Mary Dejevsky: Women MPs should be able to claim for childcare

If anything furnishes proof that public life in the 21st century remains essentially a male preserve, it is the periodic dispute about who pays the nanny. The latest victim is the chair of the Conservative Party, Caroline Spelman. The accusation against her is that in 1997, when first elected an MP, she used part of her parliamentary expenses allowance to pay her nanny. She ended the arrangement the following year, when the party's then chief whip said it could be open to "misinterpretation".

Clearly it can. Emerging to present her case at the weekend, Ms Spelman looked utterly wretched. She seemed as conscious as anyone that her alleged misdemeanour had already been put in the large box marked "recent Tory sleaze", along with the wages paid to Derek Conway's student offspring for non-research, and the small fortune salted away in personal accounts by Giles Chichester, leader of Conservative MEPs.

Related articles

• Cameron will sack MEPs found to have broken expenses rules
• Leading article: Cameron has to dispel accusations of sleaze
• Search the news archive for more stories

The first line of her defence must be the striking difference in scale between her indiscretion, if it is found to be such, and those of Messrs Conway and Chichester. Theirs took place over many years, and continued until they were rumbled. Hers took place more than 10 years ago, when she was first elected, and lasted a mere matter of months. Any financial benefit to her is also minimal compared to the gain that accrued to the other two.

That the scale is quite different, however, can be only a partial defence. Rules, after all, are rules – and if our elected representatives cannot be relied upon to observe them, why should we voters be expected to make the effort?

No, what is wrong here are the rules themselves. That Ms Spelman's brief use of her parliamentary allowance for bundled childcare and secretarial work is being condemned as the latest instance of parliamentary sleaze only goes to show how how far those who write the rules on tax and expenses do so from a male perspective.

Just consider what MPs are allowed to claim for, beyond their salary. They qualify for help with buying or renting a second home – and keep the profit when they leave Parliament. Their transport is subsidised – think cars, and the train tickets for David Blunkett's girlfriend. They may claim, too, for help with home improvements and utilities bills, and even, as we saw with John Prescott, food.

Quite understandably, they also have allowances for research and secretarial help. But consider the duties that a secretary or PA routinely undertakes on behalf of – yes, her – boss in almost any organisation. How many draw the line at asking a PA to order flowers for a spouse? Or make arrangements for family travel? Or make personal appointments?

The professional and the personal have a habit of overlapping. But no parliamentary watchdog or tax inspector questions where the line of a PA's responsibilities runs – except, it seems, in the one area which is still regarded as the woman's preserve: childcare. Yet if there is one thing above all else that makes it hard for women to work the hours and put in the socialising time that career-minded men do, it is the reality that childcare is still presumed to be their responsibility.

In the United States, it was indicative that when Bill Clinton first tried to promote women to key government posts, the skeleton in the closet that ruled out a potential housing secretary and two attorney-generals was childcare paid cash-in-hand many years before. Why was this a blight on the woman's political career, but has never prevented a man entering government?

Here, ministers seem amazed that their efforts to provide tax breaks and promote subsidised nurseries have not had working women rushing to park their young children and increase their working hours. Well, practically every woman could tell them why: because the hours worked by day nurseries and the hours they would work full-time, plus the time spent commuting, do not dovetail conveniently.

The only concessions that would make any real difference are the ones they have steadfastly refused to make: either good quality and heavily subsidised nurseries available for all who want them around the clock, or childcare made an allowable expense for tax purposes. In the absence of either, it is no wonder that women turn for help to family and neighbours.

It is no wonder either that a whole cohort of women – from 30 to 50 – seems simply to have left the field of public life. Go to early-evening seminars or receptions in London, and you will find men frequently outnumbering the women 10 to one. In these circumstances, it is amazing that there are as many women in Parliament as there are, and that no more have found themselves in the same fix as Ms Spelman.

m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

More from Mary Dejevsky