So without even venturing into the territory of whether or not he’s a disgrace to public life, we can assume that by a combination of “freelance” work and the benefits in kind that must surely accrue from his expenses, his household income probably puts him in the top 1%.
There is broad agreement now, whether you love equality or hate it, that the top 1% isn’t really the story; the story is the top 0.1%. Nevertheless, when a man in the top 1% who has his rent paid still can’t afford to house his children in the capital, it is no longer a story about what kind of a person he is: this is a story about a broken system.
It’s not that he cannot afford to rent in the capital. It’s that he chooses not to rent in the capital. He’s got plenty of income he just chooses not to spend it in that manner.
It’s reasonably standard that you spend between a quarter and a third of your income on housing. Grossing up those allowances to account for their being tax free he’s got that quarter to one third of his (Ministerial) income to pay for rent and exclusively for rent.