When you think about it Libby might have a point. If Maggie Thatcher had been able to claim expenses for a Nanny the world might have been spared the nightmare of Mark Thatcher.

Bill Dear, Odiham, england

I like Libby Purves but wish she would also consider the plight of Dads that want to be responsable fathers to their children, is this equal in terms of rights as working mothers? Mothers asume the right to work fathers have to fight even for basic access to their own children where's the equality ?

Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England

"Why must a single mother, seeking to better herself and join the taxpaying classes, fund her childminder out of taxed income while her employer claims as corporate-entertainment the cost of taking his old mates to Henley or Spearmint Rhino?". Not true - entertainment is not a tax deductible expense

Jonathan, London,

Kevin, please can you explain to me why the children of single mothers deserve to spend their childhoods in "basic hostels"?

My mum worked her socks off, fulltime; dad paid nothing; tax credits weren't introduced for another 20 years.Your ignorant bigotry is insulting to mothers like mine.

Kate, London, UK

You've joined the benefits gang so it seems ! It seems to be spreading all over Britain and everybody seems to think its perfectly OK. If she needs a nannie, she gets a benefit from the Taxpayer, not the government. Nice. So if someone needs a job and a car to get to work, benefits give them one.

Phil de Buquet, Newport,

Single mothers are often, very often, selfish individuals who malinger on the state expecting everyone else to pick up the tab for their childrens upbringing. A sensible deterent would be basic hostels for single mothers rather than payment of benefits for living in a house or flat.

kevin, Lincoln, UK

It is interesting to read a Times columnist become quickly apologetic and defensive of decetion and cover-up by a tory MP. The past week has seen Tory MPs, MEPs falling short of the standard required. I shudder to think what Gordon Brown would have been subjected to if they were labour MEPs and MPs.

Tonye, O, Dalgety Bay, Fife, United Kingdom

I'm more concerned about Brown's inability to count and his love of wasting our money (selling off the gold, Gov IT projects, benefits overpayments etc.) than a few quid being used to pay the nanny for one year. Labour are in no position to criticise.

Pay MPs £200k a year and scrap ALL expenses.

James, London,

Scottish MSP have to prove their expenses over £25.00 and have receipts. is Westminster unable to do this? that is not to say there are not some pricey fiddles going on involving the old second homes scam but all in all it is a lot more open and above board.

Arrow, Edinburgh, Scotland

Sorry, if children interfere with your career choice...don't have children! Harsh but fair i'm afraid. I'm sick of funding other peoples life-style choices. Like always being expected to take the worst shifts and holiday dates because little miss wants it all says "but i've got children..."

Anthony, Brum,

Well John of Egremont there is also Bullingdon Boris with his current three jobs, who having been elected as Mayor has now arranged for half a dozen people to do the Mayor's work while he earns 250 K for writing his Telegraph column. Still I'm sure the Mayor's salary will compensate him.

Dave Camoron, Odiham, england

Hey, I'd like to get my missus to claim nanny fees/nursery fees as "expenses".
What form do I use please?

Chris, Northampton, England

The point is surely that as an MP, Ms Speilman was in the position to lobby for a change in the law so that all women could claim tax releif (or similar) for childcare, rather than just cream off some money for herself.

Nick, France,

Well, what a rant - but this is about principle! Yes, the Blairs may have played the system as well, if not better, than someone dealing with 'early motherhood...[a period that is] complicated, messy and full of compromise". However, both look unclean. Both deserve our scorn.

Mark, Reading, UK

"a tycooness ... can't claim for the person who makes it possible for her to step outside the house without a baby buggy? "

So should the tycoon be able to claim for his stay-at-home wife?

david, ely,

Libby,
Are you suggesting that if the Tories get in the Tax loopholes will be abolished and those earning enough to benefit will no longer be able to get round the system? Please get real. The Tory Party exists to look after the well off to the detriment of the majority.

Milton Keynes, Odiham, england

I was suprised that this was not an allowable expense, after-all as MPs work long hours, if they have children they will need to obtain childcare. I would rather MPs spent their expenses for something like this than for their garden, window cleaning etc.

Mike Dales, Middlesbrough,

was the B & L element of m/s haynes pay taxed as a 'benefit in kind' ?

david c, purbeck, uk

About ten years ago, Labour promised to stop sleaze and the core of your column the Tory that did stop. I'm not interested in someone who stopped when told. I'm interested in the current mis-use of my tax and the immorality of tax perks being made available to MPs and not the rest of us.

KR, Stockport,

"while her employer claims as corporate-entertainment"

Erm, you do know that corporate entertainment is not an allowable expense for tax purposes?

Tim Worstall, Messines,

The notion of a Nanny conjures up pictures of Edwardian upperclass children having an airing in Kensington Gardens.
But some high-tory families are still like that. Just go to Kew Gardens on a sunny Sunday. Lots of baffled City posh chaps grappling with parenting there. At least they try I suppose.

