House of Commons - Mrs Anne Main - Standards and Privileges Committee

Mrs Anne Main - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents

Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Complaint against Mrs Anne Main MP

Introduction

1. This memorandum reports on my investigation into a complaint that Anne Main, the Member for St Albans, made claims against the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) which were not wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing her parliamentary duties.

The Complaint

2. On 9 June 2009, Mr J.P. Harper of St Albans wrote to me to make a formal complaint against Mrs Main.[39] He claimed, first, that "over the four years since becoming an MP she has claimed in excess of £85,000 in Additional Costs Allowance related to the rental and subsequent mortgage interest and associated costs of purchase for a second property in St Albans city centre, plus expenses for furnishings and food." Mr Harper alleged that these claims were invalid: Mrs Main was not entitled to claim mortgage interest and associated expenses for a second property because her family home, in Beaconsfield, was less than 20 miles from the boundary of her constituency. He also alleged that, on the basis of information Mrs Main had given in a newspaper interview about the number of nights she had spent in St Albans in 2008, it would have cost the taxpayer significantly less in that year if she had instead on each occasion stayed overnight in "one of the most expensive 4 star local hotels" and "paid the full rack rate". Mr Harper maintained that "such misuse of public funds fell foul of the spirit" of the principle set out in section 3.3.1 of the Green Book, namely the requirement to bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances.

3. Second, Mr Harper said that Mrs Main had allowed her adult daughter, Ms Claire Tonks, to live rent-free in the St Albans flat, which he claimed was a breach of the rule set out in section 3.3.2 of the Green Book, namely that Members "must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an allegation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds." Mr Harper said that the Daily Telegraph newspaper had obtained evidence from neighbours and from Companies House that Ms Tonks "treated the flat as her main residence". He added that she was also on the electoral roll at that address and said that Mrs Main had confirmed that no rent was paid. He said that Mrs Main's defence of the arrangement, as quoted in a Daily Telegraph article of 22 May 2009, a copy of which he sent me,[40] had been that she had been told by the Fees Office that such an arrangement was perfectly acceptable. Mr Harper commented, "If questioned, I suspect the Fees Office, and any reasonable taxpayer, would accept that occasional overnight stays by family members are acceptable, but allowing a family member, or anyone else for that matter, to stay permanently and for free is not acceptable and outside both the written Rules and their spirit."

4. Third, Mr Harper said that Mrs Main had claimed a 10% second-home discount on the local council tax even though, according to Companies House records, her daughter lived there as her main residence. He commented, "It is probably up to the local Council to investigate the facts, but at the very least Mrs Main has brought her office into disrepute by making such a dubious claim."

5. Fourth, Mr Harper said that Mrs Main had claimed a round-sum amount each month for groceries amounting to between £3,000 and £3,600 a year. If she had lived, as claimed, in the second home for only 68 nights in 2008, Mr Harper said that this would mean that she had spent £44 per day on food. He went on to say, "Even if it is assumed that the claim covers the 165 days or so per annum that Parliament is in session i.e. £18 on average per day, such an amount cannot surely be justified as 'value for money' under Principle 3.3.1. The fact that round-sum amounts were claimed is prima facie evidence of a lack of rigour in accounting for the expenditure of public funds and should not be allowed."

6. Mr Harper concluded by saying, "Whether or not Mrs Main has been badly advised or has not read the Rules properly is immaterial. At the very least she has claimed incorrectly and should be made to revise her claims for the last four years on a proper basis ie for the number of overnight stays in London or her constituency when wholly, necessarily and exclusively on Parliamentary business. If she incurred no third-party costs for such stays (ie because she stayed in the St Albans flat she had purchased) then no claims should be entertained and if she cannot support an overnight stay by convincing documentary evidence such claims should be disallowed. This should result in a significant reimbursement of monies to the taxpayer."

7. The Daily Telegraph article of 22 May 2009, which Mr Harper enclosed with his complaint, alleged that Mrs Main had claimed a 10% second home discount on her council tax for an apartment in her constituency even though her daughter had lived there for up to three years. The article said that Mrs Main's principal home was "a large detached house in Beaconsfield, Bucks, 25 miles from St Albans. The house is roughly six miles further from Westminster than the St Albans flat." The article went on to say that Mrs Main had "charged the taxpayer £1,095.68 a month in mortgage interest payments for the flat, along with service charges, utility bills and furnishing costs. She has claimed a 10 % discount on council tax since 2004—amounting to £171.09 last year—and submitted the bill on her expenses." The article said that "Two neighbours who live in other flats in the building—who the Telegraph spoke to alongside the MP yesterday—both said that it was the first time they had met her. Several neighbours were familiar, however, with Miss Tonks … Challenged by the Telegraph as to why Miss Tonks was apparently living at the taxpayer-funded apartment, Mrs Main confirmed that her daughter paid no rent and insisted that she stayed there only 'two or three times a week'." The article also said that Ms Tonks appeared on the electoral roll at the St Albans property and in 2008 had registered the address with Companies House when she took on a company directorship.

8. The article said that, under the rules relating to second home allowances, Members were entitled to claim only for expenses incurred in the course of parliamentary duties and could not claim for anyone other than themselves. The article reported Mrs Main as saying, when asked about her daughter's living arrangements, "She's looking for a place in London now … I consulted the [House of Commons] Fees Office, and asked if family members were allowed to stay with me in the flat. I was told it was perfectly acceptable and as a parent, who sees very little of her family, it has been enormously supportive to have her there, albeit that this was only ever going to be a temporary measure."

Relevant Rules of the House

9. The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament provides in paragraph 14 as follows:

"Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services."

10. The rules in relation to allowances have been set out in successive editions of the Green Book. The rules in force at the time of Mrs Main's election to the House were set out in the April 2005 edition of the Green Book. In his introduction to both this edition and the succeeding July 2006 edition, Mr Speaker Martin wrote:

"Members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care. In cases of doubt or difficulty about any aspect of the allowances or how they can be used, please contact the Department of Finance and Administration. The Members Estimate Committee, which I chair, has recently restated the Department's authority to interpret and enforce these rules."

11. Paragraph 3.1.1 in both the April 2005 and the July 2006 editions sets out the scope of the Additional Costs Allowance as follows:

"The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes."

12. Paragraph 3.2.1 of the April 2005 edition (reproduced in the July 2006 edition) set out the eligibility criteria in the following terms:

"You can claim ACA if:

a You have stayed overnight in the UK away from your only or main home, and

b This was for the purpose of performing your Parliamentary duties, and

c You have necessarily incurred additional costs in so doing, and

d You represent a constituency in outer London or outside London."

13. Paragraph 3.3.1 of the April 2005 edition (reproduced as paragraph 3.4.1 of the July 2006 edition) sets out the rules concerning the location of overnight stays as follows:

"If your main home is in the constituency, you can claim ACA for overnight stays in London—or in another part of the constituency if reasonably necessary in view of the distance from your only or main home. Please contact the Department of Finance and Administration for information on such arrangements.

"If your main home is in London you can claim for overnight stays in the constituency.

"If your main home is neither in London nor the constituency you can choose in which of these areas to claim ACA."

14. Paragraph 3.9.1 of the April 2005 edition (paragraph 3.11.1 of the July 2006 edition) defines a Member's main home as follows:

"Main home

When you enter Parliament we will ask you to give the address of your main UK home on form ACA1 for the purposes of ACA and travel entitlements. Members are expected to locate their main homes in the UK. It is your responsibility to tell us if your main home changes. This will remain your main home unless you tell us otherwise.

The location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact. If you have more than one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other. If there is any doubt about which is your main home, please consult the Department of Finance and Administration."

"Constituency

For the purpose of the ACA, overnight stays within 20 miles of your constituency boundary are regarded as overnight stays within your constituency."

"London

Similarly, for the purposes of the ACA, overnight stays within 20 miles of the Palace of Westminster are deemed to be overnight stays within London."

15. Paragraphs 3.11.1 of the April 2005 edition and 3.13.1 of the July 2006 edition give examples of allowable expenditure including:

"Mortgage costs—for one additional home in either London or the constituency. This is limited to the interest paid on repayment or endowment mortgages, legal and other costs associated with obtaining (and selling) that home (eg: stamp duty, valuation fees, conveyance, land searches, removal expenses)

Hotel expenses—in either London or the constituency. (This may include overnight accommodation and food but no alcohol)…

Other food—reasonable additional costs while you are away from your main home
- …
Utilities

v Heat

v light

v water

v council tax

Telecommunications charges

Furnishings

v white goods

v electrical equipment

v other furnishings…"

16. Paragraphs 3.12.1 of the April 2005 edition and 3.14.1 of the July 2006 edition list categories of expenditure which are not allowable, including:

"Living costs for anyone other than yourself".

17. The July 2006 edition introduced a number of new principles applying to Members' use of the Additional Costs Allowance. These included, at paragraph 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 respectively:

"You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances."

"You must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you are, or someone close to you is, obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds or that public money is being diverted for the benefit of a political organisation."

My Inquiries

18. I wrote to Mrs Main on 17 June[41] to invite her comments on the complaint. I noted that the essence of the complaint was that her claims against the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) were not wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing her parliamentary duties.

19. I asked her in particular for the reasons why she had established her apartment in St Albans, and the date on which she did so, a description of the accommodation, and details of her mortgage. I also asked why she considered it was necessary, and within the rules of the Green Book, to establish a property in St Albans when her main home was in Beaconsfield and, allegedly, within 20 miles of her constituency. I asked what arrangements she had made for her daughter to stay in the apartment; the extent of her residence there, including the accommodation available to her, whether her daughter kept her clothes and possessions in the apartment and what contribution, if any, she made to the cost of the apartment, and why, allegedly, that apartment was the registered address her daughter had given to Companies House.

20. I asked Mrs Main what claims she had made for the council tax for the apartment, and the reason for those claims. I also asked her how many nights she had herself spent in the apartment in each financial year since she had been elected in 2005, together with the evidence, including any diary entries, on which she relied for this information. I asked what claims she had made against the ACA for this apartment in each financial year since her election, together with copies of her claim forms and supporting documentation if available. I also asked what claims for food she had made against the allowances over this period, whether they were for her sole use and how she explained the amount claimed against the number of nights she had spent in the apartment, together with any receipts she might have for the food.

21. I also asked Mrs Main why she considered that her claims against the ACA were wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred and provided value for money given the location of her main home, and the use to which she and her daughter had put the apartment, and whether she had consulted the House authorities about any aspects of this arrangement, together with copies of any documentation relating to these consultations.

22. Mrs Main replied on 22 June.[42] Besides responding to my specific questions, Mrs Main also supplied traffic information and reports[43] "which support my need for a home in St Albans". She also said "At all times, as a new MP, I sought advice about my arrangements from the Green Book and the House of Commons Department of Finance and Administration. I believe that my expenses were incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of performing my parliamentary duties and engagements, whilst serving my constituents and familiarising myself with and immersing myself within my constituency." Mrs Main also provided constituency diary entries, transposed from hard copies, "as comprehensively as I can"[44] and drew my attention to the fact that she had had a back operation in 2006 which had prevented her from working for a period of 5-6 weeks.

23. In response to my specific questions, Mrs Main said that, after consulting the Fees Office, who had been made fully aware of the location of her main home in relation to her constituency, she had established a home in St Albans in 2005. This was to ensure that she was "able to carry out the range of commitments I have in St Albans at all times". She said that this applied particularly on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, often early in the morning or late in the evening. She added, "It is essential that I have a home in St Albans and, indeed, my flat is at the heart of the city".

24. Following her election in 2005, Mrs Main had initially rented the flat unfurnished, and had "set about furnishing it simply, and economically in accordance with the rules". In 2006, the landlord decided to sell the flat and had given her first refusal to purchase it. As she had established a base there and "it was perfect for my situation", she decided to consider this option. She had contacted the Fees Office for guidance as to whether this was acceptable and said she was informed that this was within the rules. She had therefore purchased the property. She obtained a 90% interest-only mortgage ("therefore I own 10% of the flat") and took over ownership. Mrs Main said that the mortgage "was the lowest cost rate product that I could identify at the time". In 2007, when mortgage rates were increasing, she said she had changed the mortgage product to a new rate "to minimise the cost to the State". Mrs Main reiterated that she had consulted the Department of Finance and Administration and was told that it was perfectly acceptable to purchase the flat and to claim for costs incurred. She said that she had claimed within the specific guidelines in force at the time and "at every level have openly and transparently disclosed my position to the Fees Office".

25. Mrs Main told me that she stayed in the flat regularly overnight and used the flat "when I need to be in St Albans on constituency business which I fulfil assiduously, often until a late hour. Many major functions which I am expected to attend routinely take place on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. I not only use the flat to stay over but also as a base for eating/changing between numerous diverse functions, catching up on surgery casework and telephone surgeries, planning and report writing etc.". She said that her diary would confirm the amount of time she spent in St Albans and "the full nature of my workload". Mrs Main added that between April 2006 and March 2009 she had attended 569 engagements, meetings and events. She said that she also spent time in her flat whilst regularly getting to know her constituency, "meeting residents and attending events not in necessarily an official capacity but in order to familiarise myself with the ongoing issues in St Albans … obviously not all of these are diarised as they are of an informal nature, but essential to my role as an MP."

26. Mrs Main said that she spent the other nights of the week in her main home in Beaconsfield "in order to have a limited time with my family on the nights when the House rises at an earlier time." She said that on Mondays and Tuesdays she "rarely" got home before 11.30-11.45pm and at 8.30-9pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Mrs Main said that, as she sat on four committees, she "routinely" had to catch a train at 7.15am in order to make a 9am start "and have some time in my office to set out tasks for my staff". She said that she also made her own private arrangements to stay in London if she needed to stay over due to lateness. She commented, "My work life means I spend little time in my family home."

27. Mrs Main described her St Albans apartment as "a modest two bedroom flat with lounge/dining area and also a small kitchen and bathroom and designated parking. The location with parking helps ensure that I am not affected by severe traffic problems and parking shortages in St Albans city centre". The apartment is "tucked away off the main 'high street' firmly in the heart of the city centre. With all the traffic and restricted parking issues that beset St Albans this location enables me to walk routinely to most events and ensures that I am punctual and reliable in all my duties within the city centre." Mrs Main said that driving even a short distance across the centre of St Albans "can routinely take upwards of half an hour and reaching other parts can take much longer as St Albans has some of the busiest non motorway roads in the county…" She commented, "Traffic congestion impacts on my need to be able to be at the heart of my constituency not at the mercy of the road conditions which would necessitate my diary needing greater blank spaces simply to allow for travel."

