Parliamentary Standards Commissioner will investigate Caroline Spelman

John Lyon, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has confirmed that the Conservative Party Chairman will now be investigated for her employment of her nanny ten years ago, when she first became an MP.  Mr Lyon had originally said that it would be exceptional to carry out an inquiry into a case more than seven years old.  CCHQ is understood to have wanted an inquiry, however, to clear the air - one way or the other.  ConservativeHome still expects Mrs Spelman to be exonerated.

4pm:

SHOULD CAROLINE SPELMAN STAY PARTY CHAIRMAN?  VOTE HERE.

Comments

[Sammy Finn]

She should resign while this inquiry is going on.

I bet she's not doing her job properly at the moment.

[Louise]

While I too believe that Caroline Spelman is likely to be exonerated it is increasingly clear that she must stand down until the enquiry is completed.

[Gezmond007]

It,s going to go on and on and on and on ! Cameron should have sacked her last week . He's not got the guts , this will cause more trouble unless she goes.

Come on Cameron show some Leadership ! Now !

[Vincent Wall]

I agree with Sammy Finn. Have you had your meeting with Caroline yet Tim?

[chrisblore]

I too agree that she should stand down but have every confidence that she will be exonerated. However, as part of her role is to promote openness of MEPs' expenses and those of other MPs, it seems clear that she can no longer continue in her current role. We cannot allow this tiresome sideshow to detract from the continued failure of the Brown regime.

[Alan S]

Does it matter Vincent Wall, Sammy?
Ashcroft and Osborne and the new CEO mate of Cameron run CCHQ anyway.

[Jennifer Wells]

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

[Editor]

Not yet Vincent. Haven't heard anything from her office.

[Guido Fawkes]

Am willing to bet she won't be exonerated.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper - only 29% support EU membership.]

Ten years on this is disproportionate and unfair.

Since any money wrongly appropriated was for essential childcare to enable Mrs Spelman to take up hugely disruptive elected duties, the Commissioner must ensure that all allowances are made for the inevitable chaos of the unexpected election of, I presume, the children's primary carer.

As society adjusts to large numbers of women working extremely stressful jobs under financial and child-care-related strain, this kind of incident will be better planned-for and avoided. I do not believe that destroying this woman's career and reputation can be in the public interest.

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

What's the difference between Caroline's nanny and Barbara Follett's window cleaner? It's Labour's effective spin machine planting in the mindset of voters that the Tories are fundamentally corrupt while Labour MPs are hard-working who are being picked on by the wicked right wing media.
It's time for CCO to take the gloves off and hit back.
A nanny-cum-secretary seems to me to be a person who is enabling an MP to carry out her work, while Mrs Follett's window cleaner in no way facilitates her work as an MP.

[adam Cohen]

Why should she step down? She is innocent until proved otherwise. If every person in public office stepped down each time a nasty little rat in the media decided to make claims about issues as far back as a decade, we would have to install revolving doors in each department or have nobody dare to take office. If she made an error (if) it seems to have been a minor one at a time when she was a new MP who could genuinely not have understood the rules. But only if she is found to have broken the rules should the issue of resignation even arise.

[Louise]

Henry - surely before anyone (mother or father) stands for Parliament and the work that entails (or indeed takes on any pressurised job) they should take into account how this will affect their family life and how they as a family will cope?

As I said, I expect and hope she will be cleared but childcare is the responsibility of the parents, not the employer or the taxpayer.

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

What's the difference between Caroline's nanny and Barbara Follett's window cleaner? It's Labour's effective spin machine planting in the mindset of voters that the Tories are fundamentally corrupt while Labour MPs are hard-working who are being picked on by the wicked right wing media.
It's time for CCO to take the gloves off and hit back.
A nanny-cum-secretary seems to me to be a person who is enabling an MP to carry out her work, while Mrs Follett's window cleaner in no way facilitates her work as an MP.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper.]

Louise, you are right of course, but I am hoping for proportionality in this case. I believe the election happened much earlier than could have been expected. We have all had crisis situations that have proved to be very expensive and hard to manage and this particular case revolves merely around childcare/secretarial duties caused by the circumstances of this by-election. The passing of years makes justice hard to achieve. In the event that anything significantly wrong took place (unlikely it would seem, given her pristine reputation) I believe a very high bar of proof must now be surmounted by Mrs Spelman's accusers.