Boris, Belgravia, London

I looked on the list of members interest the other day and saw that a lot of them were earning well over a £100k a year from additional activities. I wonder if a blind man with a propensity for extra marital affairs and little discenable talent would get that on the private market?

John , Egremont,

Today there will attempt to rewrite history. It will slowly evolve that Haynes, after all, was a full time secretary with occasional child care duties. Purves must surely know that the cover up as started why else the attempt to muddy the waters. Like it or not it's a Cameron problem not Browns

anthony J, Alton, England

This article with its emotive title is a departure from Libby's usual clear-sightedness. Like any 2-income family, Ms Spelman's family enjoyed 2 personal tax allowances. So why should hardworking 1-earner families who only claim 1 personal allowance and relinquish an income pay nanny tax?

Anna Lines, London, UK

Come on Libby, what about my wife who worked permanent nights so that she could be at home during the day (without sleep!) if our children needed her. She was always home when they returned from school. Is it fair that her taxes were subsidising Caroline Spelman's nanny?

David, Bristol,

The "dreadful deed" is that not timesheets appear to exist and conveniently nobody can remember how much work was done. We've only their word for it that any work was done at all. And since most of us don't draw a fat salary just to write partisan claptrap, we see no reason to believe that it was.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Claiming for your nanny/secretary is as nothing compared to the cost to the taxpayer of buying and running all those enhanced second homes which, presumably, remain the property of MPs, even when out of a job.

anne, bournemouth,

This pedants' hunt for the errant politician, driven by the media's love of expose, is destroying what little faith in our political class remains and, in doing so, poisoning the political realm. To read my ideas at greater length, link to my blog at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

Adam McNestrie, Cambridge,

Where was the father of the children, and why wasn't he paying towards their upkeep?

Thousands of woman, deserted by their (legal)husbands, recieve no child support . You can bet they don't get subsidised nannies while they 'work to better themselves,' I know, I was one of them.

EO

Eileen O'Conor, Cordoba, Spain

I have every sympathy with Ms. Spelman and her need for childcare, BUT what was Tina Haines paid for the secretarial work and did she continue after1998 on just B&L for the nanny work? If she was paid after 1998 then there IS a case to answer. Within the rules BUT an abuse of the system yet again

barbara, north east,

Libby - agreed. But one question; if this all happened 10 years ago, why is it being raised now? This wouldn't be an attempt by the rapidly failing 'left' to divert attention away from Gordon's impending demise, would it? Sounds to me like she was being economis in using the same person!

David L, Brussels,

And yet the answer is soooo simple. Independent salary and expenses review, total expense transparency with receipts for everything, screened and interviewed assistants - no family members. London accommodation hotel or otherwise centrally booked - anything second home is out. Difficult? Noooo!

Patterson M, Reddicth, England

MPs expenses should be subject to a test of reasonableness. Furnishings for second properties should be taxed beyond £8,000, as they are for re-location expenses for normal taxpayers.

Additionally they should make use of hotels in London rather than purchasing property at taxpayers' expense.

Jon Cassidy, Warwick,

Nope it was against the rules (or maybe not). She is being punished (if she is) for claiming expenses she was not entitled to. Indeed Ms Spelman by denying the suggestions is of course accepting that if she did as accused she was in the wrong. Both sides should call off the witch hunt here.

Jon, Feltham, Middlesex

As usual, you are quite right. These people have never tried to run a small business from home with small children. It was clearly better in every way to get support from her nanny and have the office at home than open an expensive office elsewhere. People should give her a break.

NBeale, London, England

Is she actually guilty? I thought the matter was under investigation and still open to interpretation.

John Goode, Welwyn Garden City, UK

If the gravy train was chopped there would be a lot of new faces in parliament.

M Wilson, Bidache, france

This isn't a case of sexism, a pathetic thing to say, how would policy have differed for a male?
Please stop stirring trouble for woman in the work place, the constant whining of the few (over a thief no less) just makes us seem like more hassle. She understood what was involved in being an MP.

Clara, London, UK

It's still stealing.

Sue, Felpham,

We need to draw a clear distinction between rules and ethical behaviour. It is perfectly legal to cheat on your wife, tell lies to your best friend and walk past a dying man in the street. Rules and laws are only as good as those who make them. 'I was obeying orders' has never been a good defence.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand

Well said (except for the unnecessary dig at men). Until the swamp of parliamentary expenses is drained the reasonably necessary will get lumped in with the egregious. Drop the bar on the past and start new with a revised salary and expenses system.

James, Hong Kong, China

Dear Libby, your point is taken, but why is it the probity of the LEADERS of Conservative MPs and MEPs expenses watchdogs in question?Shouldn't Dave have been accorded principled pre-appointment explanations by Spelman and Chichester? I'm tempted to think there are no "clean" alternative appointees!

Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts

how very impartial

alex, leeds,