. Ms Smith said that their next door
neighbour would be happy to confirm that Ms Jacqui Smith was at
the property for Christmas and the New Year, as the photograph
that Ms Jacqui Smith had shown me demonstrated.
80. Turning to the evidence which she believed
Mrs Taplin had given me, Ms Smith said that it implied that Mrs
Taplin or her husband had checked the outside of the Smiths' home
every night. This was "quite a commitment" as
they lived around thirty metres away "
on the same
side of the road and behind a fir tree". Ms Sara Smith
said that "The idea that weeks and months have gone by
when Jacqui has been away from Londonand away from our
home hereis not true." Ms Smith concluded her
letter with a number of comments on the way the media had reported
Mrs Taplin's allegations and the inquiries which she believed
newspapers were making about her (Ms Sara Smith). She suggested
that by giving her "facts" to a newspaper first,
her neighbour "may have encouraged a few people to have
made up their minds already".
81. I noted Ms Sara Smith's reference to possible
evidence from another neighbour. She kindly provided me with contact
details. I therefore wrote to that neighbour on 14 May.[85]
I asked him to confirm the report of Ms Jacqui Smith's presence
in the London property on 24 to 26 December and on 31 December.
I asked him also to comment on the evidence that Ms Smith had
stayed overnight in London from Monday to Wednesday, with some
Thursday nights and a few part weekends, including during the
parliamentary recesses, and more specifically, last summer.
82. The neighbour, Mr David Gordon, responded
on 30 May.[86] He said
that he could confirm the presence of Ms Jacqui Smith at the London
house over both the Christmas and New Year periods, 2008-09. He
had witnessed a number of family members present at that address
for several days during that time and "Ms Jacqui Smith
was one of that company". Mr Gordon said he was present
at his own address from 24 to 26 December inclusive and on 31
December 2008. Their houses overlooked one another to some degree
and so he had occasion to have sight of Ms Jacqui Smith during
these periods. He stated that police officers were on duty throughout
the Christmas and New Year periods which indicated the presence
of Ms Jacqui Smith there. With regard to Ms Smith's presence generally
at the London address, while he did not keep a record of events,
dates or days of the week, it was his firm impression that, on
balance, Ms Jacqui Smith was present there "at least 60%
of the time". It was more usual that she was there for
a significant part of the working week, although he had noticed
"occasional periods of extended presence, lasting a full
week or even, on occasion, consecutive weeks." There
had been several weekends when he had been aware of her presence
at the house, although this was less usual. He had no impression
of any significant change of pattern during the parliamentary
recess.
83. Turning to the summer of 2008, Mr Gordon
said that he could vouch for regular police attendance at the
house, which indicated Ms Jacqui Smith's presence. Occasionally
there was no indication of her presence at the house for about
a week, but "my observation and impression supports the
view that she was present there more often than not".
84. In summary, therefore, Mr Gordon said that
his "own observation and impression" would support
Ms Jacqui Smith's account which I had given him.
85. I wrote to the Director of Operations in
the Department of Resources on 22 April.[87]
I showed the Director the relevant correspondence and the table
of Ms Smith's overnight stays which I had drawn up in discussion
with her following my initial analysis of her diaries. I invited
the Director's help on the interpretation of Section Three of
the Green Book. I asked whether Section 3.1.1 of the rules, read
with the Frequently Asked Questions about the Additional
Costs Allowance, enabled the cost of accommodating a Members'
family in their second home to be met; whether the Department
considered that Ms Smith had more than one home within the terms
set out in the Green Book; whether he considered that it was open
to Ms Smith to identify her Redditch home as her main home, even
though she spent more nights in London, than in any other place,
given this part of the rule appeared to provide for exceptions.