28. Mrs Main said that, while her main family home in Beaconsfield was 25 miles away from the city of St Albans, it involved "a journey around some of the most congested parts of the M25". She said that the journey could take upwards of an hour or more at peak times "or even worse as it regularly grinds to a halt". She said that this could "make guaranteed diary scheduling impossible particularly for early engagements such as surgery appointments, school visits, etc. … On top of any M25 journey, especially on weekdays and recess constituency working days I must confront the St Albans congestion which can severely disrupt timetabling." She reiterated that the central location of her flat "means I can walk to many local functions… Having a flat in St Albans clearly enables me to perform [constituency] duties better". She noted that "even under the recent tightening up of distance claims my situation is still acknowledged to be within the claiming distance criteria for second homes" even though the tip of her constituency was within 20 miles of London. She continued, "However, the judgement being applied now in similar situations is that the constituency needs to be 'bisected' by the 20 mile rule not just caught on a far edge, so my constituency is still deemed to be outside the 20 mile rule and suitable for an ACA claim."

29. In response to my inquiry about the details of her mortgage, Mrs Main said that the title to the flat passed to her on 1 November 2006. She had paid a 10% deposit, and she had an interest-only mortgage.

30. Mrs Main said that she had "consulted with both the House of Commons and the Green Book" on her arrangements. She said that she had been told "after fully disclosing my situation that my arrangement was acceptable within the rules, and I was entitled to claim the ACA as my main home was neither in London nor in my constituency." Mrs Main also said that her constituency "spans a distance of some 11 miles and that the distance to the furthest edge is 29 miles away from my main home". The centre of her constituency, where most of her meetings and engagements took place and where she said 87% of her constituents lived, was 25 miles away from her main home. Only one part of one ward, with 977 constituents, was within 20 miles of her main home, and she only did house visits there; she did not hold surgeries and had no office there. She added, "My flat is in the centre of the city near the majority of places I need to visit in my constituency duties and near London Colney where I hold my surgeries, consultations and meet groups of residents."

31. Mrs Main reiterated that journey times on the M25 "can be considerable. Travel in business hours has taken up to 1.5 hours due to slow moving and congested traffic. Even if I was to travel the 'backroads' as might be suggested journey times via Hemel Hempstead can easily average 60 minutes". She continued, "I routinely experience 80 minute commutes using either back roads or motorway routes. In addition, these back roads also become severely impacted when M25 problems occur as commuters use alternative routes to reach their destinations". Mrs Main summed the position up thus: "Traffic is a constant determining factor in and around my constituency". She commented, "As you will see from the congestion hotspot map,[45] … the majority of my constituency sits within an area considered to have the highest number of congestion hotspots and is surrounded by other similarly affected areas, which impact on actually reaching St Albans." She noted the statement in the Green Book[46] that ACA could be claimed in another part of the constituency if reasonably necessary in view of the distance from a Member's only or main home, and commented, "I believe that my arrangements particularly in light of the accepted congestion and 'real' travel times that beset my constituency satisfy this 'reasonableness' test and I accepted advice from the Fees Office on this matter."

32. Summing up why she needed a property in St Albans, Mrs Main said, "I would like to reiterate that every decision with regard to my constituency home has been with the advice of the Fees Office which is fully aware of the location of both homes. In view of the distance calculated, the distance from my main home to my second home is roughly 25 miles. Being located in the heart of my constituency is important, in order that I can access various functions which regularly occur in the town centre or immediate environs and be able to reasonably expect to keep to timetable whilst at all times carrying out my parliamentary duties."

33. Mrs Main said no formal arrangements had been made for her daughter to stay in the St Albans flat on a full-time basis. After checking with the Department of Finance and Administration she had been "informed that 'only an MP's spouse and children are supposed to share the second home'". She said that her daughter kept no possessions of any significance in the flat, and her clothes were limited to "a portable amount". Her daughter had stayed with her "in a sporadic fashion with some periods when she was not there at all, other times she stayed more frequently."

34. Mrs Main said that her daughter made no monetary contribution to the cost of the flat "as she stayed under the guidance that 'spouses and children may share the second home' and it was not regarded as her main home". She said that her daughter always used her own mobile phone, and bought her own food and sundries if needed. However, "in order to ensure I did not waste valuable time on domestic chores she did contribute in kind by undertaking to do my cleaning, bed changing, laundry and putting out of the rubbish when requested to help me out." Mrs Main said that "This help was valuable to me and meant that I had no need to employ a cleaner (as I could have done under the ACA expenses) and I was confident that the flat was not being left totally unattended for more than a few days at a time and importantly my mail and any messages could be picked up sometimes earlier than I might have done so myself."

35. Mrs Main said that her daughter's personal mail, including bills and bank statements, had always been sent, and continued to be sent, to "our family home in Buckinghamshire, where she still has her own bedroom and keeps her clothes and possessions and her friendship group still resides". She commented that none of her children paid rent when staying at the family home. Mrs Main added that her daughter was now living for the majority of her time in London, and the rest of her time was still spent in Beaconsfield.

36. Mrs Main said that her daughter's giving of the St Albans address to Companies House was "a genuine mistake on her part, which has now been rectified". The reason that she had given the flat address was that she had been asked by her managing director for a mailing address for some documents to be sent urgently for signature. As she had been expecting to stay at the flat for the following few days she gave the flat address. Her daughter had been unaware of the official nature that giving the address of the flat would mean and it had simply been a response to the question of where she was staying in the particular week. Mrs Main said that she had been "completely unaware of her decision and indeed would not have agreed to it". Her daughter had been unaware of any implications of giving such an address and, indeed, with all other documentation (such as bank accounts, car insurance, etc) being sent to the family home in Buckinghamshire, "she recognises that it was a mistake on her part and has corrected it".

37. Mrs Main said that she "checked by phone on whether it was possible for any of my children to stay at my constituency home with the parliamentary Fees Office at the time, and I was advised that it was within the spirit of the rules as expressed within the Green Book. … At no point was I given any indication of time limits on her stay. I was aware that my setup was not unusual, and that many other MPs also had older children living in their second home. My daughter has no financial interest in the property. She has spent variable and decreasing amounts of time in the flat and has now left completely which was always her intention".

38. Mrs Main said that as the flat was neither her own or her daughter's main residence, it qualified for 10% relief on council tax. She noted that council tax on Members' second homes was an allowable expense. Mrs Main said that she had received the discount "in accordance with the forms I received from the local authority, which asked if this was my main home, which it was not, and asked whether we had a main home elsewhere on which we paid full council tax, which we did. As such, as the owner of this property, which was my second home, I was entitled to receive a 10% Council Tax discount". She added that the property was not the main home of any other person, and was not regarded as such. She commented, "Clearly there cannot be any personal gain from this arrangement, I paid 90% of the council tax and claimed the exact amount. If I had paid 100% of the council tax I would have claimed 100%".

39. Mrs Main said that she could prove "through comprehensive hard copy diary entries, tallying with mileage claims some of the nights spent in my second home. But at other times, when I did not claim for mileage expenses incurred, I have less 'proof' of my travel arrangements between my homes." She said that, where her flat was situated in a small block of four, each with their own front door, all three of the other flats were rented out and had changed hands, sometimes on several occasions, since she originally purchased her flat. She added, "However, local people and organisations have publicly supported my claim that I try to work 100% for my constituency (see newspaper cutting[47]). I am renowned for my hard work, well known and frequently seen in St Albans." Mrs Main reiterated that she also spent "a significant amount of time in my constituency staying over and attending events/familiarising myself with the constituency and meeting people, chatting to local police etc this type of activity is absolutely vital to ensuring I am fully grounded in all the issues and priorities affecting my constituency. You cannot absorb this sort of information by sitting in a casework surgery or simply being a dignitary at a function". She added that "All information provided shows the absolute bare minimum amount of time I can demonstrate I spent in my second home, but as I did not expect to have to 'prove' my presence in St Albans I cannot give 'proof' of the other times, however I have estimated this to be of the order of upwards of 20 nights per year,[48] plus many other times when the flat has been necessary for use during the day (for eating/changing/resting between numerous diverse functions, catching up on surgery casework , making telephone surgeries or liaising with my office.)"

40. Mrs Main enclosed with her letter copies of the claims she had made against the ACA for her St Albans apartment for each financial year since she was elected.[49] She also set out her total ACA claims for each of the financial years from 2005-06 to 2007-08, and these are reproduced in the following table:

Financial Year Total ACA claim (£)

2005-06 20,385

2006-07 22,110

2007-08 22,091

41. Mrs Main said that her food claims were "for my sole use". She commented, "Food as per paragraph 3.11.1 (other food) in the Green Book, was for reasonable additional costs away from my main home and was not as much as I actually incur whilst eating away from my main home. During a typical seven day week, I usually do not spend more than one or two evenings with my family in Buckinghamshire when meals are available and, as such, incur significant food bills/meals bills". She did not have any receipts for food bills as, according to the Green Book, these were not required as supporting documents for claims.

42. Mrs Main believed that her "extremely busy" diary and her "heavy work schedule which frequently runs from early morning to late evening reflects the necessity of my maintaining a second home in St Albans. I believe these details show that my second home represents value for money. Without my second home, I would not be able to function at the level that I currently do, in service of my constituents. Even if rules are altered with regard to expenses for second homes I shall at all times continue to endeavour to maintain my home in St Albans as long as I serve as the Member of Parliament, as I believe I cannot carry out my duties without it". She repeated that she had undertaken 569 individual activities, meetings and engagements over the past three full tax years. The breakdown of these activities which she provided is set out in the following table:

Year Number of engagements Comments

2006-07 163 5-6 weeks out due to back operation

2007-08 208

2008-09 198

TOTAL 569

43. Mrs Main also said that, prior to her election, she had been selected as the candidate in 2002, and as such had no constituency base. She had needed to commute for three years as she worked to win the seat and in effect shadow and learn the role of a Member. She commented, "Apart from sometimes being late for functions or unable to accept them due to time issues re the motorway, I regularly had to wash and change between functions in the chairman's home or local toilets as well as eating takeaways in my car or local cafes. In order to ensure I could meet early and late deadlines I had to leave far earlier than necessary … It was gruelling and unsustainable and that was without any parliamentary duties in the House, late sittings, etc. It was a tiring and frankly chaotic existence which wrecked our family time and it is not a life I could even envisage sustaining as the elected Member which is why I elected to have a home in St Albans not London". Mrs Main added that, had she not chosen to have a home in St Albans "the complex multiple scheduling I operate means my ability to work would be severely compromised and I would have to undertake to do fewer functions which would obviously not serve my constituents as well as I could ."

44. Mrs Main summarised the position regarding her use of the St Albans apartment in the following terms: "I stay in the flat and use it when I need to be in St Albans on constituency business which I fulfil assiduously, often until a late hour. I not only use the flat to stay over which is vital but also as a base for eating/changing between numerous diverse functions, catching up on surgery casework, making telephone surgeries or liaising with my office etc, my diary confirms the amount of time I spend in St Albans."

45. As to consultations with the House authorities about her arrangements, Mrs Main said that she had sought advice from the Department of Finance and Administration, and the Green Book regarding these, and had been told that they were in order. She said that these consultations had been conducted over the telephone as suggested in the Green Book, and she was not aware which if any of the calls had been formally logged.

46. I wrote again to Mrs Main on 25 June.[50] I asked how old her daughter was when she was staying in the flat, whether she was financially dependent on Mrs Main at that time, for an estimate of the period during which she was using the apartment and, in each financial year of that period, how many nights her daughter stayed there, and if either Mrs Main or her daughter could confirm why her daughter needed to stay at the St Albans apartment during this time. I also asked Mrs Main if she could give me an estimate of the number of nights a year she believed she had spent in her family home. I noted that I had seen from her letter that she had said: "My work life means I spend little time in my family home." However, earlier in that paragraph, she had said: "I spend most of the other nights of the week in my main home in Beaconsfield…", and elsewhere in her letter she had estimated that she spent "upwards of 20 nights per year" in her St Albans apartment. I asked Mrs Main if she could help me to reconcile these statements, taking account of the definition of a main home in the Green Book.

47. Mrs Main responded on 29 June.[51] She said that her daughter Claire had been 24 years old in 2006 when she started spending some time at Mrs Main's request in the St Albans flat. Her daughter was not financially dependent on her, but she was at that time living as a family member, not paying rent, in Mrs Main's Beaconsfield home where she had her own room and facilities. Mrs Main added that "this arrangement was ongoing and not expected to change". Mrs Main said that her Beaconsfield home "is a substantial six bedroomed family property in proximity (10 minute walking distance) to the Beaconsfield train station with its excellent commuter services into London which is where my daughter works and had worked during the entire period." Mrs Main said that her daughter "spent times in Beaconsfield when it suited her, and when I was principally at home for family times such as Christmas, Easter etc she also spent time with her boyfriend who has his own flat in London." She estimated that allowing for holidays, and for periods spent in Beaconsfield and elsewhere when staying in the flat, her daughter had spent typically no more than three nights in a week in the flat starting in 2006, and that this had decreased to "a more typical" two nights a week or less. She had ceased staying in the flat in May 2009. Mrs Main repeated what she had said in her previous letter[52] that her daughter had stayed with her in a sporadic fashion with some periods when she was not there at all. She said, "The total number of nights are hard to calculate but I estimate it to be between 95 and 100 nights per annum."

48. Mrs Main said that her daughter "did not need to stay in the flat as she had a home in Beaconsfield where she lived without paying rent as a family member and that was ongoing, as previously indicated and convenient for her job and travel by train into London." Mrs Main said that it was she who felt the arrangement by which her daughter stayed in St Albans "would not only assist me in my busy role by ensuring that I could carry out my duties as fully and as frequently as I wished to in St Albans with the limited diary time available without worrying about the need to tackle necessary household chores or employ a cleaner, but also it helped me to have occasional companionship and family support when I see so little of my family." Mrs Main said that she had consulted the Fees Office about various issues concerning her St Albans flat, and in those conversations she had been told that "only spouses and children" were allowed to share the second home. She also said that at no point was she given any indication from the Fees Office in their advice that the age of her children or frequency of staying was a consideration or limiting factor, nor did the rules covering ACA state anything to that effect. Mrs Main reiterated her previous comments that her daughter had supported her by undertaking, whilst staying there, to do her cleaning, bed changing, and laundry, etc., had checked for mail and messages, and had ensured the flat did not sit unattended for security reasons during any of her personal family holiday periods.