Who will go into parliament if minor mistakes from years ago can too easily destroy a personal reputation? MPs aren't in any case really employees, they are representatives, elected and subject to peer, opponent, and press scrutiny. Their oversight by a commissioner is not in my humble opinion particularly constitutional or in the public interest. He should tread very lightly indeed, before doing something else with his valuable time.

[support the strivers]

1. it's silly to say tax deductibility follows the need for the nanny to carry out her job. I need one too! as do millions of other women whose childcare arrangements are not tax deductible. it is also irrelevent as..

2. ....CS claims in any event that the expense reimbursed were deducitble as they were SECRETARIAL. Fine, but the inquiry will be looking for proof of work done. She seems confident she can provide this. Excellent.

3. One main question outstanding is this: Tina the nanny was paid in board and kind. Tina the secretary was paid in (expensed) cash. Tina's secretarial duties ceased. one would expect her to revert to here - ie board adn the car or whatever. However she suddenly was also paid cash by the Spelmans. WHY??? Did her nanny responsibilies INCREASE when her secretarial job ended, hence the increased pay from the Spelman household?

I hope she CAN provide answers as she has always struck me as a decent woman with time for others and the sort of person who we should encourage into public life.

But as I say, a few answers first.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

This is a tough one. On the one hand, we'd be calling for her to resign if she were an opposition MP and, on the other she's 'one of us' and, as the law once said, innocent until proven guilty.

[Silent Hunter]

Justin:

Let me get this straight;.....basically you're calling yourselves "hypocrites"?

Yup! That's a tough one; especially when you're trying get yourselves elected again.

Actually this isn't a 'tough one' at all.

It really shouldn't matter which colour of party some one is, if they're found to be corrupt.

If you choose to defend 'one of your own' whilst berating 'one of them' for precisely the same thing; then the electorate will see through it in jig time.

Come on man! Wake up!
You have GOT to crush corruption and sleaze in the Tory party (no matter how small you think it is) or you will simply be seen as tarred with the same brush as New Labour.

There is nothing dishonourable about Spelman standing down whilst she is investigated - her failure to do this right away leads me to think that perhaps she is the wrong person for the job she has, anyway.

[Jamie]

Is there a fixed timescale for the investigation?
It would be good to get some closure on this story one way or the other. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Dave's Coke Habit]

Hmmm...better she should go now me thinks....

[Londoner]

When this first arose, everyone on here was jumping up and down about how outrageously Crick had behaved and was inclined to minimise the seriousness of this for the party Chairman. I begged to differ with the emphasis being taken (even if I might share the distaste at Crick's methods); and I am interested that now many more seem to be agreeing with me.

The arrangement was a long time ago, it probably was a genuine mistake and it was reversed. It is not therefore up there with some of the other tales of greed and venality that have come out over the last few months. She is unlucky but the climate re these matters has changed and we cannot afford to blunt the Party's incisiveness in cleaning out the Aegean stables by having our own Party Chairman under investigation for several months, even if it is at her own request. It's tough - but then getting childcare at short notice when work commitments require it is tough for any dual income couple with young children. I do not expect my office PA to double up as a babysitter.

I agree that she should volunteer to stand down as Party Chairman now, coupled with a public statement from Cameron that he fully expects her to return in an important role once this has been sorted out.

[snegchui]

Ken Livingstone's partner Emma Beal, who was employed by the ex-Mayor as his "administration manager", was the most high profile of those whose posts were axed.
'''
Mr Livingstone's partner Ms Beal, 42, who is mother of two of his children, will have her duties subdivided and shared among other staff now working at City Hall.

Her role was also notable as there have been claims that she was paid £96,000 even though Mr Livingstone also employed his long-standing secretary.

----------
I think this is a much more interesting story in today's Evening Standard. I would like to know open the recruitment process was. I think this Spelman affair is an attempt to muddy the waters when her doing the audit of London City Hall presents her initial report. I hope that Patience Wheatcroft has a good root around and we get to the bottom of the murky depths at City Hall. It's current and it would appear to be on a much bigger scale than the allegations against Mrs Spelman.
Whoopsie could take on a whole new aspect.

[johnC]

If Peter Hain's 80 year old mother is capable of working as his secretary why shouldn't Caroline Spelman's nanny be able to as well ? It seems eminently sensible to combine the two roles and I cannot see what all the fuss is about.

[Donald Burling]

It seems clear that as a new MP Caroline Spelman entered into this arrangement innocently, assuming it to be in order. As soon as questions were raised she changed it. Ten yeaars later someone wants to make a scandal of it. Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.