~ Unemployed.net - Nick ~ Culture Secretary Maria Miller has been forced to apologise for gaming the parliamentary expenses system. She broke the rules on second home ownership, overclaiming mortgage costs for years while having her parents living with her, potentially using the public purse to subsidise her family. An investigation by Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards Kathryn Hudson found Miller guilty of claiming £44,000 more than she was entitled to, and recommended to the committee of MPs responsible for deciding her fate that she should pay this back. Miller was accused of not engaging fully with the investigation, using legal jargon instead of answering questions directly. Hudson said she found it difficult to believe that Mrs Miller genuinely thought she was entitled to make the additional claim for her extended mortgage. In other words, this was a crime of commission not omission. Miller did not forget the rules, or misunderstand them, she chose to flout them. Despite this, and Hudsons recommendation, the committee of MPs decided Miller should pay back only £5,800. If only those accused of benefit fraud or misclaiming could have their cases decided by a court of their peers. The governments rhetoric on this is very different to its approach to the case of the Culture Secretary. David Cameron, already reeling from accusations of anti-women bias due to appointing only four women to his cabinet, offered her his warm support. His government has been the most anti-welfare in generations, using far more anti-benefit rhetoric than the last Labour administration in its speeches and press releases. Last year it raised the maximum jail sentence for benefit fraud to ten years, but no prison sentence was suggested for Miller. Even her apology was partial and curt. Miller said: The committee has recommended that I apologise to the house for my attitude towards the commissioners inquiry, and I, of course, unreservedly apologise. I fully accept the recommendations of the committee and thank them for bringing this matter to an end. Can you imagine how a claimant who stood accused not just of overclaiming benefits but of not co-operating with an investigation would be treated? Immediate sanction followed quite probably by time inside. There are those that make the rules and those that have to follow them. As this case shows, if you are on the right side of that you can get away with almost anything - and keep the proceeds while youre at it.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 21:29:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015