49. Mrs Main said that, as she had previously stated, she spent all other nights when not in St Albans in her main home in Beaconsfield, with obvious exceptions such as holidays/social events, occasional business visits, and "on less than ten occasions in four years the need for overnight stays in London associated with train/travel disruption meaning I was unable to get home after parliamentary duties." The spreadsheets she had previously supplied[53] showed her stays in St Albans that she could "prove". She said that these showed that in 2006-07 she had made a minimum of 66 overnight stays plus an estimated up to 20 additional nights for year totalling 86 nights (plus an additional day usage) despite having over 5 weeks off duties due to a serious back operation. For 2007-08, the data showed a minimum of 69 nights plus an estimated up to 20 additional nights totalling 89 nights (plus additional day usage), and for 2008-09 a minimum of 80 nights plus an estimated up to 20 additional nights totalling 100 nights (plus additional day usage). Mrs Main commented, "If these figures are placed together, then the time I spend or would expect to spend in my main home would be in the region of 265 nights in any one year not taking into account deductions for any periods spent away on family holidays, which typically would average about four weeks holiday time spread through the year, or other brief work-related absences as outlined above." Mrs Main also clarified the expression "upwards of 20 nights" which she had used in her letter of 22 June[54] with reference to an estimate of the additional non-diarised dates when she was in St Albans. She said that it should have read "up to 20 nights".

50. Mrs Main said that her statement "my work life means I spend little time in my family home" referred to "the amount of day time or 'waking time' during a working week when I would expect to be able to join in with family meals, and see my family… I had hoped that the statement referring to 'my work life' had made it clear I was referring to day time before 9pm-11.30pm." She reiterated that when the House was sitting she commuted by train, often early in the morning, worked the hours needed on parliamentary duties which she said were governed by the House sitting times, "after which I do indeed return, often at a late hour … to our main home, where my family lives, to stay overnight for the estimated 265 plus nights as outlined above". As to her arrangements when the House was not sitting, Mrs Main commented, "When the House is not sitting, my travel and work pattern alters and I spend the time I need to in my constituency carrying out my duties, travelling to my constituency by car and staying over there as shown in the spreadsheets, but at all other times during the hours available to me I stay and sleep at our main home with the obvious exceptions for times away on holidays etc."

51. I wrote to Mrs Main again on 8 July.[55] I said that I had now completed the work on her diary in respect of her overnight stays in St Albans, I noted that, whilst her diaries indicated the days on which she had engagements in her constituency, the information I needed to establish related to the number of nights she had spent at her St Albans apartment. For that purpose, the record of a constituency engagement in the evening, or first thing in the morning, although not conclusive, might in my view reasonably suggest an overnight stay in St Albans. In a number of instances, however, it was not clear from the printout of her diaries how the engagements she had listed corroborated her statements about nights spent at her constituency property; nor in some cases was it clear whether the engagement had been of a parliamentary character rather than personal or party political. I sent her a series of questions designed to clarify these points.[56]

52. Mrs Main replied on 21 July.[57] She said that her constituents expected her to have a home in her constituency and be seen about not always as the "special guest". She was expected to support businesses, go to local cultural events, to frequent local shops and restaurants and to be able to "share their concerns by actually spending time being local and part of the community." Mrs Main said that, in order to serve her constituents fully, it was essential that she learned "everything about my constituency, keep continuously up to date on: local vandalism/litter/graffiti/fly-tipping hotspots, road and road surface issues, waste collection services and associated issues, river water abstraction/flooding/riparian problems/gulley clearance, speeding/pollution/light phasing alterations/junction problems, planning applications, train/station issues, bus shelter sitings, mobile phone mast sites and locations, street lighting and safety issues, shops/business closures, the appearance of our tourist attractions, buses, disabled access, road signage, the viability of our market, noises/nuisance emanating late at night from licensed premises particularly if a licence extension is being sought etc and indeed all the issues and concerns facing my constituents, which is why I regularly stayed over in my flat."

53. Mrs Main said that "as reflects the more usual role of a modern MP I certainly do not just concern myself simply with House duties and formal events but all of the above issues and many more and my residents certainly expect this of me as my post bag and phone calls to my office confirm." Referring to her entry on the website theyworkforyou.com, Mrs Main said that she ranked highly for her duties in the House with debates, questions etc, but her constituents also expected to get a 100% service from her at a local level. Mrs Main said, "They regard me as their voice and champion…" and that she was expected to have an informed view on all the issues she had outlined. Her constituents often required detailed letters of support or objection from her, and only when she had satisfied herself as to the issues involved would she write letters to the Council. Mrs Main said her constituents "do not expect me to say that it is the duty of the Council, or tell them to contact their local councillor regarding these issues. Many times they have felt unhappy with the response from the Council and they look to me to try to move things forward or to provoke a more positive response and they expect me to be informed."

54. Mrs Main said that she "always tried to have some lightly diarised days to give myself flexibility and leave time to do the research I need and formulate my response to the information I have gained". She "always responded to all major consultations … Clearly, it is impossible to complete a one hundred page multi-option document referring to various specific parts of the district in an informed manner if I had not undertaken in my non diarised time to walk around the various areas etc.". She did not completely fill up her diary "to allow time for such research and note taking" before she sent in a "comprehensive response or before, on planning issues, I decide to add support or otherwise to residents' concerns". Inevitably, because she believed in being freely available to her constituents and well informed on their behalf, not all the work that she undertook within her constituency on parliamentary business was necessarily diarised in her paper diaries, from which she had taken details of events. Mrs Main said that her paper diary was augmented by diaries kept within her Westminster Office, and although she attempted to keep both diaries in synchronisation that was not necessarily possible or necessary. Also, Mrs Main told me that there would be "dynamic additions that are just phoned through to me based on requests coming into my Westminster office regarding constituency issues. For example, there are frequent additions to diary events on the day and people will ring me to see if I can meet up with them at short notice to chat about something of concern. Indeed, just walking about my constituency particularly in the city centre often generates several such encounters." The Muslim community, for example, would frequently see if they could meet informally outside the mosque hours "for a chat" if she was around. Mrs Main said that she did not enter these informal short-notice arrangements in her diary as they were not pre-booked.

55. Mrs Main continued, "Given the fact that the majority of your questions are asked regarding dates over the past three years, it is clearly difficult if not impossible for me to recall every event on every day in light of the alternative but necessary activities I undertake … I do not keep a diary in the sense of making a daily record of everything I have done only what I had planned to do or have committed to as formal engagements … I have provided some answers[58] of what I believe occurred and ask you to bear in mind my approach to fact finding, site visits and follow up work. These activities can take up a great deal of time and need to be done in a time appropriate way". Mrs Main added that the time she spent at the flat in St Albans "will also cover preparing case work notes or drafting responses for my staff and other parliamentary work that I undertake wherever I can. I do not have my own constituency office, merely limited use of the Conservative Association area office for which I pay the St Albans Conservative Association."

56. I wrote to Mrs Main on 23 July saying that, on the basis of the work she had done on the time she had spent in St Albans, I aimed to produce a schedule which would summarise her pattern of overnight stays there.[59] I said that, while the diaries and the further information she had given me were inevitably estimates, I hoped that she and I would be able to agree that they provided the best estimate of her likely overnight stays in each of the years in question.

57. I wrote again to Mrs Main on 6 August.[60] I told her that I had now completed the diary analysis on the basis of the material she had sent me on 21 July,[61] and that, having studied her diaries, I considered that they helped to support the estimates she had given me of her overnight stays in her St Albans home. I also told her that, given the uncertainties, I did not consider that there were sufficient grounds to add to these estimates the additional undiarised 20 nights a year which she had suggested. I attached to my letter the table set out below as summarising the figures which I proposed to use as a best estimate of her stays in her constituency home. I also said that I considered it would be helpful for me to approach her daughter, Ms Claire Tonks, about the complaint.

Year Nights spent in constituency home

2006-07* 66

2007-08 67

2008-09 80

2009-10 (to end of June) 23

Total 236

* Includes back operation and 5 weeks bed rest

58. I wrote to Ms Tonks on 6 August[62] and enclosed with my letter extracts[63] from Mrs Main's letters to me of 22 June,[64] 29 June,[65] and 21 July.[66] I asked her why she had stayed in her mother's flat in St Albans from 2006 to 2009; for an estimate of the number of nights she had stayed there for each financial year in the period; how many nights she spent there at a time; how often she stayed there with her mother; and why the arrangement came to an end in May 2009. I also asked what costs she met when she was staying at the flat; whether her stays at the flat were solely for the purpose of undertaking household chores and how regularly she performed them; why she used one of her mother's car parking spaces even when she was not herself staying in the flat; how she divided her time between the flat and any other places where she lived and worked; whether it was true that, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, her name appeared on the electoral roll for the St Albans address, and if so, exactly how this came about; and why the St Albans address was notified to Companies House on two occasions, how the mistake referred to by her mother had came about, and what she did to correct it.

59. Ms Tonks replied on 18 August.[67] She said that "as a family we knew Mum was finding living and working away from the main family home for long hours quite tiring and stressful. …Because we were concerned about her work life balance, we all wanted to support her and we discussed what we could do." She added that her mother had injured her back, that it was still not completely resolved, found heavy jobs difficult, and needed rest. Because her mother was "finding the busy job of being an MP and the day to day management of the flat in St Albans tiresome to cope with … she asked if I would help out." Ms Tonks commented, "Obviously I work full time and certainly was not being 'employed' as her cleaner but I did feel I could help her out in whatever way she needed which certainly included managing the upkeep of the flat for her and any other occasional chores she might want sorted just as I would at our home in Beaconsfield."

60. Ms Tonks told me that her mother had told her that she had checked the arrangement out with the Fees Office and had been told that spouses and children were "ok to be in the 2nd home". She had therefore "willingly agreed" to spend some time in St Albans. Because she worked in London the commute from St Albans was not a problem for her, but she "would not have stayed there if I had been told it was not allowable as I had no need to be in St Albans." She added that her mother "was also aware that many other MPs had their children of various ages staying in their second homes so neither of us believed our arrangement was out of the ordinary and neither Mum nor myself attempted to hide the arrangement from anybody."

61. Ms Tonks said that her mother was "extremely busy and works long hours", so she helped her by doing all the necessary household chores in the flat when needed, such as, the laundry, bed making, general cleaning up etc. She commented that her mother "never had to do those things and always left them for me to do". Ms Tonks also said that, because she could be flexible in her job, it meant that she "could also agree to be present in the flat if Mum needed me to be." So she arranged to be in the flat if her mother had a delivery, such as a replacement washing machine, and undertook to be present when her mother had "paid personally for the flat to have a professional 'spring clean' which covered tough jobs such as oven cleaning and window cleaning." She had also overseen the fitting of a new stair carpet and "sorted out the putting up of curtains etc." She also said that she "helped out by doing some decorating with [her stepfather] when he came over to sort out maintenance in the flat". When she was able to be in the flat she had picked up any messages or mail if her mother had asked her to, and forwarded it on, and collected cleaning and heavy shopping. She commented, "I was company for her if we overlapped our stays, it freed up her time and enabled her to get on with what she needed to do in St Albans and allowed her time for her paperwork and to frankly get some rest. Because neither of us were there full time sometimes our stays overlapped, but sometimes I only knew she had been there when I hadn't due to things in the fridge or flowers etc in the flat." Ms Tonks added that the flat did not have any outside space, so in the summer she had preferred to spend the majority of her time in Beaconsfield "as we have a large garden with a swimming pool". It was also where her social life was based, consequently "weekends were typically spent either in London or Beaconsfield".

62. Ms Tonks said that she could not recall how many nights she had stayed in the St Albans flat "as I simply wasn't counting". She estimated that "at its most frequent it may have been that I stayed in the flat a maximum of three to four nights in a particular week, but then some weeks I was not there at all or I only stayed maybe one or two nights to get some things done for Mum." However, she added that the time that she had been able stay over in St Albans had been "decreasing to a couple of nights a week at most as I spent increasing amounts of time with my boyfriend who only lives three miles from where I work in London". She had told her mother that she "felt I could not keep up the arrangement for much longer, my own job was getting more time intensive and it was getting difficult for me to travel to and from St Albans to London". She had wanted to move in with her boyfriend full time and "we wanted to buy a flat together near to where we both work, so it would have also been too difficult financially to then keep going over to St Albans." As her own circumstances had changed, "one or two nights in any week had become the norm. Mum and I had discussed this and she said she would have to get a cleaner and [Ms Tonks' stepfather] agreed to try and help out more." Ms Tonks added that, in the end, the arrangement "ended overnight due to the media firestorm that engulfed my Mum".

63. Ms Tonks said that when she stayed at the flat she bought all her own food. She had also used her own mobile for phone calls. Her car was usually, but not always, left in St Albans because she did not need it in London. She was not a frequent driver, and could have had use of one of her parent's cars if she had needed it. She said that "it was helpful to have use of a car in St Albans however so that I could sometimes drive back to Beaconsfield from the St Albans end if needed, there is no easy train route to do that journey. I used it mostly to go and get the bulky shopping from the supermarket". Ms Tonks said that she "wanted to support my Mum by being able to vote for her if possible". Because her time "was split in varying amounts between Beaconsfield, London and St Albans I nominated to vote in St Albans so I could vote for my Mum."

64. Ms Tonks said that "the Companies House registration was a complete naive mistake on my part and my mum was totally unaware of it until it featured in the Telegraph story". She worked for a very small company and instead of a pay rise they had agreed to make her a director. She had been asked "for a contactable address …but no mention was made of registering it at Companies House". At the time, she was in St Albans for a few days, "so I gave the flat as the address and this address was just carried over by admin in the office for the registration. I didn't know it had any implication and I could easily have said Beaconsfield but since either Mum or I would have popped in and out of the flat fairly regularly at this period it just seemed as easy to say St Albans as a contactable address." Ms Tonks said that this had now been corrected as she had "notified my company immediately after this error was pointed out that the flat was not to be considered my permanent address and that the only address that should be considered permanent was my main home in Beaconsfield and they notified Companies House to correct the listing. My other mail such as bank statements, phone bills etc were all still going to Beaconsfield and they still do."

