The guilty and the innocent

MPs are bleating about being caught out and punished retrospectively.

Well, not all,- unlike many Jacqui Smith has broken even the vague rules and gets off fine-free!

There is little doubt that she has broken the rules - claiming that a bedroom at her sister's house was her main home, and therefore able to claim lavishly for her house in Redditch. She may even be guilty of intended deception - claiming that her diaries and personal recollection confirmed that she spent more time (- nights) in London, and even having civil servants obstructing police efforts to obtain those diaries. Police duty diaries, however, confirm that over the two years at issue she spent more time in her constituency house.

So the fiction, and cynicism, has been exposed - she avoided free accommodation in London to which she was entitled, but instead of claiming for rent paid to her sister she claimed for many thousands more for the family home in Worcestershire. (As someone suggested some time ago, were her children really entitled to educational consideration in Redditch?)

So it was a good try, but she was found out, and ticked off for something that many others have been required to repay as ill-gotten gains. She was saved by the Labour-dominated Standards and Privileges Committee.

The Committee decided that there was some dispute about how much of the £100,000 plus she should repay, and therefore it would be appropriate that she repaid nothing!

The logic is marvellous. Next time you are stopped for speeding, but there is doubt about your speed - was it 40 m.p.h or 45 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. area, suggest that it would be unwise to impose any penalty. When tax receipts go adrift in the post, suggest to Inland Revenue that it would be unwise to tax you on that particular item because of the difficulty of computation.

Many MPs are feeling aggrieved at being compelled to pay back something because of retrospective rules, so the committee decision on Ms. Smith will not help.