I invited the Director's comments on the exchange of letters between
Ms Smith and the Department in June and July 2007[88]
and asked for any information the Director had from his records
about the conversation which Ms Smith reported in a letter of
19 June 2007 that the Fees Office had had with her husband.
86. The Director of Operations responded on 15
May.[89] He addressed
first my question about the interpretation of the 2006 Green Book,
and in particular whether the scope of the allowance extended
to costs attributable to family members. The Director said that
while the Green Book (3.14.1) said that living costs for anyone
other than the Member were not allowable, this had to be construed
against a general premise elsewhere in the Green Book that support
was available to Members in part to facilitate family life in
both London and the Member's constituency. He cited the example
of travel allowances providing for spouses and children and the
reference to a joint mortgage elsewhere in Section 3 of the Green
Book. The advice was: "In the day-to-day administration
of the ACA the Department has adopted a pragmatic approach such
that, for example, utility bills are generally paid in full and
not apportioned in respect of a spouse/partner in residence
our general approach is that costs exclusively or disproportionately
for family members are not allowable. So, I am satisfied that
the cost of Ms Smith accommodating her family in her second home
was acceptable under the rules."
87. In respect of whether the Department considered
that Ms Smith had more than one home within the terms set out
in the Green Book, the Director said that he had "no reason
to doubt that [
Road] is Ms Smith's residence
whilst in London." He noted that according to her letter
of 24 February Ms Smith paid rent, contributed to running costs
and bought fixtures and fittings and furniture.[90]
The Department could not verify any financial transactions
because they were not in themselves a subject of any claim against
parliamentary allowances: "Bearing in mind the demands
of being a Member of Parliament, I can only conclude that [
Road] is indeed a home in the terms set out in the Green
Book."
88. The Director then considered the question
as to whether it was open to Ms Smith to identify her Redditch
home as her main home, even though she spent more nights in
London than in any other place, given that the rules appeared
to provide for exceptions. He said, that "The simple
answer to this is that it was indeed open to Ms Smith to nominate
her constituency home as her main home if the overall facts justified
it." He noted that, at the time of the complaint, Departmental
records showed Ms Smith's main home as being at her previous address
in London. He said that they had received a "backdated nomination
form" for the current address in March 2009.
89. The Director said that "Advice on
the main home nomination was offered by the Department on at least
two relatively recent occasions when sought by Ms Smith."
The letter of 11 July 2007 from the Head of the Validation and
Enquiry and Advice Team[91]
did, he considered, "set out the position fairly. The
main home is not always where a Member's family resides because
this can be 'trumped' by the prime condition in the Green Book,
which is where one spends most nights. However, my office would
always advise that where a Member's family lives is a relevant
consideration. Such a fact is not of no consequence."
90. The Director noted that the Department's
letter followed telephone advice that Ms Smith's husband had received
from another member of staff on 18 June 2007. He attached the
electronic record of this advice.[92]
This recorded that the query was "Can you clarify the
rule about family members benefiting from ACA payments please?"
The advice is reported as: "Told her that she could not
claim any form of rent or mortgage to a family member for renting
said property."
91. In the meantime, I had received, unsolicited,
a letter of 7 May from Mr Ben Wallace, the Member for Lancaster
and Wyre.[93] He asked
me to take into account responses to a series of Freedom of Information
(FOI) requests to Redditch Borough Council. He noted that the
Council had confirmed that "full Council Tax has been
paid in respect of the property and that no claim was made for
either a second home discount or a single person discount."
He noted that Redditch Borough Council offered a reduction in
Council Tax liability of 25% if there was only one adult living
in the property as their main home, and a discount of 50% if no
one lived there. He concluded, "Given that the Home Secretary
has claimed the Additional Costs Allowance on the basis that her
main home is meant to be London, I believe this latest revelation
is worthy of further consideration by your office." He
attached the responses to the FOI request to his letter and, following
a request from me, subsequently sent me on 18 May the questions
which were submitted to Redditch Borough Council. Mr Wallace noted
that the request had been made in the name of another person.
