Caroline Spelman has paid her nanny out of her parliamentary allowance

[spicemonster]

Apparently while she and the tories are saying that actually she was doing parliamentary work for 30 hours a week and a bit of nannying on the side, the nanny has said that she was primarily a nanny who sometimes took the odd parliamentary phone call.

The whole bloody lot of them (all politicians I mean, whatever flavour) are corrupt expense fiddlers aren't they?

Yes, but I wouldn't get away with claiming my nanny was a secretary - HM Revenue would come down like a ton of bricks on me, as a self-employed sole trader. Why should she exploit the rules? The nanny wasn't someone doing an office job during school hours, clearly - her entire salary was paid for by you and me. If she was part nanny, part secretary, Spelman would have paid half the salary herself. (And the nanny would have to have a very unusual set of skills into the bargain.)

SO, this thread has carried on on the basis that everything the said is true. And down with the tories. I don't know much about this MP or the nanny for that matter but I'm guessing there are two sides t othe story. If this was posted on the nanny threads, the first thing people would be asking is "What does the contract say?" What we need here is the job description.

As for whether or ot room and board is a fair swap for nanny duties, well that would depend on whether she was doing 10 or 60 hours of nannying each week.

This smell like a a scourned x-nanny to me.

However, I definitely think MPs should be held to the same standards that they hold the rest of the working population to. My childcare isn't tax deductable and hers shouldn't be either.

It is outrageous that they do not have to reveal their expenses to the peopl who are paying them (i.e. the tax payers)

Sorrry, should type more carefully:

on the basis that everything the nanny said is true

What I am curious and about is the people they employ, all their mates and family and whoever.

In the public sector, (as I understand it not having ever worked there), recruitment is often lengthy and bureaucratic, but that's for a reason. Transparency and equality of opportunity and all that are extremely important, which is just as it should be when recruiting people who are paid with public money.

So if 'normal' people who are employed in the public sector and paid with public money have to go through lengthy, transparent, rigorous recruitment procedures, why don't people employed by MPs? Even leaving aside the expenses issue which is a disgrace, surely recruitment ought to be as rigorous as it has to be elsewhere? And you're not going to convince me all these wives, sons and nannies are the best most qualified person for whatever job it is...

Oh look, they had to go back to 1997-1998 to dig this up. It's all a bit less exciting. Now it sounds like someone looking for dirt... Who broke this story?

AGree that what the nanny is saying and what actually happened may be two different things but she is saying that she was paid for childcare by CS individually and paid for secretarial work by CS from expenses.

If that is what happened (and it might be feasible if children were school-age) then I have no problem with it.

If she was using her expenses to subsidise her childcare arrangements then no, that's not acceptable.

Edam, yes all letters to constituents are on paper which is paid for by MPs from expenses allowences as I recall. As this part of an MPs job, I think this should be paid for by the state. As should provision of office equipment, staff etc.

MPs are not self-employed. They are not running their own business. They need to reply to the literally thousands of letters they get. I'm not sure why it's deemed wrong for this to be part of general House of Commons expenses.

Outrageous indeed. Can hardly bear to watch the news recently I'm either shouting at TV or crying at murders/disasters...

I like it when a bit of dirt is dug up. Doesn't make it easier for me though!!

I'll stick my neck out and say I bet she couldn't believe her luck ! I read somewhere that she did ask for clarification and received no response but I suppose when the vast majority of your peers are also conducting shady pocket lining business in the supposedly grey area of M.P.s expenses and have been doing for years, she probably thought M.P.s were just not subject to ordinary common sense rules.

We need a system of flat rates and full accountability. Apply Inland Revenue tests for tax deductibility and hence allowable claims. All claims to be reviewed in light of home ownership before taking up office and a reasonable allowance contribution. Create a westminster appartment block for M.P.'s who need it whilst in London.

No family/boyfriends/girlfriends/other connected parties to be employed without showing that the job was advertised and interviews fairly conducted so that the employee eventually selected represents best value for the tax payer who is ultimately footing the bill.

Surely the money that could be saved would more than pay for the policing thereof.

Commence new regime of expenses from the next election so only those who are willing to be restrained about the depth to which they shove their snout in the trough put themselves up for election.

I'm sick of the rampant greediness and anyone who has shredded their expenses claim supporting documents before the 6 year period allowed by the Inland Revenue should be taxed on the income they received which they can no longer support with documentary evidence.

Basically apply the same rules to M.P.s as all other employees have to abide by.

Come on Gordon , win some respect back from the public by making this the law.

the main difference between a MP/MEP and a benefit fraudster is their accent and brand of clothing.

There's an article in the Times today about this. Yes, they are a bunch of ... insert your own description here. But she is really not the worst of them, and there are plenty worse who are barely heard about. I'd rather use one of the others as an example.

Where can I get a list of legitimate job titles which would be legally tax deductable so I know what to put on our next nanny's contract. Then, DH can go contracting, set up his own company, we'll give the nanny room and board in exchange for nanny duties, and then we'll pay her a salary for the rest of her duties (can't wait to find out what else she can do for us!) out of DH's expenses. And voila... tax deductable "childcare".

Good God, I have missed a trick.... bugger. Just when I thought I knew it all.

Athene - the story broke because Spellman was employed by Cameron to stamp out expenses corruption in the party. That is why this is the big story it is.

Those calling on Brown and/or Cameron to stand-up and reform the law. Parliament is not subject to laws - it can't be as it makes them. No PM, current or future has the power to legislate for Pariament - it is one of our safeguards against dictatorship and it would be outragious if any PM tried to change that. This type of reform is up to the Speaker and the House as a whole.

See now I told you I didn't know much about her.

I have just gone self-employed. if my nanny answers the phone occassionally then presumably I can employ her as my secretary and take her salary out of my pre-tax earnings right?? . apologies for not hvaing read all the thread but when no-one else even gets a tax break for their childcare (aprt from the small bit you get if you use childcare vouchers) whihc is a result of govt policy and when the lack of a tax break means that for so many people it simply isn;t worth working this makes me