Leading article: Public money for private pleasures
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The tale of Jacqui Smith's husband and the expenses claim for a couple of "adult" films contains enough material to keep satirists in gags for the foreseeable future.
But rather than dwelling on the embarrassment of the Home Secretary we ought to concentrate on the fundamental wrong that has been committed here. It is not the viewing habits of Ms Smith's husband, unsavoury though some might find them, at issue. The real problem lies in the fact that MPs appear to expect taxpayers to pick up the bill for their home entertainment.
No one in the Commons department responsible for processing expenses checked whether Ms Smith's Virgin Media bill was related to her duties as an MP before signing them off. And Ms Smith plainly did not bother to check what she was claiming for. It seems reasonable to wonder how many other MPs are claiming public subsidy for their private entertainment?
This story is further confirmation that the system of MPs' expenses requires a fundamental overhaul. Most reasonable people accept that MPs need to be able claim for the travel they undertake in their public duties and to pay the salaries of their secretaries. Most people also accept that MPs with constituencies outside London need to be given an allowance to live in the capital, at least when Parliament is sitting.
But the second-home allowance and the broader expenses system has been grotesquely abused by the present generation of MPs. The tales of greed that have emerged in recent years – from the Conservative, Derek Conway, paying a salary to his son while he was still at university, to the Immigration minister, Tony McNulty, claiming expenses for a home which belongs to his parents – have all been different in detail. But they have had one thing in common: they have eroded public trust in the financial probity of our elected representatives. This latest revelation over Ms Smith's TV bill will do the same.
And yet still MPs are seeking to fend off full disclosure of their expenses. It is time that our pig-headed politicians realised that serious reform of a corrupt allowance system is not just what the public demand – it is in their own best interests.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments