If you claim housing benefit your local authority will take a very dim view of what the government calls taking advantage of the housing benefit scheme. One way in which you are deemed to take advantage of the hard work of decent tax paying citizens™ is by arranging payment to a relative or your partner.
In 1995 a neighbour claimed that I was living with my partner while claiming housing benefit (I’d sustained a spinal injury so I couldn’t work; one always feel the need to justify these things). An example of taking advantage of the housing benefit scheme. My partner actually lived some 30 miles away; the neighbour’s motive was (I think) spite. He’d recently divorced and was living in a small, grubby flat which he was paying through the nose for, while I had my rent paid by the council.
Nonetheless, Ipswich Borough Council felt it necessary to investigate the claim in some detail. First I was interviewed about my partner and our sleeping arrangements. Then my partner was interviewed about our sleeping arrangements, her job, our relationship and even her car. You may or may not think this is reasonable.
Parliament takes a similarly dim view of paying rent to a partner. It’s been against the rules since 2006. David Laws claimed £40,000 from the taxpayer to pay his partner rent for a room in a Kennington flat between 2004 and 2007. He admits to claiming from 2001, so the overall figure will exceed £40,000.
I’d suggest the reasons for these rules are quite obvious: It’d be easy to set up a system whereby the state pays A £900 per month for rent which is passed on to B. B, who is A’s partner, returns the money to A. Furthermore, B is able to set a high rent (£900 for a room?) because it’ll come straight back to A.
In case you’ve forgotten, we saw the most serious, damaging expenses scandal in parliamentary history last year. Both David Cameron and — especially — Nick Clegg positioned themselves as guardians of the political system’s probity. David Laws last week announced the first of £6 billion of public spending cuts. I suspect those claiming benefits will be shown very little sympathy should any of their claims be open to any interpretation.
So what Laws did is wrong and against the rules. Surely Laws resigns and Cameron and Clegg make it clear that this behaviour is completely unaccepatble. Simple, non? How else do they continue to restore the public’s trust in the political system™?
A “thoroughly decent person”
That’s Ian Duncan Smith’s assessment of Laws. Laws is a popular guy. Martyr, even:
Mr Laws would be able to “rejoin the government” eventually, “because… he has so much to contribute to national life”. Nick Clegg
You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity. David Cameron
He is not only exceptionally abled, but a principled man. Vince Cable
We’ve spent a weekend arguing about whether David Laws should go when we should have been trying desperately to persuade him to stay. Matthew Parris
(Incidentally, Parris neglects to make the obvious point that if Laws had simply wanted to hide his partner he could have not claimed anything at all. Laws was not short of money.)
Odd that, now the election has passed and we have a coalition government, the pre–election righteousness over expenses appears to have abated. How to explain this largesse of spirit, these fine sentiments? Is it because Laws is a good egg or one of us? Does his city background somewhow exempt him from the sordid side of fiddling your expenses? Does the fact that he gave up a well paid job to enter politics somehow make his actions more understandable, more respectable?
Just bear that in mind the next time you’re interviewed about your housing benefit.