Token Justice
The guilty verdict against Lord Taylor today, and against Illsey and Chaytor previously is a very British conclusion to the expenses scandal. Lots of damn nice chaps and female chaps who do a lot of good work and are awfully decent folk who didn’t mean any harm have been spared embarrassment by the token defenestration of the most technically guilty.
The abuse of public money by Parliamentarians in both Houses however was far more widespread than these handful of prosecutions. The line between criminal abuse and behaviour that would merit quiet dismissal from regular employment is as thin as staying a night in a second home bought for no purpose other than to fleece the taxpayer.
In the Commons the process of elections and party discipline has largely removed the worst offenders. In the Lords Taylor will be it. Until the second chamber is replaced by a democratic body, peers who transferred tens of thousands from the public to themselves will remain.
The behaviour of that Chamber this week, filibustering to avert the ending of Labour’s rotten boroughs in the north and delay AV, is rather indicative of the contempt in which this body can hold democracy. The worth the Lords do provide, adding expertise to the scrutiny and development of policy is not in short supply outside, and does not merit a job for life. Far to much of the patronage in the Lords is about party management.
The lack of reform in the Lords though is also a very British compromise. A throwback to the consensus settlements of history that have kept the country largely free of civil strife, whilst suitably financed to cause strife elsewhere.
It is though beyond an anachronism and anyone worth their ermine is free to stand for election should reform take place. That though might prove unattractive to those, who in standing for public election, would be open to question about how lucky they were to escape prosecution.
It will be interesting then to note the correlation of opposition in the House to Clegg’s reform agenda and the amount those individuals claimed for infrequently visited ‘main residences’ in the last Parliament.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:51 am
“The abuse of public money by Parliamentarians in both Houses however was far more widespread than these handful of prosecutions. The line between criminal abuse and behaviour that would merit quiet dismissal from regular employment is as thin as staying a night in a second home bought for no purpose other than to fleece the taxpayer.”
I think this misunderstands the nature of this scandal.
With any expenses system there can be someone who sets out to defraud it by means of false information. And that will most probably be a criminal offence.
One aspect of the expenses scandal was that the expenses regime was so lax that it allowed criminal acts to take place without detection.
However the much more serious aspect was that a system was created which allowed hugely generous and wholly legal claims to be made with an absolute minimum of public scrutiny. Remember that the House authorities fought tooth and nail to keep this information secret and even the information released under FoI wouldn’t have exposed some common practices (flipping) – meaning some offenders would have remained undetected (possibly the Kirkbride/McKay).
At some point MPs agreed on a system whereby they thought it was permissible for taxpayers to pay eg for their gardener. (Something Nick Clegg saw no problems with doing that back when first elected) or for a bigger food budget than many families and certainly many single people manage on.
At the height of the expenses I mused that we should propose a vote of censure of the whole Parliamentary party for their failure to adequately challenge this system. I was, correctly, persuaded not to. But there is a degree to which even the innocent MPs have some culpability as they all knew what was happening and didn’t do anything to stop it.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:45 am
However lax the rules, and I agree it is their lack of precision that has got many off the hook, their intent was very clear, to ameliorate the expense of needing a second home to conduct Parliamentary business.
That clarity is in no small part evidenced by the large number of Lords and MPs that did not seek to game the system for personal reward.
So whilst I agree with you there is a collective element to this in the culture of turning a blind eye, that doesn’t excuse the deliberate choice made by some to put their hands in the till.
The article notes with sadness that it will take a constitutional settlement to get rid of them.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
I agree that there is a difference between people who claimed for actual expenditure incurred which was unjustifiable to the public or who benefitted from the consequences of that situation and the Chaytor/Illsley/Taylor etc situation where people falsified information and claimed for expenditure they hadn’t even incurred.
I think the old rules went far beyond ameoliorating the expense of a second home (eg the £400pm food allowance without expenses). There are plenty of MPs who didn’t misuse the system – however my point is why didn’t they speak out against a scheme which was riddled with flaws and was clearly set up to provide back-door remuneration.
My view on discovering the £400pm food allowance was that there was no justification for it. I can’t recall a single MP speaking out against it.