It is somewhat different, johnny.
The �second home� allowance (like allowances and expenses in all walks of life) is supposed to provide recompense for costs necessarily incurred as part of undertaking one�s work or duties. Indeed, in all businesses and organisations bar Parliament and the EU, the Inland Revenue insists on strict audits of such payments to ensure they are essentially incurred, proper, proportionate and properly receipted.
In the two high profile examples of the second home allowance recently exposed, it is quite clear that the expenses are not being necessarily incurred and they are not proper. In Mr McNulty�s case in particular he has no need for a second home and, on his own admission, rarely visits the premises which he calls his second home, which is actually occupied by his parents and which the taxpayer has funded to the tune of some �60k.
In the Home Secretary�s case she calls a room in her sister�s house her primary residence and claims a second home allowance for her main house where she spends most of her time with her husband and children.
There have been other examples of MPs calling a house their second home in order to claim the allowance, whilst classifying as their primary residence when it is sold to avoid Capital Gains Tax.
No other individual would get away with such subterfuge. This process is not being regulated properly and the allowances are not taxed. If they want to increase the public�s respect for them MPs should stop considering what they can do (i.e. what they can get away with) and what they ought to do before dubiously trousering vast sums of taxpayers� dosh.