5. LETTER
TO THE
COMMISSIONER FROM
RT HON
JACQUI SMITH
MP, 24 FEBRUARY
2009
Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2009 in
which you ask for my response to a complaint received from Mrs
Jessica Taplin dated 16 February and to respond to a series of
questions.
Thank you for enclosing a copy of Mrs Taplin's two
letters. I hope it will be helpful for you if I address the elements
of Mrs Taplin's letter—and her interview reported in the
Mail on Sunday which predated her complaint—which
are clearly incorrect.
Mrs Taplin states that "During
the summer and at Christmas, and other times Parliament are in
recess the policemen disappear altogether for months and weeks
respectively at a time, again a very simple indication of her
not residing at the property."
I can state that over the 2008 summer recess and
the 2008 Christmas holiday period I spent a significant proportion
of my time at my London home.
Mrs Taplin places great store by the visibility of
the police presence outside my home to support her assertions.
Whilst it is clearly inappropriate to give detail about the nature
of my protection, I am happy to discuss these arrangements with
you in greater depth if you require. It may be helpful if I make
clear that
- I have specifically asked the
Metropolitan Police to be as unobtrusive as possible to minimise
disruption to my neighbours. [ … ]
- [ … ]
- [ … ]
Mrs Taplin states that "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."
- As I point out above, it would
not be clear on the basis of a visible police presence alone whether
I was resident at my London home. Furthermore, given the unpredictable
nature of events that I deal with as Home Secretary, there is
no set pattern to my arrangements.
However, I am confident that I have abided by both
the letter and the spirit of the guidance laid down by Parliament
for the claiming of ACA. To respond specifically to the points
that you have asked me to cover:
- set out the arrangements
you have made for your accommodation in London, and in your constituency,
including any changes to those arrangements in the last seven
years;
- explain the nature of this
accommodation in London; why you consider it to be one of your
homes; and also why you consider it to be your main home;
- explain the nature of your
accommodation in your constituency and why you consider it not
to be your main home.
In 1997 after my election to Parliament, I rented
a house in London with my sister Sara. I already owned a home
in my constituency with my husband. I made this decision as I
realised that being an MP would involve me having two homes—one
in London and one in Redditch, and being away from my young family.
I, therefore, wanted my London home to be more than simply a
bolt hole, I wanted it to be a real family home and I have a close
relationship with my sister.
In May 1998, I moved into [… Road]... This
was just before the birth of my second son and we moved in order
to provide more space.
Later in 1998, when I returned to Parliament from
effective maternity leave, I moved in London to a flat on my own.
During this period, my sister moved to another job that meant
that she lived outside London so we could not share.
In October 2001, I moved in London to […Road]
to once again share with my sister.
In May 2004, I moved in [the constituency] to […
Road]. This is my current constituency home. It is a four bedroom
detached house which we bought in 2004 for £295,000. I have
a joint mortgage on this property with my husband. I have not
had any reason to have it valued recently. We have not carried
out any major improvements or renovations since we bought the
house.
In April 2008, I moved in London to […Road]
where I currently live with my sister and her partner. This is
a three bedroom house which was bought for £450,000. My sister
has a mortgage on the house. I am a guarantor of the mortgage.
There have been various newspaper descriptions of my living arrangements
in this house—most of which are wholly inaccurate. I do
not "rent a room", I share the house. I pay rent of
£700 a month on which my sister pays tax. In addition, I
contribute to other bills such as utilities and cleaning. I buy
the TV licence. We eat together and I contribute about £150
a month towards food. I have bought fixtures, fittings and furniture
throughout the house. I recently paid £1000 as a share of
having a new boiler. I have entertained friends and other family
members there. In particular, we chose to have a third bedroom
partly so that my children can have a room to sleep in when they
come up in school holidays and for weekends. We provide emotional
support to each other when photographers are camped outside!
For all these reasons and most importantly because
it is my base for most of the week, I consider this to be my main
home in the terms set out in ACA guidance.
It may be helpful if I clarify my interpretation
of the ACA guidance and how I sought advice on this interpretation.
