Many people know that Iain Duncan Smith was accused by
''Newsnight'' of claiming over £20,000 for employing his wife in his office,
even though she never turned up once to do a day’s work. Had he not been
rumbled, this arrangement and free money on top of his already considerable tax-payer
funded wage and expense claims for being the worst shadow leader in Tory
history, could have gone on unnoticed and indefinitely.
But what a lot of people do not know is the lengths this man went to, with the aid of other Tory members, to dismiss the ''Newsnight'' claims, and how he and his network of thugs tried to bully and pressure his '' Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition'' Dr Vanessa Gearson to back his claims that his wife did indeed work in the office for a minimum of 23 hrs per week. Dr Gearson, to her credit, refused to lie for her boss.
Here are excerpts from Dr Gearson’s sworn statement to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The full statement can be read here. If you can find the time, at least skim through it to find out how many other people, including T May and O Patterson, knew all about this situation and how long it took to resolve the situation, by people paid from public funds.
But what a lot of people do not know is the lengths this man went to, with the aid of other Tory members, to dismiss the ''Newsnight'' claims, and how he and his network of thugs tried to bully and pressure his '' Head of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition'' Dr Vanessa Gearson to back his claims that his wife did indeed work in the office for a minimum of 23 hrs per week. Dr Gearson, to her credit, refused to lie for her boss.
Here are excerpts from Dr Gearson’s sworn statement to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The full statement can be read here. If you can find the time, at least skim through it to find out how many other people, including T May and O Patterson, knew all about this situation and how long it took to resolve the situation, by people paid from public funds.
You do have to ask yourself, in light of this information, which has clearly been available to the public on the government website for some time, if it is entirely appropriate for IDS to be in charge of a department with so much money at its disposal for dispersal to the weak, sick, old, vulnerable and needy.
16 October 2003
It is with great reluctance that I find myself having to set out the following facts, as I understand them, after what has been an extraordinarily difficult period in my professional life. I set out in this document everything I can recall to be relevant to the remit of your investigation in the interests of openness and transparency.
My experience over five years of running constituency/parliamentary offices and the political offices of the Chairman and Leader of the Conservative Party gives me a unique insight and understanding of the requirements of these offices.
I saw absolutely no evidence of the work carried out by Mrs Duncan Smith and cannot establish, by analysing the distribution of tasks and responsibilities within the two offices, what work she was effectively carrying out.
The four key tasks as I see them are as follows:
· The Diary—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith performing a professional role regarding the diary.
· Correspondence—I saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith wrote any letters on Mr Duncan Smith's behalf
· Financial Arrangements—I saw no evidence that Mrs Duncan Smith took any responsibility in this regard.
· Practical Considerations—I saw no evidence of Mrs Duncan Smith requesting office supplies that she would have reasonably needed in order to have carried out such a role.
Moreover, from August to December 2002, whenever I raised the issue of Mrs Duncan Smith, not one person ever questioned or contradicted my assertion that she was being paid without appearing to do any work. Critically, these people included Owen Paterson and Christine Watson, both of whom would, had Mrs Duncan Smith worked for over 25 hours a week, certainly have been aware of the extent of her work and would surely have indicated to me that my concerns were unfounded. The memo to me from Christine Watson (see Appendix 4) is important in that it shows the extent of the work being carried out by her and leaves little if any role for Mrs Duncan Smith. Indeed, the first time I ever heard that Mrs Duncan Smith worked in excess of 25 hours a week was in the statement issued by Mr Duncan Smith on Monday 13th October 2003. (After the airing of Newsnight )
The information as detailed above reveals the facts as I understand them and demonstrates why I felt unable to publicly state that I was entirely satisfied with the arrangements regarding Mr Duncan Smith's assertion that his wife, Betsy, carried out a position of significant parliamentary work. ''All THE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OF MR DUNCAN SMITH AND THOSE AROUND HIM IN APPLYING PRESSURE ON ME'' have merely confirmed my view.
