I'll be honest, when I first read about Gordon Brown's cleaning expenses that involved some sort of recharge with his brother, I thought the PM was being very hard done by and didn't have much of a case to answer. I certainly thought it was a bit rich making his the first story in the Telegraph's whole expenses debacle.
Sir Thomas Legg will no doubt have examined the expense claims in much greater detail than I and he has decided that £12,415.10 needs to be repaid.
There really does seem to be a remarkable amount of activity today surrounding this:
- The other two main party leaders have faced questions with Cameron asked to provide more information on his mortgage arrangement and Clegg having to pay £910 for gardening.
- From questions over whether Legg sent letters via internal mail or Royal Mail or (as suggested by @BBCLauraK) both.
- Jacqui Smith's drawn out apology in the Chamber making herself out to be a victim rather than the swindling chancer that she clearly was.
- 50 Labour MPs have been reported as being happy to chip in £2,000 in legal costs to challenge the Legg report.
- Even Sir Thomas' character has come into question with SNP MP Pete Wishart suggesting he is an "attention-seeker"
My first instinct was that if MPs had only broken the 'spirit' of the rules then they shouldn't have to repay what they had claimed. However, I am now thinking that Sir Thomas Legg is working in the public's interest more than he is prescriptively following a rulebook that is decades out of date. The public interest will generally be better served with repayment rather than mere apologies.
So changing the rules retrospectively is acceptable in my book given that it is public servants and their question of judgment that is under the spotlight.
Such an approach should include the 'unflipping' of homes, an honest assessment of what should be a person's second home and a recalculation of what an appropriate claim would be. This would mean an enormous invoice being sent to Alastair Darling and Jacqui Smith (£42k according to Tory pressure group SCOP) and no doubt many others but so be it. It seems wrong that Brown has to pay back £12k for a relatively innocuous cleaning claim while Smith doesn't have to pay back a penny for a claim built on a clear deception.
Despite this, in many ways I think the biggest loser so far today isn't Smith, Brown or Cameron but Clegg. The Lib Dem leader (looking ashen-faced on Channel 4 News as I type) had been building an election campaign around his party not being as tarnished by the expenses scandal as the other two but that will be a much tougher sell now that Nick personally has had to pay back almost £1,000.
Overall, the whole day must call into question the judgement of our next Prime Minister, be it Cameron or Brown.
There is no smoke without fire and given both men are finding themselves engulfed in eye-piercingly damaging expenses fumes, one has to wonder if we are on a lose-lose situation whichever man ends up leading the country after the next election.
It makes you wonder, particularly with Ladbrokes slashing the odds of Brown leading his party into the next election to 9/4, will Ed Miliband or Alan Johnson have to pay any money back?
UPDATE: Nick Clegg can't remember what he paid his gardener or whether he paid his National Insurance. That is surely unacceptable and unbelievable in light of today's news and how briefed the Lib Dem leader should have been in advance of this interview.
Does competition help the NHS?
24 minutes ago
9 comments:
But that's the problem isn't it Jeff.
Half of them were "at it", whilst the other half 'knew all about it' and said nothing.
There is NO confidence in ANY of them.
Only a complete change of parliament will clear out the ordure from the Westminster stables. That's why we need an immediate General Election rather than having to wait.
And let's not forget that all this went on thanks to Speaker Martin who, far from receiving a Big, Fat Pension, should be doing time in the Bar L. for his part in the expenses scandal.
And it IS a SCANDAL.
Although I think being "at it" is much worse than merely "knowing" about it, I take your point.
It does make you think that the basis of Osborne's 'We're all in this together' slogan could get confused as the campaign goes on!
Another good point that the public are resigned to just waiting for Brown to call the election whenever suits him best.
Blair winning in 2005 against Charlie Kennedy and Michael Howard feels like a very, very long time ago.
There are two problems with today for me. Firstly, one man seems to have been able to redraw the boundaries of his inquiry, set his own standards and apply them retrospectively, all without justifying himself publicly. No wonder Labour MPs are talking of chipping in for a legal case. I think they'd win (though some may lose their seats in the process).
The second problem is bizarre given the context, which is the lack of openness. We know what Brown, Caneron and Clegg were asked purely because the media asked and they answered. Who else was asked what? What was, say, Alex Salmond asked? Given that this all came out because of freedom of information, it strikes me as bizarre we don't know what was asked of the vast majority of MPs.
Your Mike Weir comment links to actual twitterer Pete Wishart, who is still waiting on a letter...
Jeff, beware the hairshirt agenda - I for one fear that the Legg actions are going too far.
It is important - no, vital - that political life remains accessible to people from all means and backgrounds. The reality is that our MPs are not all that well funded - take away what funding is there and the commons would be again full of the landed gentry or those dependent on patronage. Funding MPs was a cornerstone of the Lloyd George constitutional reforms 100 years ago and we erode that principle at our peril.
Personally I have a lot more of a problem with Lena Wilson pulling in £220k pa as Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise than the fact that MPs topped up modest salaries with a uniform £20k in expenses. The real scandals in public sector greed are to be found in the legions of mediocre little managers that have created a culture which awards them salaries far in excess of the Prime Minister, First Minister or even senior judges.
Sure there are rightly issues with the "flippers" and the downright dishonest - and they should be dealt with. But is it right that the institution that is meant to create and uphold the rule of law is now expecting its members to relinquish their right to basic principles of justice - in that they are to be retrospectively judged? I for one find it ironic that we are allowing our democracy to be burnt by journalists that earn factors more than your average MP!
Which is worse? Paying a cleaner more than the minimum wage, and paying their NI contributions, or buying an enormous house at taxpayer's expense, then selling it at a profit, and not having to pay CGT?
"Although I think being "at it" is much worse than merely "knowing" about it, I take your point."
Jeff, I think that might be fair in almost any other place of work. If you work in Tesco and you know some clleagues are faking their overtime or taking home packets of biscuits, it's bad not not terrible to stay quiet.
If your job is to legislate for the country, then to condone theft of public money by colleagues is as bad as stealing it yourself (in my opinion).
As for changing the scope or remit of Legg's inquiry, we need to remember that some of these people have been taking money in a way that would never have been tolerated elsewhere, simply because they could. The rule book approved expenses that were required to ensure that they could do their job as an MP.
So clearly some thought that they wouldn't be able to function at work if their moat was dirty, or their trees needed doctoring, or their hanging baskets required watering.
Having cleaning bills of over £12,000 is incredible. Are the Browns strangers to soap and water?
If these people are unprepared to take the easy option and pay back the money they nabbed, then I suggest that we get the police in and have a proper inquiry, treating them as any other public employee would be treated.
Those who refuse to pay up should have a stop put on their new expenses now until such time as we have our money returned to us. If, as a result of this, the cease to do their jobs, then they should have their wages stopped.
According to the government, constituents can do without an MP for 5 months or so, at least if they live in Glasgow, so most of them wouldn't be missed.
Even Sir Thomas' character has come into question with SNP MP Pete Wishart suggesting he is an "attention-seeker"
Rather reminds me of that parliamentary standards comissioner who got the boot for being too much of a stickler for the rules, not understanding how things are done. At times, parliament really is the ultimate closed shop.
Good point about the transparency Mav. I would expect all letters to be available online at some point but of course there is no sign that this is going to be the case.
Surely everything expenses related should be online, right down to the last penny.
And fair point Chris, there are bigger fish to fry out there in the public sector but it's MPs expenses under the spotlight at the moment.
And in terms of Legg changing the goalposts, imagine if he had concluded his audit and said that noone needed to pay anything back. Would that really satisfy the public's desire for good?
Post a Comment