70. Letter to the Commissioner from
Ms Julie Kirkbride, 4 March 2010
I write in response to the further information you
seek in your letter of 17th February.
I note the reprise of the issues you seek to resolve
in your second paragraph as a result of [this] complaint. [The
complainant's] claim that my brother lived in my constituency
property was based on two pieces of "evidence"
he supplied which I addressed in my previous
correspondence and to which the answers, I believe, demolish the
vexatious accusation that is being made.
Furthermore, the issue of the additional mortgage
I claimed to build a third bedroom to be used by a child carer
which may—or may not be—my brother at any one time
was precisely the issue addressed by Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Paul
Kennedy. I hope you will note the conclusion reached by Sir Paul
Kennedy which was as follows:
"I accept that by 2008 there were restrictions
on transactions with family members. ACA could not be used to
meet the costs of a mortgage or for leasing accommodation from
a partner or family member, but I see no reason why that should
have been extended to prevent you from recovering the costs of
an additional mortgage required to enable you to provide a child
carer's bedroom just because at that time it was envisaged that
the child carer would normally be your brother.
"Accordingly, I am satisfied that there are
special reasons in your individual case..."
As you know, I feel strongly that I am being subjected
to triple jeopardy and I hope that in the light of this adjudication
by Sir Paul that you will feel that this particular issue of the
extension of my mortgage has been decided.
In relation to your third paragraph, I think that
few busy working mothers keep a detailed note about who is looking
after their child at any one time—life just isn't like that.
I also hope that you noted that if there were any occasions when
my brother did stay in my constituency property in my absence
it was in order that he could use the office equipment located
there to maintain my website (an activity he did for free and
which is charged to the taxpayer by most MPs) or because he was
helping my Bromsgrove staff with ICT support.
I will now turn the specific questions you ask.
Firstly, you ask who covered childcare on other nights
of the week during recesses. I answered that point in my response
to your letter dated January 26th. I quote: "As
I have said before, I would have someone resident in [the
Bromsgrove property] to
provide care for my son at the weekends and during House of Commons
recesses so that I was free to carry out my parliamentary duties.
This person was normally my brother, but I have no record of the
nights he spent there, nor records of when another person fulfilled
his childcaring role."
Secondly, you ask about payment. I have never paid
my brother in cash or in kind, for the care of my son. He looks
after my son because he loves us both and he has the time to do
it. When my brother cannot help me in Bromsgrove I ask my mother-in-law
or friends I have made in the Bromsgrove Conservative Association
to step in. I normally repay their kindness with a box of chocolates
or a bunch of flowers.
In London I pay our au pair a cash sum every
week.
Thirdly, in London the main carer for our child is
an au pair who similarly offers a flexible arrangement
given the unpredictability of our working life. However, my brother
also comes to London to help. If my husband and I are going abroad
we feel it inappropriate to leave an inexperienced au pair
in charge of [our son] for a prolonged period. Equally, it is
unfair to ask our au pair to work seven days a week without
a break. It might also be the case that our au pair would
wish to return home (before Christmas or in the summer) before
the start of the parliamentary recess and so I might ask my brother
if he would cover childcare in London during these periods when
he was in a position to do so given his other commitments.
Fourthly, the normal pattern of my overnight stays
were to be in London during the week when the House was sitting,
travelling to Bromsgrove on Friday night and returning to London
on Sunday to ensure [our son] could be at school on Monday morning.
Where parliamentary recesses and school holidays were coterminous
we would be in Bromsgrove when not on holiday.
Fifthly, I find the question that my brother should
pay me—either in cash or kind—for the time he spent
at my constituency property to enable me to perform my parliamentary
duties bizarre. Just for the record, can I make clear that he
certainly did not pay me in cash or kind for anything, but I do
not see how anyone would think that it might be appropriate for
him to do so in the circumstances. We do buy each other Christmas
presents which seems a reasonable thing for a brother and sister
to do!
In conclusion, can I repeat that as a female MP,
married to another, who had a child whilst a Member of Parliament,
I found myself in a somewhat unique position. I had an inexhaustible
and unpredictable demand for childcare and a duty to my child
to act in his best interests as his mother. I therefore felt fortunate
that my brother was able to help me to look after my son which
obviated the inevitable guilt I would otherwise have felt able
to spend with him. Indeed, had it not been for my brother's help
I would have felt that it was not in my child's best interests
for me to carry on as the MP for Bromsgrove.
I hope my letter now fully answers your outstanding
inquiries and that I can look forward to your dismissing the complaint.
4 March 2010
| 
