John Rentoul: Don't be wimps about these revelations
Instead of being so defensive about their expense claims, Labour should claim credit for promoting freedom of information
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Our politicians are a spineless lot. What we need is a bit of chutzpah. Instead of whining about everything being "within the rules", "having sought the advice of the Fees Office" and "Derek Conway was worse than me", ministers should say: "Yes, it doesn't look great, does it? That is why I have always been in favour of freedom of information, and that is why this Government legislated for it. We had no idea where it might lead, but we realised that it might be a bit uncomfortable for us, and that was sort of the point of it. Now Parliament realises that its housekeeping doesn't look pretty when viewed from the outside, and we're trying to fix it."
There is one big problem with taking that approach, which is that only three – or possibly four – Cabinet ministers could carry it off. They are the three that emerge least scathed by the expenses blizzard: Alan Johnson, St Hilary of Benn and Ed Miliband, who hasn't been given any pocket money yet. Plus Hazel Blears, who is at the other end of the spectrum, having been outed as a serial "flipper", redesignating consecutive properties as her "second" home in a way that maximises the taxpayers' contribution, but who is the only Cabinet minister – apart from Johnson – endowed with any quantity of cheek.
The other thing that holds ministers back from fighting The Daily Telegraph's revelations with any confidence is that so many of their senior colleagues have broken their bats before sending them out to play, to adapt Geoffrey Howe's metaphor from another era. Several ministers have done their best to frustrate attempts to force disclosure of MPs' expenses, while few Cabinet ministers can say that they have always been keen on openness in principle.
Above all, the Prime Minister has a miserable record on expenses and disclosure, while lacking the lightness of touch that would say to journalists in danger of overdosing on sanctimony, "Come off it." His own expenses claims have been only modestly gold-plated.
The Telegraph's decision to lead its report, headlined in a type size suitable for reporting the US bombing of Iran, with the £6,000 he paid for a cleaner he shared with his brother was perverse, while his claim for the same plumber's bill of £153 twice was plainly an honest mistake. No, it is an earlier disclosure that sticks in the mind, of his claim for a Sky Sports subscription. A scrupulous, straight politician, as he presented himself, in contrast to the tacky, money-loving showman, as he presented his predecessor, would not have claimed for that.
Long, long ago, in 1992, Brown made a speech that was incongruous even then, in which he called for the "immediate implementation of a Freedom of Information Act". It was a lecture to Charter 88, a pressure group for open and accountable democracy. He has said almost nothing about it since, while his style in opposition and then in government has been notably secretive. So much so that, when the Freedom of Information Act came into effect, one of Tony Blair's advisers suggested that they should put in a request to ask the Treasury for details of a forthcoming Budget.
Even before he became prime minister, Brown's people sought to block the publication of MPs' expenses. The month before Blair stepped down, Brown's inner cabinet of Ed Balls, Nick Brown and Tom Watson voted for the Bill proposed by David Maclean, the Conservative former chief whip, to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. That Bill was killed by the House of Lords, but then Harriet Harman tried in January this year to block publication by parliamentary Order. That prompted such an outcry that it was withdrawn six days later.
Indeed, it was surprising and to his credit that Jack Straw, who was then home secretary, decided not to exempt Parliament from the scope of the Act when it was drawn up a decade ago. Martin Rosenbaum, the BBC's Freedom of Information expert, points out: "The US Congress, for example, is not covered by the US FoI Act. Ministers took the decision to include Parliament in the Act in the UK. They doubtless did not foresee all the consequences and may be regretting that decision."
I am sure that they are. None more so than Straw himself, who has always been a reluctant tribune of open government. He once warned that a rigorous FoI law would lead to a "Post-It note culture" as ministers and civil servants would avoid formal note-taking. Straw reacted like a guilty schoolboy last summer when it seemed likely that the expenses would be published. Suddenly he discovered that he had overclaimed for the council tax on his Blackburn constituency house and repaid £1,632. Straw, whose supporters boasted that he was a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society when he wanted to be Brown's Chancellor, was reduced to the "silly me, I'm no good with numbers" defence.
His is a particularly apt case of the Government's dilemma. Some of its critics have said how disgraceful it is that he appears to have paid the money back only because the claims were going to become public. But he should say: "That is why freedom of information law" – he could even have said my freedom of information law – "is a good thing. It forces us all to be honest. Of course, I would have spotted it anyway, but openness is your guarantee."
Instead we got from him, from the Prime Minister and the rest of them a lifeless defensiveness. Brown's one attempt to take control of the issue, his abortive YouTube reforms last month, was much too late and too clumsy to have a chance of recovering the situation.
Yet the situation will recover itself, I believe, because of that brave decision taken by Straw and permitted by Blair, who was no great enthusiast for open government either. The Freedom of Information Act cannot be turned back. MPs are now accountable for every penny of public money that they spend, and they know it. But Gordon Brown has forfeited any hope of claiming any credit for it on Labour's behalf.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
In 1992, Brown would have embrassed the devil if he thought it would get him into power. He would drop the FOI idea in a nanosecond had he had the foresight to see how it would affect him 17 years later.
As someone else says, these people were elected on the understanding they were doing a practical job of work and trying to make this country a better place. They were not elected to do what anyone outside Parliament will frankly say is swindle us.