92. I reviewed in early June the evidence I had
received from witnesses and the work which I was undertaking on
identifying the location of Ms Smith's overnight stays. I wrote
to Ms Smith on 18 June[94]
to let her know that, subject to the information I was then seeking
from the police, I proposed to proceed to an interview with her
before concluding my inquiry. In my letter of 21 July[95]
I confirmed the date of the interview, and that I proposed to
submit a memorandum to the Committee covering both this complaint
and the complaint about her media package claims (my inquiries
into which are described in the following section).
93. I met Ms Smith for our interview on 1 September.[96]
She reiterated that her letter of 24 February[97]
had summarised her arrangements for sharing accommodation in London
with her sister, and their history. She said, "The living
arrangements are that we have always just shared the house. One
of the things that makes me angry is the interpretation of how
we live. It is my home in London. There was a short period when
I had a flat, but I didn't like it and it didn't feel like home".
Decisions had been taken early on not to move the children
from Redditch to London and, "we actually had a conversation
when I said that I am going to spend more of my time in London.
We decided to separate the family home from my main home".
94. The London property, Ms Smith said, was a
three bedroom Victorian town house. She had one bedroom, her sister
and her partner another, and there was one for the children, although
they did not leave things there. It was also used twice a month
by another child. Ms Smith commented, "It is more than
visiting a sister or the children visiting an aunt. They wouldn't
have to ask permission or to be invited." The living
areas, kitchen and dining area were shared. She did not have a
separate study, and worked on the kitchen table, commenting "I
like people around me". She entertained in the house,
but not frequentlyevery couple of months, and her sister
and partner sometimes joined in. She said that the utility bills
were probably in her sister's namethe arrangements were
"slightly informal"and she did not contribute
to the council tax. She occasionally gave money on top of her
rent to get repairs done, and listed a range of fixtures, fittings
and furniture she had bought for the property. Her sister decided
on the decoration of all rooms except her bedroom, but she was
consulted.
95. Often at the weekends when she was in London,
Ms Smith said, the children visited, but this was not frequent,
and was happening less as the children had grown up. Her husband
visited more oftenonce a fortnight during the week. She
commented, "My children are based in Redditchmy
family is based in Redditch. What we explicitly did was to separate
my family life from my work life". She accepted that
this was difficult for people to understand, and for this reason
she had checked up with the Fees Office.
96. Ms Smith saw the key element of the use of
her London home as for her Ministerial business. In 1999, she
had become a Minister, and was thus required to claim London as
her main home until February 2004. In 2004, when Ministers' London
homes ceased automatically to be their main homes, she realised
that, as a Minister, most of her life was her work, and most of
her time she spent where her work was. She "decided that
something needed to qualitatively change to justify a change of
designation. I didn't think it likely that I would spend less
time in London. Nothing big enough had changed": London
was "my home for parliamentary/ministerial duties".
She accepted that she had failed in her responsibility to inform
the Department of Resources promptly of her move in London in
April 2008 and had breached the rule in that respect.
97. Ms Smith described her Redditch property
as a large detached four bedroom house. She confirmed the range
of items she had claimed against the Additional Costs Allowance,
but had not claimed for every month in every category. She did
not claim for food or subsistence, and commented "the
costs are greater than the maximum of the allowance. It is a matter
of choosing what to claim for when we reach the ceiling".
Her husband chose the furniture and decoration, but she was consulted.
It had never crossed her mind to apply for a council tax discount
on the grounds that she did not live in Redditch, "It
would be weird to take money from my constituents to make a saving
for the mass of taxpayers". She thought of herself as
living there. She accepted that quite a few of her constituents,
if they were aware of all the facts, would probably have said
that her main home was where her family was. She nonetheless maintained
that "if you are Home Secretary you do and should spend
most of your time in London. I was making claims on the basis
of my individual circumstances, not my family circumstances".