65. Ms Tonks concluded by stating that "at no point did I seek to gain advantage from being in the flat. I thought I was there to help out, live as a family member and support my Mum".

66. I replied to Ms Tonks on 2 September.[68] I said that I appreciated that she did not have precise information about the number of nights she had spent in St Albans, but, subject to any further points she might wish to make, I proposed to proceed on the assumption that she had spent between two and three nights a week in St Albans, with three nights more usual at the beginning of the arrangement and two nights in the final year. I said that I understood from her that the arrangement ended in May 2009, and asked, for the sake of completeness, for her best estimate of the month in 2006 when the arrangement started. I also said that, as I understood it, her evidence was that she acted, in effect, as her mother's part-time housekeeper for the St Albans flat and that she was there for no other purpose. I said that it would appear, however, that she spent more nights in the St Albans apartment than did her mother. While I noted her evidence of the chores Ms Tonks had performed in St Albans, I said it would be helpful to know why she needed to spend so much time there and why it was necessary for her to stay there overnight on so many occasions.

67. Ms Tonks responded on 10 September.[69] She said that she estimated that she had started staying in St Albans on a regular basis "from the end of August or early September 2006". As to the amount of time she had spent in St Albans, she said that, having been told that she was allowed to stay in the flat after her mother had checked this out with the Fees Office, "I simply sorted out my own business and personal life around the help I had agreed to give her. I certainly did not think I had some time-limited schedule to follow." Ms Tonks said that her mother "felt the arrangement had helped her enormously and the flat was always up and ready whether she stayed overnight or used it in the day for working etc". She added, "Sometimes she and I would try to overlap purposely in order to have some family time together, perhaps go out for a meal and then our evenings would not have to be taken up with routine household jobs. But I do after all work full time in quite a demanding job. I did not feel any need to rush back late in an evening and get all the chores over and done with. I did them in my own time and at my convenience. My mother told me to stay in the flat when it suited me to do this housework or when she needed me to be there, and that is what I did."

68. Meanwhile, on 3 September, I had written to the Director of Operations at the Department of Resources, seeking his views on the matter.[70] In particular I sought his comments and advice, taking account of the rules of the House, on the acceptability of the Member maintaining and claiming for an apartment in St Albans when her main home was in Beaconsfield, within 20 miles' distance from her constituency, and on the acceptability of the use of the apartment by Mrs Main's adult daughter, taking account of the fact that she seemed to have spent more time there than the Member and that no allowance seemed to have been made for her living costs.

69. The Director of Strategic Projects replied to me on 11 September.[71] On the acceptability of a Member maintaining and claiming for an apartment in St Albans when her main home was in Beaconsfield, within 20 miles of her constituency, he said that "Essentially the rule was (and is) that eligible Members could claim for overnight stays either at a home within 20 miles of the Palace of Westminster, or at a home within the constituency (or within 20 miles of the constituency boundary)." There had never been a rule that an additional home in the constituency was not permitted if the main home was within 20 miles of the constituency. Mrs Main was therefore "within the rules of the House to claim for an additional property in her constituency while her main home was in Beaconsfield."

70. On the use of the apartment by Mrs Main's adult daughter, the Director said that, in the Green Books which were in force from 2005 to 2009, Members were "strongly advised" against subletting or renting out any part of a property on which ACA was claimed. (This rule applied also to paying guests.) If they did so, they were required to notify the Department, who would reduce their claims by the amount of their rental income. He continued, "However, where rent was not paid, there was no rule which governed who might or might not live in, or stay at, a home on which ACA was claimed." He noted that Mrs Main had said in her letter to me of 22 June[72] that her daughter made no monetary contribution to the cost of the flat. From this he inferred that Mrs Main had never received any income from her daughter for her occupation of the property. Although Mrs Main had made it clear that she received certain services from her daughter, he was "not sure whether this should be regarded as a consideration for her occupation to which a monetary value could be ascribed."

71. The Director also said that the Green Book made it clear that Members could not claim under the ACA for the living costs of anyone other than themselves. The Director said that it appeared that Mrs Main had not abated the costs which she charged to the House in respect of her daughter's occupation of the property. He added that, in his view, "it would have been appropriate for her to do so in respect of claims for items, such as utility charges, which could be attributable partly to her daughter's occupation." The question of mortgage interest was in his view a different one, "since its level was unaffected by Mrs Main's daughter's occupation of the apartment."[73]

72. I wrote to Mrs Main on 11 September to bring her up to date on the evidence I had received so far, and to invite any comments she might wish to make on it at that stage.[74] I said that I would need to come to my own conclusion on the advice given on behalf of the Department of Resources, and would do so once I had all the relevant information.

73. Mrs Main replied to me on 15 September.[75] She commented that "the position as stated by the Fees Office about claiming for the second home exactly concurs with advice I was given at the time which is why I have maintained at all times that my arrangements were completely within the rules. The advice about who may live or stay in the property is the same as that given to me at the time. Because of the advice that I received I told my daughter it was within the rules for her to stay there and people have always been aware of my situation" Mrs Main noted the Department's comments with regard to utility bills, which in her view "could only refer to gas and electricity since my water is not metered". She reiterated that her daughter had met her own personal costs on food and phone bills. Mrs Main said she "would find it extremely hard to assess what, if any, portion of any gas or electricity utility bill I should have considered abating given that I am often there in the day even if I do not stay the night." Mrs Main said that if her daughter had used appliances or machines for vacuuming, "I do not understand how it would be possible to calculate her 'personal usage' given that the chores would have to be done anyway. In the winter I always have the heating and hot water on a timed switch on for short periods each day to keep the flat aired, warm and ready for my use and this would occur whether anyone was there or not".

74. Mrs Main said that she found it "somewhat puzzling" that the Department had questioned whether her daughter's help around the flat should be seen as potentially "receiving services". She commented, "As a family we do not regard such mutual family support as 'services rendered'." Mrs Main said that her daughter's companionship and help were never seen in that light, "just as such family help and support is not regarded in that 'commercial light' in our main home where our family members help out when needed." Mrs Main said that she thought that most people would think that it would be somewhat strange if charging for a cleaner and claiming that cost from her expenses was regarded as preferable to her daughter "acting like a family member and helping out around the house." Her husband had also done "significant maintenance" in the flat but she "would not consider those 'services' rendered either". Nowhere in the Green Book was this "family support scenario" outlined as a matter for consideration, nor had she been given any guidance to that effect. She concluded by reiterating that she had, at all times "tried to work fully within the rules and guidance as set out in the Green Book and with the advice of the Fees Office."

75. I replied to Mrs Main on 1 October.[76] I told her that I had decided, in the light of her response, that it would be helpful in resolving the complaint if I could take oral evidence from her daughter, and was in contact with her to make the necessary arrangements.

76. I interviewed Mrs Main's daughter, Ms Claire Tonks, on 26 October.[77] I emphasised that my inquiry was not about her, but about whether her mother was within the rules of the House in the way she used the St Albans flat. Ms Tonks agreed that she had stayed in her mother's flat in St Albans from about August or September 2006 to May 2009 for a number of nights most weeks; that she had initially stayed an average of three to four nights a week, but that this decreased to one or two nights a week towards the end; that she had stayed overnight in order to help with chores and to be a companion to her mother; that she undertook a range of tasks, some requiring her to be at the flat during the day, and others that she did after work in the evening; that she usually left her car in St Albans because the parking space was available and she used the car mostly for shopping trips, or sometimes so that she could drive back to Beaconsfield; and that she gave the St Albans address to her boss but did not know it would be used on the directors' registration form sent to Companies House.

77. Ms Tonks was not sure exactly when in 2006 the arrangement had started. Her mother had been finding it difficult working the hours she did and splitting her time between St Albans and Beaconsfield, and "she always liked to come back to Beaconsfield at night". Her mother had said "it might be nice for me to spend some time in St Albans and help out in exchange for being able to live there," although she later noted that the word "exchange" implied a more formal relationship than existed: "I was simply supporting my mother." Her stepfather was also concerned and her mother had not been feeling well. She commented, "It just seemed like a nice thing for me to do". When the arrangement started, she had no real idea of how much time she would spend in St Albans, or how long the arrangement would last. She commented, "It wasn't anything we discussed. It was supposed to be a flexible arrangement. My mum didn't always know if I was there any more than I knew if she was there". She had "a feeling we expected it to be for a few nights per week. I never wanted to spend too long there. If my mum was there I hoped we could go out for dinner or go to the pub or have supper together. But if I had stayed at St Albans I would have had no social life. I would have been on my own. I never wanted to be there full time."

78. Ms Tonks said that her mother knew that she and her boyfriend wanted to buy a house. She said, "So as soon as he got a base in London I wanted to move in with him. He lives three miles from my office. I wanted to be there. I didn't want to be at St Albans." The arrangement "was always going to be temporary, my living at home after I had gone travelling. I moved back home to get on my feet." It had nonetheless lasted longer than she thought it might.

79. Ms Tonks agreed that the arrangement by which she stayed in St Albans was a weekday arrangement; she did not stay there at the weekend. She spent more time in Beaconsfield over the summer because there was no garden in St Albans. She commented, "There were periods of time when I spent more time in St Albans than in Beaconsfield purely because of what was going on with my mum. But overall I spent more time at Beaconsfield in the summer". She had usually commuted between the flat and her work in London; the journey was marginally shorter from St Albans than from Beaconsfield. She did not have a season ticket, but bought daily tickets.

80. Ms Tonks said that she had a wardrobe in the flat and in Beaconsfield as well, so she had clothes in both places. Her mother kept items such as a hairdryer in St Albans. When she came to St Albans she would bring some things with her, but she also washed and left some clothes there. She had a laptop that she would generally keep at St Albans "because we had a computer at the family home. I kept a couple of books there too. In terms of personal things I had a couple of family photos but not much else". She had not decorated her room, but "left it as it was".

81. Ms Tonks said that she had been at the flat "a handful of times" during the day to open it for maintenance and deliveries. She commented, "I am lucky with my work, that I can work from home during the day, if my project allows". She added, "Occasionally on a Saturday I might be in if my mum was in the high street. For things like the delivery of the washing machine my mum might ask me to be there only if my stepdad couldn't be there. It would be unusual." She said that she would go shopping for groceries for both her mother and herself. She would go to the supermarket for bread and milk because "she would like me to have those in the house". She would also keep the fridge stocked with microwave meals, and would do this on a weekly basis. She usually stopped off at a supermarket on her way home from work.

82. Ms Tonks said that whether her mother ate out on nights when she was at the flat depended on her engagements. She commented, "Normally she would have either an appointment starting about 9pm or she would get back very late and she would want something light to eat when she got in. There was no routine to her diary." As regards the scale of her mother's shopping requirements, Ms Tonks commented, "I was trying to help her in small ways at least. In my job I don't get home until 8 or 9pm so perhaps we would have a pub dinner or something."

83. Ms Tonks said that the flat had an en suite bathroom attached to one of the bedrooms, a lounge and kitchen. She had cleaned "as and when needed. It wasn't heavy duty cleaning, just running the vacuum cleaner around to keep it looking nice." Her mother had arranged a professional deep clean because she was "more particular than me … in her mind it all looked a bit grubby."

84. Ms Tonks said that her stepfather had stayed at the flat "a couple of times". Her boyfriend had also stayed a couple of times, on each occasion with the permission of her mother. Ms Tonks did not know how often she had stayed overnight at the flat when her mother was there. She commented, "She liked to go back to Beaconsfield at 10.30 or 11pm when the M25 cleared. She was at the flat more frequently than she stayed the night." As to why Ms Tonks needed to be there three nights a week to support her mother when Mrs Main was there on average only one night a week, Ms Tonks commented, "My mum didn't suggest spending time there so I could do the cleaning. I wasn't there as the cleaner. It was to make the place more lived in. We both thought it was okay for me to be there. We had no reason to think otherwise. For me it didn't make much difference where I lived. But my mum liked the flat feeling lived in."

85. As to whether Ms Tonks had herself gained a benefit from the arrangement, she commented, "I suppose I got a benefit in the same way as I got a benefit out of anything at home. I am lucky to be able to live at home and I used it as an extension of my home". It "wasn't the point" that it gave her a chance to live in a place largely of her own rather than live in the family home. She said, "It did feel quite nice to have some peace and quiet some times but that wasn't the reason for being there. It was a natural consequence of my being there."

86. Ms Tonks said that the number of nights she had spent in St Albans dwindled from three to four to one to two a week because her boyfriend had moved to east London, where she worked so she "started to spend all my time with him then". That had happened "about a year and a bit ago. His job had moved to Buckinghamshire in the autumn of 2007 and I was spending a lot of time there. Then he moved to London, and I pretty much started living full time with him." The time she spent in St Albans had tailed off from October 2007. She commented, "I was still spending some time there but it was tricky to be there very much." Ms Tonks said that her mother was aware that she wanted to spend her time with her boyfriend and that they wanted to get a house together. Ms Tonks accepted that this might suggest that she could have undertaken her duties in St Albans staying, say, only one night a week, but commented, "we wouldn't have had time together".

87. As to why she had chosen to vote in St Albans, Ms Tonks said that her mother had advised her that because her time was split she could choose where to vote. She commented, "I wanted to vote for my mum, so I registered in St Albans."

88. As to why she had given the St Albans address as her "usual residential address" on a company registration form she had signed on 7 March 2008, Ms Tonks commented, "My boss is prepared to vouch that she asked me to give the address to be used for documents in case the company got into trouble. So I gave the St Albans address. At the time I was spending time at the flat. That is where I was, so I gave that address to her; it was where I was best contacted for documents. I now think I shouldn't have done that. It was only when the Telegraph got hold of it that I thought about it. All my bank and other documents went to Beaconsfield." At the time when she signed the document, in March 2008, Ms Tonks said that she "still spent quite a few days at the flat. It was just one of those stupid things". When I asked Ms Tonks if she had noticed that the form asked for her "usual residential address", she said "I hadn't looked at [the form]. I don't recall. I didn't feel any reason not to use the address. … I could have given either address. I can't recall reading 'usual residential address'. I didn't pay enough attention to the form".

89. On 2 November I wrote to Mrs Main asking her for some final information.[78] I noted that I did not seem to have received some of the information which I had asked her for in my letter of 17 June.[79] This was her estimate of the number of nights she had spent in the St Albans apartment in 2005-06, together with any evidence including diary entries on which she relied for this information; and details of the claims she had made for food in each financial year, and how she explained the amount claimed against the number of nights spent in her flat. I also told Mrs Main that I had asked the Department of Resources to clarify the rules on food claims in the light of her letter of 22 June.[80] I also said that she might wish to note the Tenth Report of Session 2008-09 of the Committee on Standards and Privileges[81] which I believed was relevant to my consideration of the complaint against her.

