Parliamentary Expenses and Allowances: Contempt or What?

Not so long ago Parliament, or more correctly, the House of Commons, used to take its own reputation and conduct very seriously. So much so that every so often it would call a cheeky journalist, political activist or, even one of its own clan, before its august assemblage to stand at the Bar of the House and be admonished. The journalist who made up stories about MPs taking bribes or MPs taking bribes, all could be summonsed. Punishments were vague but could include imprisonment in the Clock Tower. In effect the House of Commons did not like behaviour which brought Parliament’s reputation down in the eyes of the people at large. It was very similar to defamation, the traditional definition being that of exposing a person to hatred, ridicule and contempt. A more modern version would be something like lowering a reputation in the eyes of right thinking people. Both these devices pre-suppose that there is a reputation to protect. If a person is declared to be a thief by his local paper and he is a thief, then no defamation occurs. He has the reputation he deserves i.e., a thief. It is hard to see how Parliament will be able to invoke its ancient privileges to punish or admonish since it no longer has a reputation which can be harmed further. Of course it could summon all of these who have taken advantage of the rules, all those who disapproved but did nothing, and all those officials who drew up the scheme and/or later applied it, or indeed encouraged MPs to avail themselves of the taxpayer’s unwitting generosity. The House of Commons is now getting a reputation which its own processes and personnel have created. There certainly wouldn’t be room in the Clock Tower or at the Bar of the House for so many miscreants.

The rules on expenses and allowances didn’t come from some outside body, they came from within. Only now do they tell us that their rules were wrong even though they seem to have been going along with them perfectly happily and profitably for some years. When high commercial salaries are reported in the press, the resulting public indignation is met with the answer that such levels are needed to get the best people. It certainly didn’t work with many of the bankers and financial wizards who have led us into near depression. Government on the other hand couldn’t face such indignation when MPs salary rises were recommended. Instead, to give appropriate rewards the allowances and expenses system was dreamt up, no doubt to make sure we got the right people for the job. Once again it doesn’t seem to have worked.

With regard to the present fiasco running its course the view from the hill is rather like watching some ludicrous satire which in the end sees the destruction of many of the characters and the world they inhabit. Unfortunately a blink of the eyes does not bring the senses back to reality but merely makes it worse because in the meantime even more revelations have found their way into the cleansing power of daylight. Worse still, the view beyond the current matinee performance of this Westminster farce is still visible and is as grim and stark as ever. Lost savings, lost homes lost jobs and a dole queue that leads nowhere. The problem is too large and self inflicted for summoning anyone to the Bar of the House or throwing them in the Clock Tower. As Andrew Neil pointed out on last Thursday’s, This Week, the House of Commons has become an ‘object of ridicule’. We can now add ‘contempt’. Mr Speaker has made things worse. No dignity, no gravitas. The House is seen as disreputable. No one wants to contemplate the third result of a lost reputation, that of hatred. Now that really is a dangerous thing to see an electorate opting for. Take no comfort from the hope that it will only be at the ballot box that it is expressed. That, is danger enough.
Dacier