Malik is a serving Minister of the Crown, what’s more he is a Justice Minister. Accused by the Telegraph of playing the system by designating as his “main home” a constituency house obtained at a discount from the a Landlord who receives public money for Malik’s office, he insists that he has done nothing wrong.
'I don't think this is a big story and I'm shocked that it makes the front pages. I have done nothing wrong.'
Good, but let’s just check shall we? I note that you are giving part of the cost of a Home Cinema to good causes, but not repaying it?
'If I thought it was incorrect for me to claim I would have given it back to the authorities. I will not be giving it to the authorities in Parliament because it is mine.'
Actually, more than £1000 of it was paid by the Taxpayer. Did that represent value for money, as required by the rules, and was it extravagant or luxurious (as proscribed by the rules). You might want to include your “massage chair” in your answer. Apparently you have a
A “Giving it back” problem?
'I didn't make the rules,' he said.
No, and you didn't read them either – at least not the overriding principles (wholly, exclusively, necessarily, value for taxpayer, above reproach).
'I don't decide which my second home is, Parliament decides.
No it doesn't, Mr Malik - you nominate it. Your main home is the one where you incur the same normal expenses as any other Citizen. That's why they call it the Additional costs allowance. The clue is in the name.
I am as straight as they come
That’s what worries me…