90. On 3 November I wrote to the Director of Operations in the Department of Resources.[82] I asked whether Members' food claims under the rules should be made only for food consumed when it was necessary to stay overnight away from their main home in their residence funded by the Additional Costs Allowance, or whether it was permissible for them to claim for food consumed when they were spending a night away from their main home, wherever its location.

91. The Director of Operations replied on 11 November.[83] He said that his interpretation of the position on food claims was that Members whose main home was neither in the constituency nor in London could receive an allowance in respect of expenses incurred for overnight stays in London or overnight stays in the constituency. This meant that there was a choice as to whether to establish an additional home in the constituency or London, but having exercised that choice the expenses incurred must be at that location, or en route to that location, for them to be claimable. "So, for Mrs Main her food expenses must be in relation to costs incurred in St Albans where she had her additional home. The costs must also be associated with an overnight stay." The Director said that "On this last point, if asked, we would interpret this such that the food purchases could be either side of an overnight stay (i.e. stayed overnight Monday; food purchase for which the costs were allowable would be either the Monday or Tuesday)."

92. The Director also said that in this context both the Resolution of the House on ACA and the Green Book were "somewhat opaque". He said that "mostly Members would refer to the Green Book, which on the question of food claims in July 2006 said:

"3.13.1 Examples of expenditure allowable under the additional costs allowance

…

Other food—reasonable additional costs while you are away from your main home."

The Director commented that he thought "it is possible for a Member erroneously to infer from the text of the Green Book the notion that food is claimable when he or she was away from their main home providing the costs were necessarily incurred for the purpose of performing his or her Parliamentary duties. Paragraph 3.2.1 of the Green Book (Eligibility) would also give this impression if read on its own, although it is clear here that it would have to have been be in conjunction with an overnight stay."

93. Meanwhile, on 6 November the complainant, Mr Harper, had written to me again.[84] With his letter he enclosed a copy of a press release issued by Mrs Main on 5 November.[85] In his letter, Mr Harper argued that "Mrs Main's property purchase was a property speculation, not a pre-requisite for fulfilling her perception of her role as an MP" and that he quoted figures to demonstrate there were other, more cost effective, alternatives to meeting her requirements. I replied to Mr Harper on 6 November saying that I would take account of the points he had made if necessary in the course of my inquiry into his complaint.

94. Mrs Main responded to my letter of 2 November[86] on 11 November.[87] She said that prior to her election she had neither a home in the constituency nor in London. She had not had a home in St Albans before the flat was rented from 10 June 2005. Consequently, despite health issues, she had had to spend a significant amount of time on "long and tiring" commutes between those two places and her family home in Beaconsfield, whilst carrying out parliamentary duties and constituency duties. The flat had been "let unfurnished and it took a few weeks allowing for purchases and delivery of key items such as the beds and sofas for me to move in fully." However she had managed to have "a degree of occupancy" from around 17 June 2005 when she "used the flat as a base for getting changed, having a meal, catching up on paper work between engagements etc."

95. Mrs Main said that she had done her best to try to give details of her formal diary commitments, despite a long period of time elapsing, and attached a table.[88] She added that she found it "somewhat unreasonable that I am being asked to try and prove where I am at all times. As an MP, particularly in a marginal seat I am expected to be seen out and about by my constituents, to live and spend time with them. I also value having spaces/flexibility within my diary to speedily agree to pop in to view issues, or agree to meet up with individual constituents, often at very short notice, not always written down, and all of this is part of my role as the MP". Mrs Main said that she knew, having discussed this matter with colleagues, many of whom based themselves full time in London, that "the frequency of use of my constituency home whilst on purely official diarised duties was typical or even in excess of many. It is clear that other Honourable Members also spent time simply being in their constituencies and being part of the community and expected their family to be able to do likewise. This is all a vital part of community engagement but is difficult to 'prove'. I continue to maintain that my use of my flat is more frequent than my business diary confirms, both on number of nights spent and also day visits."

96. Mrs Main reiterated that diary engagements could not and did not reflect the only times she spent in her flat in the course of her role as the Member for St Albans. She said that her presence in St Albans was "indeed expected as part of my role as MP and as a member of the community. I use my flat for getting changed and ready for different events, having meals, resting and working, all of which are vital for me to deliver a good service to St Albans." Mrs Main said that she had undertaken an average of at least 200 official engagements per year. Apart from holiday weekends "there are very few weekends a year where I am not engaged on the Friday evening, the Saturday or the Sunday. My office records show I have contacted and dealt with over 18,000 separate constituents, some on multiple issues that have been raised by them … Being an MP is not a 'family friendly' 9 to 5 Monday through Friday; it is often a 7 day per week job with long hours and I pride myself in the diligence that I apply to it."

97. Mrs Main said she had had a serious fall and injury in February 2005, which resulted in a total severance of her anterior cruciate ligament, and damage to cartilage in her right knee. It also transpired that she had a herniated disc in her back as a result of the fall but it took a year of severe pain and progressively worsening symptoms for that positive diagnosis of her condition and it resulted in the major operation on her back in May 2006. "I still suffer periods of severe backache, which makes prolonged standing difficult. My numerous engagements and these health issues meant that I found my flat vital in order to help me [to] be able to carry out my duties and as I have previously stated I used my flat regularly in the day well as staying overnight."

98. Mrs Main said that I might "wish to consider the question as to where I was supposed to be in between engagements, where could I work and catch up with paper work, how was I supposed to rest with my back if I had nowhere to go and how was I supposed to get changed or showered if I needed to". She continued, "This is why regardless of the new regulations that may now come into force under the Legg review I shall have to maintain a base in St Albans as I cannot have my main home in my constituency. We are a fortunate but not a wealthy family and it will not be easy to do this. I already commute into London, routinely getting back to our main home at 11.45 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays and 8.45 on Wednesdays and Thursdays. I sit on three committees and often have a 9.15 start which means I catch a train at 7.10 am so to spend the other days of the week commuting on the M25 at all hours and living out of my car is not reasonable or possible."

99. Mrs Main said that as she was a woman with a husband whose own life and work was not centred in the constituency and with a young child at school the "triangulation" of maintaining her role in all three areas was quite difficult and not family friendly, but it was made easier with support from her family. At all times Mrs Main said, she had consulted the Department of Finance and Administration for advice and guidance. "I consider myself a law abiding citizen who as a new Member of Parliament was anxious to ensure that I fully complied with any rules and regulations surrounding the use of resources." She reiterated that, to ensure she was fully complying with the rules, "I rang up the DFA for advice and guidance about any of my arrangements before I made any of them." Mrs Main accepted that this advice and guidance was now being questioned, but she drew my attention to Mr Speaker's note in the front of the Green Books of April 2005 and June 2006 which was in force until March 2009, and which stated:

"Members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care. In cases of doubt or difficulty about any aspect of the allowances or how they can be used, please contact the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). The Members Estimate Committee, which I chair, has recently restated the Department's authority to interpret and enforce these rules."

100. Mrs Main said she had "fully complied with that firm ruling that it was the Department's views and authority I should seek and comply with." Consequently she had "sought advice on my eligibility for renting/purchasing the flat and my daughter's presence in the flat. If I had not been given that guidance, I should have had to consider my options." In her discussions at the time with the DFA she had "queried if the age of my daughter was relevant and I was informed that it was within the rules for my daughter to live or stay in the second home as a non-renting family member."

101. Mrs Main said she noted my comments that I considered that "the case on Mr McNulty's household" might be relevant in some way to my consideration of her situation. She commented, "I strongly maintain that this is not and should not be the case. His case appeared to centre on his parents, complete I assume with their possessions, living full time in his second home since at least 2001. It appears they were treating it completely as their own home, which Mr McNulty visited from time to time and which they had no intention of leaving. It is only reasonable to assume that they over a lifetime would have had and maintained at their own expense a separate household. If the house, funded by the ACA, had been sold by Mr McNulty logically it would have meant they were then homeless and so needing to take up accommodation at their own expense and move all their possessions elsewhere."

102. Mrs Main said her situation was "very different". Her daughter had "always lived at our main home in a continuous fashion as part of the family unit, except for the term times spent away as a student in […] before graduating in 2004. After graduation Claire had, whilst living at home, undertaken a short period of work experience …before travelling as planned with a student friend to Australia in April 2005 for four months. She then returned to our home to take up her current full time position with [her employer]. At no time has she left to form her own household nor was she expected to do so. … There was and is no time limit on my children being able to stay at home." Mrs Main continued, "I do not see any guidance from the DFA which suggests that after a certain age older children must either leave, not use or must be seen to contribute to the second home and as I stated I clarified this with the DFA when I requested their guidance."

103. Mrs Main also said that her daughter "did not live in St Albans full time, nor was she going to; in fact her time spent there diminished". When her daughter was not in St Albans or visiting her boyfriend "she could and would at any time return to our main home where her possessions, the majority of her clothes and our pets, including her own cat Min were". Mrs Main said that her daughter's bedroom in her main home "was decorated and personalised by her, her mail was delivered there and her friendship group was centred there. Other than her involvement with me as her mother her life and work were not centred in any way on St Albans, nor could she do anything in the flat with out my permission, whereas our main home she treated as and regarded as her home and like her siblings could do as she pleased."

104. Mrs Main said that her daughter "did help me in various small ways by spending time in St Albans as a family member, but I particularly wanted to have some family time, support, and occasional companionship, which is why I checked with the DFA if this was permissible before proceeding". Her husband "supported me in my demanding role as the Member for St Albans by giving up full time work and working from our main home in order to look after their our youngest son." He had "carried out many of the parenting roles that as a mother I could no longer fulfil due to my busy scheduling and long work hours on behalf of my constituents." Mrs Main's daughter had been "there in St Albans as my daughter and part of my family; there was no additional cost to the taxpayer for my daughter to be there for a few days at a time in order to support me and I maintain it was fully within the rules and interpretation of the rules as confirmed by the DFA in their response to yourself and given to me at the time."

105. Mrs Main said that she had no details of food receipts for the periods in question, "nor was I required to have them". She said that, "in St Albans, my daughter at all times paid for her own food and I paid for mine when I was there. … The costs claimed reflect those for my own meals, beverages (non-alcoholic) and food purchased and eaten away from my main home during the course of my duties". She drew my attention to the provision in section 3 of the Green Book relating to "OTHER FOOD 'reasonable additional costs while you are away from your main home'". She added, "As has been proved by my extensive work schedule in St Albans and taking into account my parliamentary duties, other than going to sleep, I spend very little time actually in my main home particularly at any family meal times when the House was sitting. I need to eat at reasonable meal-times which for me therefore means eating meals outside our main home." Mrs Main commented that the figure I had given for her total food claim in 2007-08 was incorrect. She had noticed an error in the spreadsheet that she used for expense reconciliation, and had contacted the Department of Finance and Administration in 2008 to make them aware of it. She had repaid the sum due in 2009. She said that between 5th April 2008 and 20th May 2008 she had claimed £300 for food. She "then took a personal decision not to claim food after this date although clearly I have still incurred significant daily costs for eating away from my main home since."

106. Mrs Main concluded by noting that in my original letter to her,[89] I had drawn her attention to the Speaker's introduction on the Department's authority in guidance and interpretation of the rules in the relevant Green Book, which she said had "been pivotal in my decision making. I am aware that the Fees Office, in their letter to you, confirmed that it was within the rules for me to claim for the second home and that there was no ruling which prohibited who could stay, or live in the second home."

107. I replied to Mrs Main on 12 November.[90] I noted that, as she herself had recognised, the summary of her diary appointments for 2005—06 did not provide the basis on which I could estimate how many nights she had been in St Albans over that year. I said I would need, therefore, to rely on her estimates in her letter of 29 June[91] that she had spent between one and two nights a week in her St Albans flat. I added that I had noted the wider points she had made about her use of the flat. I noted that she had said that she had rung up the Department of Finance and Administration for advice and guidance about her arrangements before she had made them, and had been given advice at the time about who might live or stay in her property. I said I was assuming, therefore, that this conversation took place with the Department shortly before August 2006. I also noted that she had consulted the DFA about the purchase of her flat, and asked if she had any further details of these conversations, including the dates, and who she had spoken to. I also said that, in any event, I was asking the Department of Resources whether they had any record of these conversations.

108. I attached for her consideration a revised schedule of her food claims, reflecting the correction she had made,[92] and this is summarised in the table below:

Financial Year Total food claims (£)

2005-06 3,119

2006-07 3,300

2007-08 3,300

2008-09 300

I also enclosed a copy of my letter to the Department of Resources of 3 November[93] and their response of 11 November.[94] I noted that the Department interpreted the rules as requiring food claims to relate only to food costs incurred by the overnight stays in the home for which the Member was making an ACA claim. I offered her the opportunity to give me a written response to this advice before we met for our interview, or to respond at the interview. I said either way that it would be helpful if possible to have an indication of what proportion of Mrs Main's food claims related to her overnight stays in the flat in St Albans.

109. On 12 November I wrote again to the Director of Operations at the Department of Resources.[95] I asked whether the Department had any record or recollection of conversations which Mrs Main reported that she had had with the DFA about her arrangements. I noted that there appeared to have been two occasions when Mrs Main had sought the advice of the House Authorities, and asked whether the Department had any record of these conversations and for any comments on these two exchanges and the terms in which Mrs Main recalled them having been conducted.

110. The Director of Operations replied to me on 17 November.[96] He confirmed that there was no record held by the Department of any conversations with Mrs Main about her ACA. He continued, "However, it is also the case that only a minority of calls are documented on our logging system, mainly those which sought substantive advice. Whilst I would have expected, therefore, Mrs Main's enquiries to be reflected in a record of some sort, I cannot rule out that it simply was not recorded by staff at the time." The Director also commented that Mrs Main was of the 2005 intake and "I recall that she attended the induction process for new Members shortly after the election. At this election Members received comprehensive briefing about the parliamentary allowances and they were alerted to the need to seek guidance when in doubt about the Green Book rules." The Director also expressed the view, which he said was shared by his senior managers, that "the advice Mrs Main says she received could not be ruled out. It has always been an arguable point about the interpretation of the Green Book in respect of children, including young adults, living with their parents in an additional home. An interpretation given in 2009 is very different from what might have been advised in 2006. It is my belief that had Mrs Main put the basic question and issue to one of our helpline staff she might well have received the answer she has offered to you in evidence." On 18 November, I sent Mrs Main a copy of my exchange of correspondence with the Department.

