Lucky Miss Smith
Author
Discussion

Richie200

Original Poster:

2,013 posts

225 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
The right of MPs to police their own expenses was called into question after Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary, was told she need not repay any of the £100,000 she claimed incorrectly.

An independent inquiry concluded that Miss Smith broke the rules when claiming that a room in her sister’s house was her "main home" — a move that enabled her to charge the taxpayer £116,000 for expenses at her family house in Redditch, West Midlands.

Her account of how many nights she spent in London had been contradicted by records kept by the police protecting her, the inquiry found.

John Lyon, the parliamentary watchdog who carried out the seven-month investigation into her expenses claims, also found that Miss Smith had misused her allowances by charging the taxpayer for two adult films watched by her husband, adding that the claims were not a "one-off".

However, despite agreeing that Miss Smith had broken the rules, the committee on standards and privileges — to which Mr Lyon reports — simply asked her to apologise. She will not have to repay any money.

She was also not required to apologise to Parliament over the adult films, but chose to mention them in her brief statement to the House, saying: "This claim should never have been made."

Her treatment contrasts with that of London Mayor Boris Johnson's former deputy, Ian Clement, who was last week handed a 12-week suspended jail sentence and given 100 hours' community service after admitting three charges of fraud in claiming meals with his girlfriend on expenses.

Clement, 44, claimed £156.70 worth of meals which he said were business related when he was in fact entertaining Claire Dowson and another woman, City of Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.

Throughout the process, in her statements to Mr Lyon, the committee and the House, Miss Smith was defiant in maintaining that she had done little wrong in claiming that the room she rented from her sister was her main home.

In her official response to the inquiry — released on Monday but given before the findings were published — she said: "I am disappointed that this process has not led to a fairer set of conclusions, based on objective and consistent application of the rules as they were at the time."

Then, in her Commons apology, which she was effectively forced to give by the committee, she spent some time justifying her second home designation, acknowledging only briefly that "in retrospect" she should have "used my discretion to change my main home designation".

She concluded: "I accept the committee’s conclusions and I therefore apologise to the House."

The standards committee has the power to recommend that the House of Commons order an MP to repay funds.

Last year, Derek Conway, a Tory backbencher, was required to return £13,000 after the watchdog ruled that he had overpaid his son to work as his researcher.

But the committee’s members – 10 long-serving MPs – appear to have taken a far more lenient view of Miss Smith’s expenses than the Commissioner for Standards, who has the power to investigate but cannot set punishments.

While Mr Lyon said it would be "difficult to see" how it would not have been cheaper for the taxpayer had Miss Smith designated the room in her sister’s house as her second home, or lived in the grace and favour apartment available to holders of her office, the MPs disagreed. In their report, the committee said: "We do not believe it can be established with any certainty whether the taxpayer is any worse or any better off as a result of Miss Smith’s nomination of her main home."

By nominating the four-bedroom detached house where her husband and sons lived as her second residence, Miss Smith was able to claim many of the costs of running a busy family home — including the proverbial kitchen sink.

During the installation of a new bathroom, she even claimed for the cost of an 88p plug, while her more expensive charges included a £460 dining room table, a £1,000 antique fireplace, including a separate bill for the coal to burn in it, and an entertainment centre including DVD players, two Samsung widescreen televisions and two digital set-top boxes costing more than £1,100.

Ironically, if she had not chosen to designate Redditch as her second home then Miss Smith would have avoided the most embarrassing episode of her career.

It was the claim for two £5 adult films, which were watched by her husband, Richard Timney, while she was away in London and included as part of the family’s cable television subscription, that led to her total humiliation and resignation as home secretary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...

Let the p155 boiling commence

Tycho

11,991 posts

289 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
The problem is does it surprise you?


I am not at all surprised at what this lot can do and not have to face the music. The cheek of it to complain that she had to apologise. Anyone else apart from MPs would have faced jail time rather than be able to scoot off with the profits after a forced apology.

bazking69

8,620 posts

206 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
A common and garden man who fraudulently claimed taxpayers money would have been in front of a judge and asked to explain why they shouldn't go to jail for fraud...

Lord Flathead

1,288 posts

195 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
Well that's it then I can see my dream job unfolding; I shall retrain to become a politician. Any ideas how one becomes qualified to become one?

