35. LETTER
TO
THE
COMMISSIONER
FROM
THE
DIRECTOR
OF
OPERATIONS,
DEPARTMENT
OF
RESOURCES,
HOUSE
OF
COMMONS,
15 MAY
2009
Thank your for your letter of 22 April 2009 in which
you ask for my advice on a number of issues relating to the complaint
against the Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP.
First, you asked for my help in interpreting paragraph
3.1.1. of the 2006 Green Book in particular, how the Department
interpreted the first frequently asked question, "what
can I claim?," and whether it extends
to costs attributable to family members and if so why?
Whilst the Green Book says in paragraph 3.14.1 that
living costs for anyone other than the Member are not allowable,
this needs to be construed against a general premise elsewhere
in the Green Book that support is available to Members, in part,
to facilitate family life in both London and in Members' constituencies.
For example, the travel allowance provides for journeys for spouses
and children between London and the constituency or main home.
Similarly, one can infer from paragraph 3.7.2 ('if you take out
a joint mortgage with someone who is not your spouse..) that the
ACA home (i.e. the additional home) is one in which a spouse could
have an interest.
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. White goods can be purchased
in full from the allowance without a contribution even though
other family members may use them; but we draw a line such that
furniture for, say, children is not an eligible expense. Thus
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.
Secondly, you ask whether, given the nature of the
accommodation for Ms Smith in London and in her constituency,
the Department considers that Ms Smith has more than one home
within the terms set out in the Green Book. As you might expect,
different Members have different overnight arrangements. I have
no reason to doubt that [… Road] is Ms Smith's residence
whilst in London. According to her letter of 24 February she
pays rent, contributes to running costs and buys fixtures, fittings
and furniture. 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. The Department
is of course not privy to this information and cannot verify any
financial transactions because they are not in themselves a subject
of a claim against Parliamentary allowances.
Thirdly, you asked me to consider whether I believe
it was open to Ms Smith to identify her constituency home as her
main home even though she spent more nights than any other in
London given that this part of the rules appears to provide for
exceptions. 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. Paragraph 3.11.1 of the Green
Book is clear that the presumption is that a main home is where
a Member spends more nights than any other. However, it is qualified
by the addition of the word 'normally' and Members are invited
to consult the Department if in doubt.
At the time of the complaint our records showed Ms
Smith's main home as [another address in] London. We received
a backdated nomination form for [… Road] in March 2009.
Advice on the main home nomination was offered by
the Department on at least two relatively recent occasions when
sought by Ms Smith. You already have [the Head of Validations,
Enquiry and Advice Team's] letter of 11 July 2007 in reply to
Ms Smith's of 19 June. This does, I consider, 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.
[This official's] letter followed telephone advice
that Ms Smith's husband received from [another official] a member
of [the first official's] staff, on 18 June 2007. I attach our
electronic record of this.
15 May 2009
| 
