Subscribe for free e-mail updates

"Claims for Cleaning and Gardening

"The Green Book identified cleaning as one of the types of expenditure on a second home which was recoverable as part of ACA. Gardening was not similarly identified, but in practice basic gardening costs were allowed. Unfortunately no annual limit was set for either type of claim (although I have seen a little evidence to suggest that some Fees Office staff suggested a monthly limit for gardening of £300). The Review had to look at the claims for cleaning and gardening and decide to what extent it was reasonable and appropriate for those claims to be borne by public funds, given the overall purpose of the ACA. It found that 93% of all Members claimed cleaning costs of less than £2,000 per annum (see paragraph 84), and chose that figure as the limit to be applied to all Members throughout the 5 year period covered by the Review.

"A similar approach was adopted in relation to gardening expenses, where the limit was set at £1,000 per annum.

"It seems to me that the approach adopted by the Review to both cleaning claims and gardening expenses was a rational response to a difficult problem, even though it was bound to have unfortunate consequences. It is, for anyone, irritating to say the least, to have a claim made in good faith years ago measured against a limit which has only just been set, and to be recommended to repay any "excess". It is infinitely more irritating and potentially very damaging to reputation, if the exercise takes place in the full glare of media publicity, even if the media can say, with justification, that (overall) exposure to the public has been a force for good. A Member who in one year claimed gardening expenses of £1,200 and made no other ACA claims, is in danger of receiving adverse comment in the press, whereas one who regularly claimed gardening expenses of £950 per annum and used up the whole of his annual ACA every year, is said to have no issues. Those sort of points have been made to me repeatedly, and I recognise the force of what is being said. It has also been said that it is unfair to apply limits to some types of expenditure and not to others, such as mortgage interest. That seems to me to be less persuasive, having regard to the fundamental purpose of ACA. Claims to reimburse a Member for expenditure on rent or mortgage interest are at the heart of ACA. Cleaning and gardening are rightly described by the Review as secondary.

"I do, however, consider it unfortunate that the Review should, in relation to cleaning and gardening claims, have invoked again "the requirement of propriety" (see paragraphs 82 of the Review and 22 of the executive summary). That carries with it the inevitable implication that those who made claims in excess of the retrospectively imposed limits were lacking in propriety, and in the appeals I have seen I found little, if any, evidence of that. Furthermore, as the Review points out, it was not the function of the Review, nor is it my function, to make judgements of that kind. But, the limits having been set, my terms of reference only permit me to intervene if I find special reasons in the individual case showing it would not be fair and equitable to require repayment. I have no remit to reopen the Review as a whole - see the MEC statement of 1 December 2009 quoted above. In relation to cleaning and gardening expenses it has proved very difficult for individual appellants to demonstrate special reasons, because the limits applied to them have been applied to all other Members, many of whom have repaid."

.