AndrewW-G

11,968 posts

233 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
bazking69 said:
A common and garden man who fraudulently claimed taxpayers money would have been in front of a judge and asked to explain why they shouldn't go to jail for fraud...
And in the case of Ian Clemment received a 12 week suspended sentence (as well as losing job) for "only" stealing 1000th of the amount that smith has furious

motco

16,820 posts

262 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
According to Newnight last night the committee that came to this conclusion had all bar one labour party members - the Tories on the panel (about four) were variously indisposed at the time of the decision. What amazing luck, eh playmates?

CobolMan

1,422 posts

223 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
Lord Flathead said:
Well that's it then I can see my dream job unfolding; I shall retrain to become a politician. Any ideas how one becomes qualified to become one?
Do you have any common sense?
Have you ever had a proper job?
Are you averse to fiddling your expenses?
Do you care about the voters?
Do you care about the country?

If you can answer No to all of the above then you're qualified to become a politician biggrin

Shoot Blair

3,097 posts

192 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
I can sense another wind up here. The non-labour media are stirring the pudding again.

Off we go again. Hopefully this time they make people really really angry smile

jesusbuiltmycar

4,883 posts

270 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
guido said:
60 Million of Us, 646 of Them

The FT’s Jim Pickard is reporting that representatives of the Tory 1922 Committee are meeting with representatives of Labour’s PLP to discuss fighting Legg and his letters. Proof, if proof were needed, that the political class looks after itself first, us second.

The sense of self-entitlement of a British politician is a marvel to behold, troughers like the ridiculous Sir Stuart Bell wander from broadcast studio to broadcast studio bemoaning the unfairness of being asked to justify the depths to which they sunk their snoughts in the trough. Sir Stuart incidentally employed his wife on some £35,000 – obviously on merit. Now the venal cross-party porker’s alliance is coming out into the open. Stop squealing start paying, you have been ripping us off for too long. Welcome to the real world porkers…
Time for the lyching to commence!

DJC

23,563 posts

252 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
I was under the impression that amongst our number we had some intelligent and decent lawyers. Could one of them explain to me how this stuff is legal and should not result in a fraud investigation? I am genuinely at a loss as to why not.

MiniMan64

18,331 posts

206 months

Tuesday 13th October 2009
quotequote all
Wow.

Being in goverment is great isn't it?

banghead

anonymous-user

70 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Time for the lyching to commence!
Leave Chinese fruit out of this.

Uhura_Fighter

7,018 posts

199 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Jacqui Smith will go into the House of Lords in May. Home Secretary (ex).

bh.

TangoAlpha

1,175 posts

270 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Lord Flathead said:
I shall retrain to become a politician. Any ideas how one becomes qualified to become one?
You obviously haven't got a clue.

That makes you perfectly qualified already thumbup

JMGS4

8,842 posts

286 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Lord Flathead said:
Well that's it then I can see my dream job unfolding; I shall retrain to become a politician. Any ideas how one becomes qualified to become one?
No qualifications necessary, just lie through your teeth, never answer a question without spouting party propaganda or greenwash, and a criminal inclination to all you do......

Don

28,378 posts

300 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Uhura_Fighter said:
Jacqui Smith will go into the House of Lords in May. Home Secretary (ex).

bh.
Aye. Which is why Cameron is going to have to either abolish it or replace it or try and fill it with his cronies. Blair had the same problem going in in 97.

Personally I would think it poetic justice if it was the Conservative party who finally got rid of the damn thing.

We need an upper house to try and prevent bad laws. Can Cameron replace the current cock-up of Blair's making with one that works? It would be nice to think so...

loltolhurst

1,994 posts

200 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
"12-week suspended jail sentence and given 100 hours' community service after admitting three charges of fraud in claiming meals with his girlfriend on expenses.

Clement, 44, claimed £156.70 worth of meals which he said were business related when he was in fact entertaining Claire Dowson and another woman, City of Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.
"

holy crap how over the top is that?! ridicuolus.

Fezant Pluckah

1,711 posts

227 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Looks like there are people who want her Peerage blocked...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...

jesusbuiltmycar

4,883 posts

270 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
unrepentant said:
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Time for the lyching to commence!
Leave Chinese fruit out of this.
Ooops rofl

J5

2,449 posts

202 months

Wednesday 14th October 2009
quotequote all
Fezant Pluckah said:
Looks like there are people who want her Peerage blocked...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-exp...
Is there one of those number 10 polls for Broon to ignore yet?