111. I interviewed Mrs Main on 30 November.[97] She agreed that when she came into the House in May 2005, she had rented her St Albans flat, and subsequently bought it from the landlord in November 2006. From August or September 2006 until May 2009, when the arrangement ended, her daughter, Ms Claire Tonks, had stayed in the flat, at Mrs Main's suggestion, during the week. Her daughter did not pay rent, and Mrs Main's best estimate was that her daughter had initially stayed there on three to four nights a week, but by the time she left it had fallen to one to two nights a week. During the same period Mrs Main herself had stayed at the flat on average between one and two nights each week. Mrs Main agreed that her daughter had done some cleaning, shopping and other chores for her when she stayed at the flat, but commented that "we never thought of the chores as having been done in return for the accommodation". Mrs Main also agreed that her ACA claims from 2005-06 to 2007-08 amounted in all to £65,000, which included food claims of about £10,000 over that period.

112. Mrs Main said she had decided to buy the flat in 2006 because the landlord had told her that he was considering selling it, and had said he would give her the first option to buy. She had checked with the Fees Office, and they had said it was within the rules to do so. She commented, "Until then I had had no thought of buying." Mrs Main said that the flat was rented unfurnished. She "had just made it comfortable and it would have been an upheaval to move. And it is also very convenient for my job: right opposite the cathedral and next to the council offices, and you can walk all around the centre from there. I spent three years as the prospective parliamentary candidate. I am aware of the difficulties of the traffic flows and parking restrictions." She said that could not have continued to rent in another flat in the complex because "There are only four. It is a small block."

113. As to the frequency of occasions when she would be in St Albans in the evening and then drive back to Beaconsfield after the traffic had eased, Mrs Main said, "Sometimes that might be the case. It was not the case when the House was sitting, but it was more likely in the summertime when I might spend my evenings at the flat or have an engagement in St Albans." She said that her family was based in her main home and "I like to get home and see my husband in the evening. So it would vary." She said that it happened more if the House was in recess. "On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday—or Wednesday, Thursday, Friday— I would need to spend some evenings in St Albans. If my husband had been at home with our son I could have stayed over." As to how often this was, Mrs Main said, "I would spend my days in St Albans. Then there was the relentless driving up and down the M25—it is one of those stretches which is always congested. I wouldn't choose to sit in traffic jams but if my son had a parents' evening or other similar family event I would drive back." She subsequently commented, "Even on a Sunday it is really busy—but sometimes I would go back to Beaconsfield after carrying out my constituency duties in St Albans during the day". She summarised the position thus: "I wanted a reasonable degree of regularity for my family life. Sometimes if I didn't need to go back or if I was just too tired after a long day, I would stay over. I might make the decision ad hoc."

114. Mrs Main said that she had not considered staying in a hotel when she could not get back to Beaconsfield. She commented, "It is pretty soulless, staying in a hotel. It wouldn't feel like home. It would be harder to have my family there. It also wouldn't provide the flexibility for me to come and go: you would have to pre-plan". She added, "When I joined the House I attended the induction course and they told us MPs weren't expected to live life out of a suitcase". She continued, "hotels don't allow you to dip in and out, or to shower, rest or park if you are not staying there, or to keep a change of clothes there". She subsequently commented, "I set up the arrangements which best suited my family and my duties to my constituents".

115. I asked Mrs Main how she had arrived at the estimate that there could have been another 20 nights beyond those recorded in her diary when she had stayed over in St Albans. She said, "I know I did a lot of things which are not in my diary, even though I write nearly all my engagements in there. People might say during an engagement 'Are you free after this?' and I would say 'I can be', and pick up the phone to my husband. But looking at a particular time several years ago now, I can't say that I did something else or that I didn't. Going back nearly five years is a long time and many people would not remember … I didn't know back then that I was going to be sitting here, so my diary doesn't usually show overnight stays. You'll find 'Stay overnight' written in my diary occasionally, but that is so that my husband would know if he looked at it whether he could go out." Mrs Main said that she was trying to give me "a feel for what I do. Sometimes I'll find the traffic report and say 'Okay, I'll go up to St Albans tonight for an early engagement—or at ten a.m. tomorrow…' There were times when for various reasons I couldn't guarantee getting to St Albans in a timely fashion unless I stayed overnight."

116. As to the office facilities she had in the flat, Mrs Main said that she had a computer and a desk in the second bedroom. She also said that the Conservative Association had an office in the constituency, within the regional offices of the Conservative Party in London Colney. She paid £300 a month, which gave her the use of a small room there, with a desk and a computer terminal supplied by the House, and use of various pieces of office equipment. She added, "When the voluntary workers are in, that room is their office and I can't just use it. I can't just drop in, and there is no soft furniture, no hanging space and no changing rooms". She subsequently added that "…this would never be a substitute for a flat^". In the flat, she "would work from home using the phone". She commented, "For example, on a Friday, I would dictate to my caseworker, explaining what letters or actions I wanted. I would do this after my surgeries so that by Saturday my constituents would have a letter from the MP saying what action was taken in their case." She subsequently added that she "would work from home replying to e mails, drafting speeches, using the phone to speak to my staff or return calls to my constituents. In other words whatever needed doing at that time".

117. Mrs Main said that she claimed against the IEP for her constituency office. She paid for "a proportion of staff time for the person who helps me when I am working in the constituency office, and for telephones, things like use of the printer and copier, use of the waiting areas." Her staff were based wholly in Westminster, and she had no full-time staff based in St Albans. Her computer could get access to the parliamentary network, but she was "not a great one for using laptops. I would use it primarily for typing documents mainly and emailing. I would dictate down the phone. If someone brought in original documents I might copy their documents and fax them from the St Albans office. Sometimes I would ring the Westminster office from the flat and say, 'I want you to write a letter saying…'". She "absolutely never" used the flat for party political activities.

118. I asked Mrs Main how she responded to the suggestion that the expenses she claimed on the flat were not necessarily incurred because she was regularly able to get back to Beaconsfield in the evening. She said, "Having the flat helped me to serve my constituents better. Before, I had a long and tiring commute—I could spend several hours a day commuting and there was no flexibility. My constituents expected me to be in St Albans. Having the flat helped me do my job, it really really did."

119. Mrs Main agreed that it had been at her suggestion that her daughter went and stayed at the St Albans flat. She had talked it over with her husband. There had been an overlap for six months when he and she were both working full time and then her husband had had the opportunity to work from home. Mrs Main said that her husband had said that "I could be freed up more … to concentrate on being an MP and serving St Albans." She added, "We felt I was missing out on family life. At that time my daughter was living at home, so my husband said that Claire could stay over in St Albans. Claire thought it would be quite nice." Mrs Main said that "everyone knew about the arrangement. They thought it was quite nice, that my daughter could spend time with me, go out shopping with me. Claire had roughly the same length of commute from Beaconsfield and St Albans, because she worked in London, so she said, 'I don't mind doing that.' I spoke to the Fees Office and I was told that spouses and children were fine to stay in the second home '… if she is living in your home, if she is your daughter and you don't charge her rent.'" She continued, "We are not talking about her playing at house—but it makes a huge difference having someone living in the second home, especially a member of your family. If I bought a bunch of flowers, for example, I didn't have to worry about it two or three days later. I might ring up my daughter and say, 'I'm over tonight, shall we go out for a meal?' It is not easy to go out on your own, but it made a huge difference that I could do that—it felt more like home". Mrs Main said that her husband and her other three children were unable to spend much time at the flat. Her husband would spend small amounts of time there when he could. Her younger son might come over in the day and come with her round the market; or her elder son might come over to see his sister. She commented, "Claire was not as tied up as the others."

120. As to the work done by her daughter in the flat, Mrs Main said, "she did small chores but she certainly wasn't the cleaner. I am quite happy to say that I never expected her to clean cookers, the fronts of cupboards or the insides of windows. If I wanted a cleaner I paid for it, but I didn't charge any cleaning to my expenses." She said that her daughter also helped in small ways, such as staying in for a delivery when the washing machine had broken. Mrs Main said it was "absolutely not" accurate to say that her daughter did this work in return for her accommodation. She commented, "She was not a Mrs Mop. It wasn't true of my husband either when he painted the flat. I tried to think of it as my second home." She said that her daughter "didn't have to be there at all. My daughter went there and organised her life around the times when I was likely to be there. The times she was there provided a form of continuity for her." Mrs Main subsequently added that these also provided a form of continuity for both of them, and that she had never thought that there was any requirement in respect of Members' second homes that "my family could only be in it if I was there".

121. Mrs Main said that her daughter kept "some personal stuff" in the St Albans flat "a capsule wardrobe. Stuff she found useful. But in our main home she had a bedroom filled with her personal things." She commented, "We didn't think we had to justify her use of the home; we were just in a rhythm where I would ring up and say 'Are you there tonight?' and she would say 'Yes I am' or 'No I'm not.'". Mrs Main said that her daughter did not treat the flat in the same way as their main home. She commented, "She knew there was a set of regulations which applied to the St Albans home." She did not ask permission to go there each time as "it was taken as read that she could go there. We had already agreed she could go there. I had got permission from the Fees Office". Mrs Main said that she "would have loved" her daughter to be there the whole time, as much as possible—or her husband, if he could have come more often. She commented, "But St Albans elected me not a package deal. And if her elder sister had wanted to come at that time I would have said 'Great'."

122. Mrs Main said that her daughter did not come back with her from the flat when she drove back to Beaconsfield after the M25 had cleared. She did not think that her daughter "benefited other than from seeing me and feeling she was helping me. There was no material benefit: she had her own home in Beaconsfield with a comfortable room there. She can have her boyfriend and other friends to come to stay. The benefit was to me: we could spend time together. There was no financial benefit, and she didn't need to be there". Mrs Main subsequently added that "the emotional benefit was to me as a parent: we could have a mother and daughter time and spend time together. … it helped me in my role having her there sometimes, as it freed up my time to serve my constituents". She said that her daughter had previously lived away from home whilst at university and whilst travelling for a few months, and commented, "So she wasn't just practising living away from home. I suggested it. If she had wanted to move out of our home we could have helped her".

123. On the question as to whether her daughter in effect had two residences, as shown by her registration as a voter in St Albans and her use of the St Albans address on her registration forms sent to Companies House, Mrs Main noted that a voter can register in more than one place. Her daughter had registered as a voter in St Albans "because she wanted to vote for me…" Her inclusion of the St Albans address on the form for Companies House was "a stupid naive mistake". Mrs Main said she had not known about it at the time, and that her daughter "just didn't think about it at all". Mrs Main said that her daughter "thought she had two homes". She commented, "It is very common: half my friends have adult children staying in their homes. So do other Members. But the St Albans home is temporary—it finishes the minute I finish. Beaconsfield is our real home. If she wanted to hold say a birthday party, it would be in Beaconsfield. That would have been the difference".

124. Mrs Main said that her daughter had not met any of the utility bills which could be assigned to her use of the flat. She herself had not claimed against the ACA for a range of costs, including cleaning, maintenance, mileage, a stair carpet, a boiler service and some decorating costs. She commented "I have always tried to ensure my claims are modest. I never felt I had anything to hide … My purchases were not luxurious. I tried to shop carefully at budget and low cost stores. I do not max out my expenses. I did not claim everything I could, and when I did claim my claims were modest." She estimated that the expenses she did not claim could be about £1,000 or more in total.[98] She also claimed for full utility costs from the ACA: gas, electricity, water, and for service charges that she paid on the flat. She said that there was no charge associated with parking at the flat. She had claimed the 10% discount from the council tax because she paid full council tax elsewhere and that qualified her flat for the discount. She commented, "I could only have claimed the single person's discount if no-one else was ever in the flat." Her husband and other children had stayed in the flat "on occasions, and I couldn't know when I paid the council tax which members of my family were going to stay there." She subsequently added that, as a result, "the only accurate position was the fact that I paid full council tax and was therefore entitled automatically to the 10% discount, which was all I claimed back from the Fees Office."

125. Mrs Main confirmed that the purchase price of the flat was £250,000 and her mortgage was £225,000. She claimed the full mortgage interest, and did not make any allowance in her mortgage interest claim for her daughter's use of the flat. She commented, "Why would I? If my husband was there I wouldn't have made an allowance". She added, "Let me tell you that I am a rule follower. … At all times if in doubt I will try to ask, to do what is reasonable. If anyone had said do things differently I would have, but no-one ever did". Mrs Main confirmed that her daughter had bought all her own food whilst living in the flat.

126. Mrs Main said that she had discussed with the Fees Office the question of her daughter living in the St Albans flat before she had done so. I asked her, in the light of what she had said on the subject in her letters to me of 29 June[99] and 11 November,[100] about her discussions with the Fees Office. Mrs Main said, "I know I rang them up and asked 'Who can stay in the second home?' They said 'The MP's spouse and children.' I rang another time saying 'I'm thinking of my daughter staying in my second home. She lives at home and is over 18.' When I asked if that was a problem, they said 'No'. I can't remember if anyone asked how old she was, although I am sure I made it clear to them at the time. But I remember clearly asking before doing it." Mrs Main said that she "definitely said she was an adult. 'Is it okay for my daughter to be in my second home? I would like to share it with my daughter.'" She could not remember whether she referred to her daughter's work, commenting, "I would like to think I said she was working but I really can't remember. I would not have thought to write down the conversation. But I gave the clear impression she was an adult daughter in my second call." She subsequently said that "I always gave the clear impression she was my adult daughter. The logical conclusion may have been that she was working."

127. Mrs Main said that she was not asked if her daughter would be spending a significant number of nights there by herself. She commented, "I agree that there were times when she was there and I wasn't. But I was at the flat a lot of time when she wasn't there. I was in the flat in the day considerably more than she was, especially in recess times. There were times when she was there just to sleep. I never said 'I want you to be there on Thursday'. I just set up a rhythm for her. It was nice for me to be flexible about coming and going—and it wasn't reasonable to expect her to match my movements". Her daughter was at the flat in the week when Mrs Main was not "mainly during the week, when the House was sitting, and when there was voting".

