Headlines
The Review Online
'Rough justice' for MPs
16th November 2009
The MPs’ expenses scandal reared its ugly head again recently when a senior politician spoke out against reform in a Sunday newspaper. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, was seen to be defending MPs over what he called, “an element of rough justice” in the Kelly reform report on the expenses scandal.
Earlier this month, sleaze watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly proposed reform to MPs’ expenses which included a ban on employing members of family, a severe, but fair, reduction in accommodation expenditure and a plan to force MPs to hand back office equipment bought with public funds to Parliament. Bercow said: “MPs will have a difficult time. I can see that many will find change very uncomfortable.” This is exactly the crux of the expenses scandal, however. It is the very fact that MPs have enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle, at the expense of the taxpayer, that has caused the public outcry and clamour for the MPs’ blood. This was especially the case when outspoken Conservative MP for Rutland and Melton, Alan Duncan, said in August this year that MPs were living “on rations and are treated like s**t.” It makes for sour reading when not only is there a culture of greed and exploitation in Parliament, but an unwillingness from the main figure of impartiality in the Commons to support total reform of expenses.
Writing in The Guardian, David Blunkett lent his support to those opposed to reform calling the proposals a “misunderstanding of the nature of an MP’s job.” Whilst Blunkett acknowledged that an MP’s salary was not as bad as “going down the pit”, his remarks show there is disagreement with the proposed reforms across the political spectrum. I think MPs and those closely related to them should accept that many of them have breached the relationship of trust bestowed upon them by the public and should expect to be punished. There can be no justification for the exploitation of public funds. If the expenses scandal model was transferred to any other job in a private or public organisation, then the person in question would most likely face dismissal at best and prosecution at worst. It seems that many MPs have sadly escaped both. I acknowledge John Bercow’s remarks that MPs may “find the change very uncomfortable” and I certainly hope they do.