98. Ms Smith said that she had not at the time
counted up where she spent her nights, although when the rule
ceased to require Ministers to treat their London home as a main
home she had thought about her likely overnight stays there as
a London based Minister: "the most important thing from
1999 until June this year has been my Ministerial role and my
Ministerial work. The default position is that I am doing my Ministerial
work; that I am in London and working". She accepted
that, once she became Home Secretary, the availability of a car
had meant it became easier to get back to Redditch and that "when
I could, I travelled to Redditch to spend the night there".
However, she went on to say, "it seemed to me that you
needed a justification to change. If asked the question, would
I really have said that as Home Secretary I spent more time in
Redditch than in London?". She later commented "When
I became Home Secretary something qualitative would have to happen
to make me change the designation. Nothing did happen."
Ms Smith accepted that in 2008-09 she had spent more nights in
Redditch than in London, a process that had started earlier, but
maintained that she could not have known this in advance; she
had made her best judgement, looking forward, on where she expected
to stay.
99. As to the exchanges with the Fees Office
initiated by her husband's telephone conversation on 18 June 2007,
Ms Smith said that this had arisen from thoughts of moving house
in London. She had realised that she would be criticised for her
arrangements, and was trying to ensure that she stuck with the
rules. She wanted to carry on living with her sister, and the
most financial benefit to her would have been to share the London
mortgage with her, but she decided not to do this. While she would
not have been able to claim for rent if she had nominated her
sister's property as her second home, Ms Smith pointed out that
she could have claimed a range of other items which would in her
opinion have added up to much the same as she had claimed for
Redditch "I don't believe I would have claimed less the
other way round".
100. Ms Smith's overall conclusion was that, having
gone through the process, it would have been difficult to have
justified having her homes the other way round. She subsequently
told me that, while she was currently making no second-home claims
against the ACA, had Parliament not decided that Members should
not change their designation, she would now have done so and designated
Redditch as her main home under the 2009 rules, because she had
ceased to be Home Secretary. To the suggestion in oral evidence
that she had had discretion under the rules to nominate Redditch
as her main home and that, on a balanced analysis of the facts
it was her main home and should therefore have been identified
as her main home for ACA purposes, Ms Smith said this was "based
on a lack of understanding of the rules and a complete misunderstanding
of my living arrangements," and that had she nominated
Redditch, she would have been criticised as a "part time
Home Secretary". She had stuck by the spirit of the pre-2004
rules; tested them by checking with the Department; fulfilled
their objective requirements; and made a reasonable judgement
that prospectively she was likely to spend more nights in London
than in Redditch.
48 WE1 Back
49
Select Committee on Members' Interests, First Report, Session
1992-93, HC 383 Back
50
WE2 Back
51
WE3 Back
52
This change was also incorporated in an updated electronic July
2004 version of the 2003 Green Book. Back
53
WE 4 Back
54
WE 5 Back
55
WE 7 and 8 Back
56
Ms Smith's claim for 2008-09 was £19,182 (source: Department
of Resources) Back
57
WE 7 Back
58
WE 8 Back
59
WE 9 Back
60
WE 10 Back
61
WE 11 Back
62
WE 12 Back
63
WE 11 Back
64
WE 12 Back
65
WE 13 Back
66
WE 14 Back
67
WE 15 Back
68
WE 16 Back
69
WE 17 Back
70
WE 18 Back
71
WE 16 Back
72
WE 19 Back
73
WE 20 Back
74
WE 22 Back
75
WE 20 Back
76
WE 23 Back
77
WE 24 Back
78
WE 25 Back
79
WE 26 Back
80
WE 27 Back
81
WE 28 Back
82
WE 29 Back
83
WE 30 Back
84
WE 31 Back
85
WE 32 Back
86
WE 33 Back
87
WE 34 Back
88
WE 7 and 8 Back
89
WE 35 Back
90
WE 5 Back
91
WE 8 Back
92
WE 36 Back
93
WE 37 Back
94
WE 21 Back
95
WE 26 Back
96
WE 55 Back
97
WE 5 Back
|