In July 1999, I was appointed as a Minister. Up
to February 2004, when the Fees Office circulated a letter,[1]
I understood that Ministers had no choice over which of their
homes to nominate as their main home. It had to be their London
home as it was assumed that Ministers would spend the majority
of their time in London. I consider this to be a wholly rational
assumption for the majority of Ministers. In judgements that
I have made about the nomination of my main home, this precedent
seems to me to be an important factor. It weighed strongly with
me in the decision not to change the designation of my main home
after 2004 when the rules changed to allow Ministers to nominate
either their constituency or their London home. Furthermore, by
2005 I was a senior Minister and entered the Cabinet in May 2006.
I believed that I would be spending more time in London as a Cabinet
Minister, as has in fact been the case.
However, I am also aware that some people have argued
that as my children live in Redditch, this must be my main home.
When I became a Minister, my husband and I did consider
whether to move our children to London. However, they were born
in Redditch, go to school there and have established friends and
activities there. We, therefore, took the decision that I would
travel backwards and forwards and the children would be settled
in Redditch with their father to look after them in the week.
We took a conscious decision to split the main family home from
my main home. I noted that in your report on Ed Balls and Yvette
Cooper it was the location of the individual Member that was decisive
in determining where time was spent—not where the family
were based.
I also understand the need to "seek advice
in cases of doubt" as spelt out in Mr Speaker's introduction
to the Green Book. That is why my husband, Richard Timney, on
my behalf, made contact with the DFA in June 2007 to seek further
advice. I enclose a copy of the letter that I then sent to follow
up the phone call and a copy of the response.
- set out separately for each
of the last three years, and to the best of your recollection,
the number of nights you have spent in your London residence,
in your constituency residence, and elsewhere.
In order to provide you with details for each of
the last three calendar years, I have requested copies of my Ministerial
diaries from Jan 2006. I have compared these with my constituency
and personal diary and with my recollection where the diaries
are not clear or are incomplete. My best estimates are that:
In 2006, I spent 159 nights in London, 135 nights
in Redditch and 71 nights away on Ministerial business or holiday.
I spent 183 days in London, 107 days in Redditch
and 75 days away.
In 2007, I spent 153 nights in London, 146 nights
in Redditch and 66 nights away on Ministerial business or holiday.
In 2007, I spent 177 days in London, 122 days in
Redditch and 66 days away on Ministerial business or holiday.
In 2008, I spent 150 nights in London, 154 nights
in Redditch and 62 nights away on Ministerial business or holiday.
In 2008, I spent 166 days in London and 131 days
in Redditch and 69 days away on Ministerial business or holiday.
From consulting my diary there are two factors that
may be helpful in explaining these figures.
Firstly, I have undertaken more overnight and overseas
ministerial trips during 2008. It turns out that they have taken
place on nights that I would usually have been in London.
Secondly, some of the discrepancy between the number
of days and nights spent in each location is due to my being able
and prepared to travel to Redditch very late at night and to set
out from [the constituency] very early in the morning in order
to conduct Ministerial business.
If you require further clarification on any of these
details, I am happy to provide it. I am also happy to provide
you with details for each of the last three financial years if
you prefer. Similarly I can provide you with information about
the number of nights I have spent in each location so far in 2009.
As Home Secretary, I need to be prepared to respond
quickly to events and to spend extended periods of time in London—as
was the case immediately after I took up the job in 2007. At
that point, I could not predict how many nights I would need to
spend in London, but it was a reasonable assumption for me to
have made that I would spend more nights in London.
In total in this period, I have spent 462 nights
in London and 435 nights in Redditch.
- explain what costs arising
from your constituency residence you claim from Parliamentary
Allowances.
In the last three years I have claimed £22,110
in 2006/7; £22,948 in 2007/8 and my claims so far this financial
year are at a slightly lower level.
I have claimed in the categories of mortgage interest,
utility bills, council tax, telephone, servicing and maintenance,
repairs and cleaning. I would be happy to provide claim forms
and receipts for each of these years.
- set out the nature of the
discussions you have had with the House authorities about your
arrangements.
I hope that I've covered this above and in enclosing
the letters that I sent and received from the DFA.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond
to Mrs Taplin's complaint. I have attempted to be as frank as
possible about my circumstances. However, I would want you to
know that we have been subject to incidents at both my addresses
in recent days and that it is very important that disclosures
about my movements and security arrangements do not facilitate
further difficulties or concerns.
I would be happy to provide any further information
that you need and to come to talk to you in more detail about
the background.
24 February 2009
1 WE 6 Back
| 