128. Mrs Main did not think that there should be a maximum age beyond which a Member's children should no longer to be able to benefit from the "spouse and family" arrangement. She said that every case, and every family, was different, and commented, "The companionship of older children is something that many parents would like." She had not considered charging her daughter rent when she stayed at the St Albans flat, and said "We were discouraged from having rental agreements". She added, "If she had been paying rent at home I would have thought about it. But she didn't pay rent. She was there as a family member. I would not have considered charging rent. And the flat cost the same whether she was there or not: there were no extra costs on the mortgage or service charge". Mrs Main said that she "wouldn't necessarily make a distinction between my husband and my daughter who shared the accommodation. It is not for me to say if there is a point when an older child should get thrown out or charged rent."

129. Mrs Main did not agree that the House was subsidising her daughter's living costs. She said "I would dispute that. There were no additional costs. I don't believe you can put it in those terms. I as a parent got the benefit of some time with my family. The benefit was in emotional terms." She subsequently added, "The benefit was solely and entirely in emotional terms, no other." Mrs Main also commented, "The previous Member for St Albans had a flat in London. I could have had a flat in London. If I had wanted to benefit my children, as the complaint suggests—since my son and both my daughters work in London I would have set up my flat in London and provided them with accommodation there. I regularly work late in London, so I could have also stayed there. But the best benefit for my constituents since we don't have a home in St Albans, was to have the flat there." She subsequently added, "the benefit was for my constituents—who I was elected to serve—since we don't have a house in St Albans, and I needed a home in St Albans the flat was located there."

130. As to the Department of Resources' advice to me in their letter of 11 September[101] that she should have absorbed some of the costs of her daughter staying in the flat, such as utility charges, Mrs Main commented, "I thought about that when I read it. My heating, hot water and lights are on a timer … How would I try to work out the small time when my daughter was there and the lights and heating would not have been on? I am not sure how I could have done that". When I asked Mrs Main if she was arguing that the costs of her daughter's use of utilities should in principle have been met by herself, but not the fixed costs, she said "I don't know that I am. Would you say the same if it was my husband who was there? And I don't believe there was any electricity or utilities I can ascribe to my daughter's use, since she was there so little time in the day".

131. On the advice of the Department of Resources that variable costs but not fixed costs should have been taken into account to reflect her daughter's living costs in St Albans, Mrs Main commented, "I have always been prepared to accept the Fees Office's advice and interpretations. But no one at the time suggested that we should think like that. I thought I had checked out my arrangement fully with the Fees Office. So many Members have their family in their second home, I don't know anyone who does this. But if that was the ruling at the time I would have accepted it". As to whether Mrs Main now accepted the Department's view, she said, "If that is their view, then I may have to accept it. But it is impossible to say which bit of the utility bill was wholly down to my daughter's use and which was down to mine". She subsequently commented, "I regard this observation in their response to you as retrospective, and this possible scenario was never raised at the time". When I asked her if she would have accepted the Department's view as set out in their letter to me had it been expressed to her at the time she sought advice, she said, "I didn't have that guidance at the time. I don't even see how you could do this. I would challenge this view if it was given to me now". She subsequently added, "But it certainly wasn't given to me then". She also said "I always accept the Fees Office guidance, but I would have also had to ask how to fulfil it. You can't be given guidance retrospectively. My daughter came over to St Albans because my husband couldn't spend much time there. I maintain that there were no extra utility costs that we wouldn't have had anyway".

132. When I asked Mrs Main if she accepted the principle that she should have tried to identify the costs partly attributable to her daughter's stays in St Albans, she said, "I don't accept it. Members were and are entitled to have spouses and children in their second homes, without apportioning the costs. The House must surely expect us to live as a family in our second home. I don't believe anyone said that I should be trying to apportion the costs of my husband." She subsequently added, "nor do I believe they would suggest it." Mrs Main also said "And in any case there were no extra costs. I am trying to think of examples of extra costs which could have arisen. I accepted that my daughter should meet her own food costs. And if for example there had been a cost for her parking permit I would have expected to pay that. I think it was reasonable for my family to be there. I believe it is in the spirit of the rules to have a family life at the same time as Members carry out their parliamentary duties. If not, Members would need no more than a single bedsit to stay in." She subsequently added "and no members of their family living with them." Mrs Main also did not accept any comparison between her own case and the case of Mr McNulty.[102] She commented, "That case was not at all the same as my daughter staying with me. I understand in Mr McNulty's case it concerned two independent adults, living full time in the house as their main home. My daughter had not taken on that role of having her own home and forming a second household." Mrs Main subsequently added, "my daughter has always lived at our main home. I decided with the Fees Office that she could stay as an adult in the second home and I do not believe that it is fair or reasonable to compare my situation with Mr McNulty's."

133. I asked Mrs Main, in the context of the addition made to the rules in 2006 that Members must avoid any arrangements which might give rise to an accusation that someone close to them was obtaining an immediate benefit or subsidy from public funds,[103] what she would say to those who suggested that living without paying mortgage interest, utilities, or council tax (or rent) as her daughter had done in St Albans, represented an immediate benefit to her daughter. She said, "Would she see it as a benefit? Would I? There was no need for her to stay there. There was no financial benefit. In our main home she lived as a member of our family in a large house with plenty of car parking and a better commute at least at some times. It was not like her giving up renting somewhere. The benefit was solely for me." She subsequently added, "It was not like her giving up renting to go and live somewhere rent free and so save herself some money." Mrs Main did not think that there was a personal benefit to her daughter. She said, "No. It was an emotional benefit to me, to have my family around me. It made me happier to spend my time in St Albans. It didn't feel so arduous." As to the requirement to avoid any arrangement which would lead to an accusation that someone close to her had obtained an immediate benefit, Mrs Main commented, "The story had appeared in the local press ages ago, in 2006, well before the complaint arose. My Association were fully aware of the arrangement as were other people. No-one complained until the complainant recently did, after media comment on all MPs' expenses. But in the political world you can always be accused. Accusations are not difficult to make. I have 70,000 constituents—and one chose to complain. I have never sought to hide my arrangements, that I was trying to be both a mother and a good MP. But no-one accused me before the Telegraph story".

134. I asked Mrs Main if, in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on Mr Tony McNulty,[104] she considered that it would have been wise for her to have made a formal arrangement regarding the terms of her daughter living in St Albans, set out in writing and lodged with the House authorities. She said, "I wouldn't know what arrangement to formalise. I have no formal arrangement of this sort for my husband. My family is my family". She subsequently added, "I believe we are entitled to family life".

135. As regards Mrs Main's food claims, I asked her if she accepted the ruling of the Department of Resources, set out in their letter to me of 11 November,[105] which said that her food costs must be "in relation to costs associated with your overnight stays in St Albans". She said, "I have the Green Book of 2006. If you look at paragraph 3.13.1. it seems very clear. You claim for reasonable additional food costs while you are away from your home. I don't know why the Director thinks the rules are opaque. I have claimed for Monday and Tuesday evening meals in London whilst on parliamentary duties, and evening meals on other nights if I was late in St Albans". She subsequently added "I have claimed for Monday and Tuesday evening meals in London whilst on parliamentary duties, and evening meals and breakfasts on other nights if I was late and staying over in St Albans". She also said, "I have never claimed for all my food, or for mileage. I worked on the system of around £10 per meal on Mondays and Tuesdays: the food in Parliament is subsidised. The rest of my food was in St Albans. I would also eat out some of the time. I like good quality food." When Mrs Main asked her daughter to get some food, "I would want something of a decent quality." She continued, "I used to try and eat out in St Albans. As an MP particularly in a marginal seat, I need to be out and about. I have to get to know the butcher and the market stallholders. I was on the panel to judge local restaurants: I needed to eat at them. I have to get to know local people". I asked Mrs Main if she took some of these meals before she went home to Beaconsfield. She commented, "Not really. I always felt I underclaimed".

136. I pointed out to Mrs Main that, according to the Department's advice, she should not have claimed for some of the meals she had claimed. She said, "I always believed my food claims were modest. I claimed only what I thought was reasonable. But I have in any case not claimed for the last 18 months. I thought I could claim for Monday and Tuesday whilst on parliamentary duties but now I am told that I can't." She subsequently added that the Department "believe I may have claimed those meals in error". Mrs Main also said that, when she and her daughter went out for a meal, she sometimes paid personally for her daughter's food and always paid personally for any wine.

137. I asked Mrs Main if she accepted that some of her food claims were not permissible under the rules, in particular the food she ate when in London. She said, "I went by the rules set out in 3.2.1.(b) of the 2006 Green Book which refer to claims being for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties. It says that you can claim for food if it is for the purpose of performing your parliamentary duties …It says in 3.13.1 that you can claim for 'reasonable additional costs while away from your main home'. It is set out as a separate allowance. I had interpreted it to cover two main meals each week at the House of Commons and the rest of the time in St Albans."

138. Mrs Main said that, of her claims for food between 2005-06 and 2007-08, "£20 per week when the House was sitting was for food in London. But I haven't claimed any food for 18 months." She added, "I have no wish to big up my expenses, quite the opposite. A lot of the time I don't claim for things when I could". She said that she had not consulted the House authorities at any time about her food claims, and commented, "I thought the wording was quite clear. I would have checked if it wasn't."

139. At the end of the interview, after I had summarised the allegations against her, and invited her to make any further points she wished, Mrs Main said that she served her constituents to the best of her ability, and that there was no dispute in the rules about the location of her home. She commented, "If I had any wish to have a property benefit I could have had a second home in London. But I needed the flat to serve my constituents. I took guidance and followed it. This is a very very important point." Mrs Main also said that she had "underclaimed on many things", and her claims were "modest, within the rules and … made after consultation. I accept the point about the food bills but, as the Fees Office said, the rule could be seen as opaque" although she subsequently added that she "felt the wording was clear." She added that she had "never had any intention to deceive or maximise my expenses." Mrs Main continued: "My only thought was to be the best and hardest working MP for my constituents. I was quite horrified to find myself in this position. Nobody forced me to have the flat, but after three years as prospective parliamentary candidate working hard, living life on the road, driving to and from my home and experiencing the stress and tension I just knew that it wasn't going to work. Whatever happens with the allowances in future I will maintain a base in St Albans. I don't feel that I incurred any extra costs for the taxpayer. I always tried to keep my claims low and modest, and to follow the spirit of the rules."

140. Finally, Mrs Main noted that there was no record within the Fees Office of her consultations with them. She said, "I understand that, but there is no record of other things I have discussed with them too, although I didn't know that at the time when I responded to your enquiries. When I said to you that I took advice I didn't know what they recorded and what they didn't. So, if I had not been confident that I was telling you the truth, then they could have made a liar out of me." She subsequently added "but they confirmed that the guidance would have reflected what I have always said."

141. Mrs Main sent me on 14 December 2009 a list of items which she could have claimed against her Additional Costs Allowance and had not.[106]

Findings of Fact

142. Mrs Main became the Member for the St Albans constituency in the general election of May 2005. Her main home is in Beaconsfield, where she also lived before she was elected. A small part of her constituency is within 20 miles of her main home. In June 2005, Mrs Main began renting a two-bedroom flat in the centre of the city of St Albans, which is more than 20 miles from her main home, and in November 2006 she purchased it using a 90% interest-only mortgage. She has claimed against the Additional Cost Allowance for the costs of the flat since she began renting it. Mrs Main claims a 10% second home discount in respect of council tax on her St Albans flat.

143. The total of nights that Mrs Main has spent in the St Albans flat for which there is reliable evidence from her diaries is set out in the table below:

Year Nights spent in constituency home

2006-07* 66

2007-08 67

2008-09 80

2009-10 (to end of June) 23

Total 236

* Includes back operation and 5 weeks bed rest

Mrs Main considers that she has also spent up to a further 20 nights a year in her St Albans flat in connection with her parliamentary duties.

144. In August or early September 2006, Mrs Main's adult daughter, Ms Claire Tonks, began staying regularly in the St Albans flat, at her mother's invitation. This arrangement finished in May 2009. She did not pay rent, nor did she contribute to other costs incurred by Mrs Main on the property such as service charges and utility charges. Ms Tonks initially stayed in the flat for three to four nights a week but by the time she had left it had fallen to one or two nights a week. Ms Tonks had a full-time job in London. When not staying at the flat, Ms Tonks lived either at Mrs Main's main home in Beaconsfield, or with her boyfriend in London.

145. Mrs Main made claims against the ACA for food from 2005-06 to 20 May 2008, when she decided to make no further claims. The breakdown of her claims by financial year is given in the table below:

Financial Year Total food claims (£)

2005-06 3,119

2006-07 3,300

2007-08 3,300

2008-09 300

146. The Department of Resources consider that Mrs Main was within the rules of the House to claim for an additional property in her constituency while her main home was in Beaconsfield. The Department consider that, at the time when Mrs Main's daughter stayed in the St Albans flat, where rent was not paid there was no rule which governed who might or might not live in or stay at a home on which ACA was claimed. The Department also consider that Mrs Main should have abated the costs which she charged to her allowances to take account of her daughter's occupation of the property in respect of items, such as utility charges, which could be attributable partly to her daughter's occupation.[107] The Department consider that the rules relating to food claims against the ACA allow Mrs Main to claim for food costs only if they are incurred in St Albans where she has her additional home, and if they are associated with an overnight stay; she should not have claimed for food costs incurred in London.

147. Mrs Main believes that all her expenses she has claimed against the ACA in respect of the St Albans flat were incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purpose of performing her parliamentary duties and engagements. In her view, she needs the flat in St Albans to enable her to perform her constituency duties, and she intends to retain a base there whatever happens to the allowances. Mrs Main says that, on a number of occasions, she consulted the then Department of Finance and Administration, including about her arrangements in St Albans before she began renting and before she invited her daughter to stay at the flat on a regular basis: the Department was content with what she intended to do on each occasion. She does not believe that the rules impose any upper limit on the age of qualifying family members who can occupy a Member's second home funded from the ACA without any allowance being made for that person's living costs. Mrs Main considers that her daughter provided her with the benefit of emotional support. The household chores which her daughter undertook were to support her and were only the sort of help which any family member would provide. Mrs Main considers that the emotional and practical support received from her daughter helped her perform her constituency duties and made it easier for her to combine her constituency work with her family life. Mrs Main does not believe that her daughter's occupancy of the St Albans flat incurred any costs to the public purse through her ACA claims that would not have been incurred had she alone used the property. She believes that it would in practice be impossible to identify costs, such as utility costs, specifically attributable to her daughter's occupancy of the property. Mrs Main accepts that she should not have claimed against the ACA for meals consumed in London.

