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

Expenses and Allowances: A tale of two Gnomes

I was very lonely as a single Gnome so the second Gnome Agency helped out. Down here beneath the hill it is very quiet, relieved only by the tramp of ramblers’ feet on the path high up on the ridge. The agency soon sent my second Gnome, arriving on the weekly market bus. The only fly in the waffle is that that second Gnome has a job under the Children Hundreds doing important counselling work. I have said that he might get a Children Hundred’s allowance which could split between our two grottoes. Second Gnome has a better idea however. He is going to explain the situation to his employers and say that because of our new lifestyle it would be unfortunate to say the least if our new life together has to be lived out at such a distance or in close proximity to the Children Hundreds because it would avoid being surrounded by his work mates and clients. He thinks they might have a special lifestyle grant so he can avoid them all. This would allow us to have a further grotto somewhere under Salisbury Plain so we can enjoy a proper Gnome residence. Surely they can’t be employers that would expect us to commute backwards and forwards. I thought this would be better than having a swimming pool under the hill. In any case the apartment by the Children Hundreds needs decorating and landscaping, and the toilets seats are so unfashionable.

But I have just had some bad news from the Children Hundreds. They say that if you are a couple of Gnomes then where we live is up to us. I could move in with second Gnome and our living expenses could be paid out of second Gnome’s Children Hundreds allowance. Some of his salary could then be used to keep our grotto back under the hill. They are also saying that if we want, we could sell my dear old grotto and buy somewhere ourselves under Salisbury Plain. They have apparently told second Gnome that there is no such thing as a subsidy for a lifestyle and if he doesn’t like the implications of his job he should seek employment back here. They also said that they would normally have expected a lot of extra work in the old days in view of all the trouble the political ramblers are having, but as it is, redundancy is even on the cards for second Gnome as no one ever seems to apply to them for help anymore. They also had the cheek to say, and I quote,’ ...and you think you should have a third home, think again, where do you think you are, Fairyland!?’ Dacier

Authors Note: I should make it clear that nothing in this tale should be divined as referring to any particular MP. Being an allegory it is an ‘aptly suggestive resemblance’. (O.E.D) Gnomes do not exist exist. It is only fare to point this out as there may be MPs who own between 2 and 7 homes who might think that such a fairy story could harm their reputation. I recognise their sensitivities. Far be it for me to intervene. MPs are clearly quite capable of doing that on their own. In any case, the standard mantra of the past week has been that everything is within the rules, and of course, the Gnomes are only working within the fictional rules of their fictional world. The rules which apply to MPs are perfectly clear and are not a fairytale. By their own admission MPs have complied with the following:-i) You can claim reimbursement for the expenses provided they are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the course of your Parliamentary duties, ii) You should avoid purchases which could be seen as luxurious, iii) You must ensure that arrangements for your claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money. (Parliamentary Green Book 2006). So, that’s all right then. So what’s all the fuss about?