'Voters are just jealous'

In an interview with the World at One on 21st May Anthony Steen the MP for Totnes was unexpectedly candid about his conscience that failed to inhibit him from claiming £87,279 over the course of four years for his property in Devon. During the interview the MP described his behaviour as impeccable and believed that the interest in his expenses claim was jealousy. He even went so as as to say that the situation reminded him of an episode of Coronation Street, furthermore he asked what right did the public have to interfere in his private life. His answer to this was "none".

His home in Devon could hardly be described as modest or representative of the living arrangements of his constituents. It has a value of £1.5m and encompasses five hundred trees within the grounds, a separate cottage, gravelled driveway and a swimming pool. It is not the house of a man who is of modest means and is described by the MP as a 'very, very large house'. His claims for the property included tree surgery, maintenance of the cottage, an overhaul of the sewage system and an annual foresters inspection of the five hundred trees on his land.

On a de jure basis it can be construed that Anthony Steen did behave impeccably, after all his claims were processed by the fees office under the second homes allowance with only a couple of officials raising their eyebrows at some of his claims. For the financial year of 2004/05 one official did write to the MP to inform him that his claims for land management were considered excessive within the spirit of 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'. However, his claims continued to be processed for another four years. If the argument is to be based purely on his uninhibited claims £87,000 for the upkeep of his 'very, very large house' and grounds then yes he did behave impeccably as he kept within the rules of the second homes allowance.

It is on his de facto behaviour where he is viewed in a less than favourable light. How can an overhaul to the sewage system and the continued maintenance of the grounds to what is his family home be aligned with the proviso of claiming for costs that are incurred 'wholly, necessarily and exclusively on parliamentary duties'? The truth of the matter is that tree surveys and a £1,318 wrought iron fireplace are in no way related to, or can possibly assist, in the discharging of an individuals duties as a Member of Parliament. Morally, Anthony Steen has acted in bad faith by charging the taxpayer just under the full annual value permissible under the second homes allowance for the upkeep of what in reality his family home.

Describing the anger against him as jealousy completely misunderstands the point of the matter. He is a man of wealth who has immorally used taxpayers money for the upkeep of his family home. Mr Steen may have a right to privacy, but in using public funds so extravagently on his large house in the country he nullified any right to privacy. The taxpayer has every right to know how their money is spent, particularly when such money is used for personal and not public interest.