In the first instance I think it is up to the local constituency parties to deal with the worst offenders by deselecting them. If they do not do so then it's up to the voters to do so at the ballot box.
The Realist: Politics is a dirty business. Rather than vilifying those MPs who have worked the system, we should congratulate them and promote them. In the real world we need politicians who are crafty and devious, and who can exploit the rules to advantage. Politicians of this kind will prove to be better at getting more of the cake for their constituents, their ministry, or their country.
The Pragmatist: MPs should receive more pay than their "basic" salary. It would be politically embarrassing to ask for a raise. So instead it has become accepted practice for MPs to use the expenses system to boost their salaries. On this basis MPs are justified in claiming what they can within the rules.
I agree with Matthew Parris that MPs should be given a pay rise of 30-50K and that all expenses should be scrapped. But I would add that MPs are required to turn up for work and that they should not receive additional income from other jobs (although they may, within reason, do additional jobs on a voluntary basis if doing so helps them do their job as an MP).
"(although they may, within reason, do additional jobs on a voluntary basis if doing so helps them do their job as an MP). " both petty and stupid by nature, please do grow up. If vocational, then it is up to the individual to decide just how much time and support they can give that cause and in that, an interesting and unconscious issue:
Rather than pay them a decent income and not let them spend time with their families, your "condescension" is that providing it is vocational and earns no money and robs them of spending time with family, it is okay so, how reasonable it that in flat world ?
Sorry you brain dead person, being an experienced IT Project Manager, just how we still have the idiotic ID Scheme running defeats me because it is an obvious pile of unsecured pooh ? It is a terribly technical issue and therefore boring but the simple truth is that if anyone in Cabinet had even a 25 percent comprehension of the technical issues involved, the project would have been killed 10 years back.
People like to hear the things that they like to say
Hmm...
No, the idea is that MPs should be well paid for being MPs and should devote themselves full time to that job; including attending and contributing to more of the debates and committees (they don't do enough of this in my opinion).
The point of them doing additional *voluntary* unpaid work (as a company director, or with a union, etc.) is that it may benefit their work as an MP and may become paid work when they cease to be an MP.
We pay an MP a third of the salary of a senior GP.
We expect them to work in London and also live in their constituencies, paying for this out of expense claims.
We should EXPECT them to play such a crazy system, within the rules laid down.
Punish the worst offenders -- Conservative and Labour -- and then pay them a professional wage.
Although I cannot remember the exact details, whether it was related to the Spithead Mutiny over the conditions of Sailors in the Royal Navy, but wasn't someone appointed to sort this out and given a salary of 500,000 pa then, an unimaginable sum in the early 19th Century, just so that: Caesar's Wife shall be above suspicion.
This situation has arisen because neither the public nor the politicians were prepared to face the issue and grasp the nettle, if we are honest is it not a case of that we all at fault ?
We should surely start with evaluating the MP Job and arriving at a Value Figure for doing it properly. We then having given it a value, need to enquire as to why in a Parliament that only deals with 20 percent of the legislation that impacts the UK, they are worth any more than 20 percent of that value, surely this is not rocket science ?
More pay attracts more flies. The money they receive is sufficient, they should be allowed
to claim expenses, but these should be subject to the same rules and regulations applied
to everyone else.
When these people chose to enter politics, part of their promise was to benefit and (as they
are so often keen to tell us at election time) selflessly put something back into society.
It is disingenuous for them to then look askance at the free market, top end professional
wage and whine that they are not paid enough. They already are paid twice the national
average.
Possibly their wages should be proportionally linked in some way to the national average
wage, it might give them some incentive to help the rest of us then, too.
Most, if not all, who take up an MP's job, know the conditions and salaries, from their inner circles of friends and relations. Their fraudulent habits, they develop for themselves, from the means available.
"Bliar" came to the people with his "transparency" pledge--we all know the facts about that.
No John, what IS NEEDED, is the kind of rigorous regulation, which these same rogues have promised (post global catastrophe) for the Banking world.
It would appear that, public money, whether in the hands of bankers, or Parliament, can be appropriated any way these people see fit--and often after personal expenses have been abundantly pocketed.
MPs' attitude towards constituents/taxpayers is contemptible--and four years to change their straw and refill their trough, is too long.
Regardless of political persuasion, I suspect that the majority of the electorate are sick and tired of having their intelligence insulted by this Government whether over a Referendum on the EU Constitution, the 2007 election that never was and Brown's declaration that he never intended to call one anyway which was clearly a lie. The financial crisis which was global, he Brown as first Chancellor and then Prime Minister contributed to via his profligacy on pet projects none of which involved the Armed Forces.
From the brainless fool who thrice declared that he had ended boom and bust in the UK economy, an apology would be nice. One could go on and on, many people have many different gripes and this expenses thing is just the rope to hang them with, a bit like sending Al Capone to jail on Tax Evasion rather than murder.
If Labour wants to remain a viable political party then they need to bite the bullet. Immediately after the Local/MEP Elections, kick Brown out as Party Leader and commit to a September General Election.
hokey docky I gota the story aboot the balire and wife buying too houses but that is zeee point How far do v go 1980 for these stelings, confused very much at the bizzare noose in the neck nuts
Which was the gist of Hazel Bleary's statement to C4 New tonight.
Which omitted the small matter of some unpaid CGT.