Conclusions

148. The principal question I have to consider is whether Mrs Main's claims from 2005 to 2008 for the costs of her second home, a flat in her constituency in St Albans, were wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred, given that her main home was less than 20 miles away from her constituency boundary and that her adult daughter regularly stayed in the flat.

149. I am also to consider whether Mrs Main's food claims against the Additional Costs Allowance were in accordance with the rules.

150. In seeking to resolve this complaint I have addressed the following matters:

1. Was Mrs Main eligible to claim for a second home in her constituency?

2. Was the St Albans flat necessary in order to fulfil her parliamentary duties?

3. Were her accommodation costs wholly and exclusively incurred on her parliamentary duties?

4. Were her food claims in accordance with the rules of the House?

151. I address these questions in the following sections.

Was Mrs Main eligible to claim for a second home in her constituency?

152. I have established in a previous case that the rules at the time allowed a Member to have a second home in their constituency even if their main home was within 20 miles of that constituency boundary.[108]

153. A literal reading of the rules could suggest that Mrs Main's principal home in Beaconsfield was both her main home and her constituency home. This is because the rules appear to define a constituency home as being one within 20 miles of the constituency boundary and Mrs Main's Beaconsfield home is within that distance. But, as I have previously stated, that is not how the rules have been interpreted or operated. They have been used as a way of identifying whether a Member may claim for a second home once their main home has been identified. Mrs Main's main home is in Beaconsfield. Her constituency home is in St Albans, in her constituency.

154. I conclude, therefore, that it was consistent with the interpretation of the rules at the time, that like other Members of Parliament, Mrs Main could have a home in her constituency despite her main home being within 20 miles of that constituency boundary.

155. It is still necessary, however, to demonstrate that, in those circumstances, the second home in the constituency was necessary in order for Mrs Main to perform her parliamentary duties. And it is to that question I now turn.

Was the St Albans flat necessary in order to fulfil Mrs Main's parliamentary duties?

156. Mrs Main has pointed out the difficulty and uncertainty in travelling between her home in Beaconsfield and her home in the constituency. This journey by road took some time and was uncertain because of the weight of traffic. Equally, her daughter's evidence is that Mrs Main liked to return from St Albans to spend the night in Beaconsfield when the road had cleared. The result was that Mrs Main spent on average between one and two nights a week in her constituency flat. In addition, I accept Mrs Main's evidence that she made more regular daytime use of the flat when she was working on her parliamentary duties in her constituency, including on the days when she subsequently returned to her Beaconsfield home.

157. I consider that Mrs Main has established the use she made of her St Albans property. Her firm view is that this was necessary to enable her to serve her constituents as fully as she would wish. She has stated that she would continue to need such a property even if parliamentary funding could not be used to meet its costs. I have said in a previous report that Members should expect to have a considerable degree of discretion in the way that they decide to conduct their constituency and parliamentary duties.[109] I consider that Mrs Main's exercise of discretion in establishing her St Albans property in order to serve her constituents was reasonable in all the circumstances.

158. I therefore conclude that it was within the rules for Mrs Main to have a flat in her constituency and to make claims for that property against her parliamentary allowances. I do not therefore uphold this part of the complaint.

Were Mrs Main's accommodation costs wholly and exclusively incurred on her parliamentary duties?

159. I have stated in my report on an earlier complaint,[110] that in my judgement costs are not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of performing a Member's parliamentary duties if the Member's claim includes the living costs of someone other than themselves, or if they or someone close to them receive a personal benefit from the arrangement. This latter prohibition was included for the first time in the July 2006 rules, but is in my judgement implicit in the overarching rule that Members may claim only for costs wholly and exclusively incurred on parliamentary duties.

160. From September 2006 to May 2009, Mrs Main's daughter stayed in Mrs Main's flat on average more nights than she herself did. Initially, it was an average of three to four nights per week. This reduced after the first year and, by the end, it was one or two nights a week. But, nevertheless, this represented a substantial, regular and sustained usage of the flat by Mrs Main's daughter over a period of some two years and nine months. Mrs Main made no reduction in her claims for the cost of her daughter's use of the flat over that period, although I accept their evidence that her daughter bought her own food.

161. The Committee on Standards and Privileges have accepted that the living costs of another person include the full costs of living in such a property, including fixed costs such as council tax and mortgage interest. Mrs Main has accepted that she made no allowance for the living costs of her daughter. But she has argued that she was not required by the rules to do so. This is because she considers that there was no additional cost incurred from her daughter staying in the flat. And, more importantly, because she believed, on the basis of Fees Office advice she received at the time, that it was permissible for a Member's children, including their adult children, to share their ACA-funded home. She has argued that her daughter provided emotional support for her work in the constituency as well as undertaking some domestic chores.

162. I do not accept the argument that Members should take account only of any additional cost associated with somebody else living in their second home. I set out the principle in my memorandum on Mr McNulty which the Committee accepted in its report.[111] The rules prevent a Member claiming for the living costs of another person. A person's living costs must cover what it would cost for them to live in that accommodation, rather than the additional cost which a Member might incur. In this respect, this complaint is analogous to those against Mr McNulty[112] and Mr Hunt.[113]

163. I accept, however, that the complaint raises different issues from those raised in either of those two cases, because, as Mrs Main has fairly argued, this was her daughter who at other times (when she was not in St Albans or elsewhere in London) was living with her in her main home as part of the family.

164. It is true that the rules have been interpreted as permitting a Member's partner and their children to share the second home with them. I have considered whether this interpretation should be applied to Mrs Main's circumstances. If it were, then she would not be in breach of the rule prohibiting claims for other people's living costs or against receiving a personal benefit.

165. I do not consider that the dispensation applied to Members' partners and children can be held to apply to children regardless of their age. Mrs Main's daughter was an adult in full time employment. She was 24 at the time the arrangement started (27 at the end). She had a demanding and responsible job. She became a director of the small company she worked for while she was staying at the flat. She regularly spent nights in the flat when her mother was not there. The evidence shows that she was an independent person, with her own life, her own friends and her own career. On any interpretation of the evidence, Mrs Main's daughter is an independent adult. She could have been expected to have been responsible for her own living costs. It was entirely a matter for Mrs Main whether she subsidised those costs, for example by not charging her adult daughter rent when she stayed in the family's Beaconsfield home. There was nothing unusual in that: many other parents do the same. But it does not follow that the same principle should apply to parliamentary-funded accommodation. Public funds should not have been expected to meet the living costs of Mrs Main's adult daughter when she stayed in the St Albans flat. That should have been a private matter for the family. It should have not been a matter for public funds.

166. I am reinforced in this conclusion by the fact that the rules in the Green Book at the time allowed Members to claim travel allowances for children up to the age of 18 (and, by individual arrangement with the then Department of Finance and Administration, for children over 18 who also had a disability). While different considerations might be held to apply for different parts of the expenses regime, to reflect the particular purpose of those expenses, in the absence of alternative guidance, and taking account of the particular circumstances of this case, I consider that the travel rule is a reasonable supporting indication of the overall intention of the Green Book in meeting certain costs incurred by Members' children.

167. Mrs Main has argued that her daughter only stayed at the flat in order to support her in her parliamentary duties. She needed to be there to give Mrs Main emotional (and some practical) support to enable her to carry out those duties better. And it enabled her to maintain a relationship with her adult daughter while dealing with the pressure of parliamentary business. I accept Mrs Main's explanation of why her daughter stayed at the flat. I note that her daughter recognised that it also provided her with some peace and quiet. But I accept too that this was an incidental benefit and not the purpose of her staying there. The evidence suggests that the benefit from Mrs Main's daughter staying at her St Albans flat was to Mrs Main herself, not to her daughter.

168. The question is whether such support for Mrs Main should be met from public resources. I recognise that this is a matter for judgement, but my own judgement is that the support described by Mrs Main provided a personal benefit to the Member. It was not a benefit or service which Mrs Main should have expected to have been met from parliamentary allowances. Mrs Main did accrue such a benefit because she did not take account of the living costs of her daughter in the St Albans flat and, therefore, parliamentary resources met more of the cost than would otherwise have been the case.

169. I conclude, therefore, that under the circumstances which applied to the arrangements established by Mrs Main, she should have taken account of the living costs of her daughter arising from her daughter's regular stays in the St Albans flat and reduced her claims against her Additional Costs Allowance accordingly. She was, in my judgement, in breach of the rules in not doing so. I therefore uphold this part of the complaint.

170. It is fair to make the following additional observations:

i) I accept that Mrs Main consulted the House authorities before letting her daughter use her St Albans flat. There is no record of those discussions and its precise terms are unclear. It seems likely, however, that the Department agreed that a Member's partner and children could live with them in their second home. That is, of course, true. It is possible that the Department was aware, as Mrs Main has said, that her daughter was over 18 and that the Department continued to raise no objection. I think it is less likely that Mrs Main went into further detail about her daughter—including her age and employment. I think it probable, therefore, that the Department gave advice without full information and that that advice, given on the telephone, was broad in scope. It is not possible at this remove to say what advice the Department would have given if they had had all the relevant information (as on balance I do not believe they had). I accept, however, that they may well have continued to accept the arrangement without advising Mrs Main to abate her claims, contrary to my judgement of the way the rules should have been interpreted and operated at the time.

ii) It is unlikely that the cost of the St Albans flat would have been significantly less had Mrs Main's daughter not used the flat overnight for part of the week. The mortgage interest and other fixed costs would have been the same. The utility costs would, I think, have been less, but the difference would not have been very large on the reasonable assumption that the flat would have continued to be heated as necessary when Mrs Main was not there. But the test in the rules is not whether there have been additional costs but whether the Member's claims covered the living costs of another person and whether those claims provided a personal benefit to the Member (or someone close to them). Inasmuch as those costs should have been identified and used to reduce the Member's claim, the cost to public funds of the Member's use of the property would have been reduced.

iii) The complainant suggested that Mrs Main should not have paid a discounted council tax rate because of her daughter's use of the property. The complainant also pointed out that this was likely to be a matter for the local authority concerned. I agree. I do not believe that Mrs Main's council tax payments provide additional evidence about her or her daughter's use of the property. I note Mrs Main's evidence that she believes that she was eligible to a pay a reduced council tax for her flat in St Albans on the basis that she paid a full council tax on another home. There is no suggestion that Mrs Main's council tax claims exceeded what she paid.

Were Mrs Main's food claims in accordance with the rules of the House?

171. Mrs Main claimed over £3,000 a year for her food from 2005-06 to 2007-08 inclusive. Mrs Main's evidence is that this covered meals taken in her constituency and two evening meals a week at a total cost of £20, while she was working in Westminster. Mrs Main believed that it was permissible under the rules for a Member to claim for all food costs which were not taken at their main home during the course of their parliamentary duties, but accepts the judgement made by the Department during the course of this inquiry that this was an incorrect interpretation of the rules. Mrs Main should have claimed only for food costs associated with her overnight stays in St Albans.

172. I accept the Department's judgement as, on reflection, does Mrs Main. The wording of the Green Book was phrased in a way which could catch a Member out because, as an example of allowable expenditure, it states that a Member may claim for reasonable additional costs of food while they are away from their main home. But a full reading of the section makes reasonably clear that all claims under the Additional Costs Allowance must be as a result of costs incurred as a result of the Member staying overnight away from their main home, and that such overnight stays must be for the purpose of performing their parliamentary duties. Furthermore, a Member whose main home is neither in London nor in the constituency can choose in which of these areas to claim for ACA (including food) but they cannot claim in both. It follows that Mrs Main's claims for each of the relevant years should not have included the cost of the two weekly meals which she has said she ate in Westminster when she attended Parliament.

173. Mrs Main's evidence is that all the rest of the food she consumed and claimed for, other than the food she ate when attending Parliament, was associated with her overnight stays in St Albans. For instance, she says that she did not claim for her daughter's meals, even when they ate out, and she did not claim for any food eaten in St Albans when she drove back in the evening to Beaconsfield. I have no evidence to suggest that any of the rest of her food claims were outside the rules.

174. I conclude, therefore, that Mrs Main was in breach of the rules of the House in including in her claims under the Additional Costs Allowance the costs of food which she consumed other than in the course of her overnight stays in St Albans, namely her meals in Westminster. Mrs Main has accepted this finding.

Overall conclusion

175. I conclude, therefore, that Mrs Main was not in breach of the rules in establishing and claiming for a flat in St Albans in her constituency, even though her main home was less than 20 miles from her constituency boundary. I do not therefore uphold this part of the complaint. I have found, however, that Mrs Main was in breach of the rules of the House in permitting her adult daughter to stay regularly over a period of two years and nine months in her parliamentary-funded flat in St Albans, without reflecting the full living costs of those stays in the claims she made against her Additional Costs Allowance. As a result her claims were not wholly and exclusively incurred in the performance of her parliamentary duties: Mrs Main received a personal benefit from the arrangement. Mrs Main was also in breach of the rules in claiming for some food which was not consumed as a consequence of her overnight stays in St Albans. I therefore uphold both these parts of this complaint.

176. I do not consider Mrs Main's breach of the food rules to be at the serious end of the spectrum. It was clearly based on a misinterpretation of the rules which, given the way this section was drafted, was in my judgement understandable. The consequences of Mrs Main allowing her daughter to stay regularly in her St Albans flat for an extended period were more serious in that, given that her daughter was staying there, Mrs Main's claims against parliamentary resources should have been substantially less than they were. But Mrs Main's own responsibility has to be mitigated by the advice she may have received from the House authorities. That is likely to have encouraged her to continue to allow her adult daughter to treat her parliamentary funded home in the way she treated her Beaconsfield home, without recognising, as Mrs Main has not recognised or accepted, the distinction between meeting an adult daughter's living costs from private funds and meeting them from the public purse.

28 January2010

John Lyon CB

39 WE 1 Back

40 WE 2 Back

41 WE 3 Back

42 WE 4 Back

43 Not included in the written evidence. Back

44 Not included in the written evidence. Back

45 Not included in the written evidence. Back

46 Paragraph 3.3.1 Back

47 Not included in the written evidence. Back

48 In her letter of 29 June (WE 6), Mrs Main said that "upwards of 20 nights" was not correctly phrased as it should have read "up to 20 nights" and "was referring to an estimate of the additional non-diarised dates when I was in St Albans, which should be added to the total of each year's diarised dates." Back