Party Chairman is a thankless job. Absolutely vital, Cabinet rank but with none of the glamour and power of individual departments, it must consist of more complaints per hour than any other senior party post. Caroline Spelman is doing a tough job well. She has headed off trouble at the pass more than once, and the fact readers have not noticed it is to her credit rather than otherwise. Mrs. Spelman has overseen a period where the party has become united, efficient and enthused.
And she is now being pilloried by the BBC on absolutely sexist grounds. She should be robust in her defence.
I could hardly believe it when I heard Michael Crick say on Newsnight that "MPs expenses are solely to enable them to do their job". On what grounds does he think childcare for a woman MP does not qualify? It is directly connected with doing the job. Parliament sits at ludicrous, outdated hours and modest reform has only slightly ameliorated the problem. Does the BBC expect Caroline Spelman to be at the House at all hours, and yet refuses to recognise her childcare as a business expense?
Crick's questions he suggests the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner ask Mrs. Spelman are all designed to prove that the expense payments were used directly for childcare. That is false; as the nanny in question has already said, she fulfilled secretarial duties while the children were at school. She was not paid for her work as a nanny, and then when the secretarial work and payments ceased, presumably she was then paid to nanny. Mr. Crick apparently believes this constitutes a slam-dunk.
It reeks of sexism to make such an argument. Mrs. Spelman can counter with the obvious truth - she needed a nanny and she wanted a secretary. Being able to pay her nanny as a secretary meant she could offer lodging and a car for the childcare and the nanny was in a financial position to accept; when that other job and income dried up, of course she had to pay for childcare direct.
The benefit was there, but it was ancillary; the nanny received expenses for the secretarial work she did, therefore the taxpayer has not suffered.
Can the BBC tell us why a working mother MP should not receive an ancillary benefit, such as reduced childcare cost, from paying her secretary? The presence of a decent nanny is absolutely essential to enable many working women to do their jobs. Parliament has long been an old boys' club. When Caroline Spelman was selected we had less than 10% of our MPs as women. With Mr. Crick's implication that a nanny is not a proper business expense for a working mum (but a John Lewis kitchen is, I suppose) we see the cigar smoke of the old boys club extends to Lobby journalists, and is clouding their judgement.
The scandal of MEPs allegedly paying themselves from expenses is a real one. David Cameron is dealing with it. This concoted nonsense is the most outrageously sexist rubbish I have seen in quite some time. As a PPC I want to see a system for MP expenses sorted out before the election. But our party should make it quite clear to the authorities that in the future, childcare expenses, whether direct or ancillary, are a wholly proper business expense. Caroline Spelman has nothing whatever to apologise for.
