'Left to their own devices, MPs will abuse the expenses system'
The knowledge that taxpayers’ money has been used to view pornographic films has understandably grabbed headlines.
But what’s significant is not Richard Timney’s choice of viewing material, but what it says about the way House of Commons allowances are used.
Jacqui Smith may have claimed for her husband’s blue movies without realising what she was doing. The bill, after all, describes the films as “additional features”.
But mainstream films, such as Ocean’s 13, were marked clearly on the invoice from the cable television company concerned, and these were also claimed for.
The point is that Ms Smith’s husband seems to believe it is reasonable to charge the taxpayer for his leisure activities, whatever they might be.
And the Home Secretary, who must surely have realised she was claiming for the cost of a television service, appears to agree.
MPs’ allowances are supposed compensate them for unavoidable costs involved in doing their jobs. They are not supposed to be a bonus to their salary.
Allowances might be used, for example, to subsidise a second home, given that most MPs require accommodation in London in top of their constituency address. And common sense dictates that the subsidy might cover basic furnishings, including a television set.
But it doesn’t include luxuries such as premium television channels, which MPs or their families should pay for themselves.
Unfortunately, the Home Secretary’s case illustrates that MPs can’t be trusted to monitor their expenses themselves. Left to their own devices, and without proper public scrutiny, they will abuse the system.
We also know that Ms Smith has claimed for a range of household items such as a washing machine, a fireplace and even a kitchen sink.
If she was buying basic amenities for a small flat near the House of Commons, this might make sense.
But Ms Smith, of course, has chosen to designate the family home she shares with her husband and children as her “second home” – and therefore claims expenses on furnishings which most people would reasonable expect her family to pay for themselves.
Her claims must be seen in the context of her decision to name the London property she shares with her sister as her primary residence, allowing her to claim Commons expenses on her Redditch property.
Ms Smith could not honestly claim that she was doing her best to secure value-for-money for taxpayers. It is clear that she was busy securing value-for-money for herself.
