Is jail time for crooked MPs really the answer?
Dear Jack Straw,
It seems that a fairly large portion of humble pie is in order today after Labour were forced to drop plans for a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs after fears it would prompt legal challenges. The idea had been a key part of your plans to “clean-up” politics after the expenses scandal, but former standards watchdog Sir Philip Mawer warned it was a recipe for “delay, cost and confusion”, but your desire to introduce jail sentences for MPs who break the rules might still see the light of day.
Only three days of debate have been scheduled for the Parliamentary Standards Bill as the government wants it passed before MPs leave for the summer recess on 21 July, meaning that the shameful plans to set up an external body to run the MPs’ expenses system are still looking likely. However, Sir Philip – former Parliamentary Standards Commissioner - told a separate inquiry into MPs’ expenses that a legally binding code of conduct could create a “rules-based system which lawyers will have a field day with and which may well cost the public more”. The Clerk of the House – the Commons’ top official Malcolm Jack – has also warned of legal challenges to any code drawn up by MPs. Although the bill passed its second reading with a majority of 290, MPs raised concerns that lack of sufficient scrutiny will lead to long-term damage to how the institution functions. “There are some really serious issues about the role of Parliament in this bill and I am very worried that we are rushing it through,” Sir George Young, chairman of the committee on Standards and Privileges, said. Earlier he said he wanted to be “held accountable to the ballot box, not to the courts, for what I do as an MP”. However, you retorted that the measures had to be agreed quickly because of Parliament’s “collective” failure over expenses. You have now agreed to drop a clause introducing a legally binding code of conduct on non-financial aspects of MPs’ behaviour which could have stipulated, for instance, how many surgery hours they offer. Nevertheless, you refused to concede ground over the inclusion of three new criminal offences in the bill governing MPs’ financial dealings. These would see fines and a potential 12-month jail sentence for MPs who are found to have knowingly made false claims, failed to fully declare outside financial interests or breached the rules on paid advocacy. “Having offences in this Bill are fundamental to its proper operation and, above all, fundamental to ensuring public confidence in this scheme,” you said.
Several Tory MPs said the offences were unnecessary and redundant as the offences were already covered by existing laws on fraud and theft applicable to MPs. No doubt the public want to see crooked MPs sent to jail for screwing the taxpayer, but I think we need to be careful here. Making false expenses claims is surely a different matter from breaching the rules on paid advocacy, and in both cases there are varying degrees of dishonesty. For example, an MP submitting a receipt for food which crossed off lots of items but accidentally left on a rogue toothbrush is a rather different animal from an MP avoiding £50,000 of capital gains tax. The Daily Telegraph were right to publish the information that they had on MPs expenses but they made the mistake of mixing the worst offenders with those who hadn’t really done anything wrong. Furthermore, Sir George Young makes an interesting point about being judged at the ballot box, because I am a huge supporter of ‘recall’ elections whereby an MP is forced to hold a by-election for their own seat if a certain number of constituents sign a petition to oust them on the grounds that they have engaged in inappropriate conduct – be it financial or otherwise. An alternative approach would be to crack down on ‘deception’ within Parliament, and The Ministry of Truth have been running a campaign for some time now on this issue. They created a campaign film that introduced legislation making it illegal for politicians to deliberately deceive the public. Unfortunately, it is perfectly legal for MPs to deceive voters so they have set about creating a bill (which can be viewed HERE) that says MPs caught deliberately deceiving the public would be fined and banned from standing for election for up to 10 years. This would be much broader than merely covering MPs expenses as it would extend to other parts of the work as well.
Any system of fines and jail sentences is highly subjective in the sense that there is no steadfast method for quantifying the severity of offences. Personally I find myself drawn more to recall elections than to banging people up in jail because it means the power lies with the public rather than Parliament. If someone has committed fraud then by all means use the law to prosecute them and send them to prison, but issues such as breaking advocacy rules would presumably not be covered by the law and, along with a system of fines, I think recall elections are a wonderfully democratic way of dealing with these crooked MPs. After all, it is surely the local constituents who should be the ultimate judge of our MPs, not the media or any shadowy Parliamentary authorities.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
I don’t see the point of new laws. Fraud is already a crimial act. Fiddling expenses is fraud. The new penalties for MPs fiddleing are in fact laxer, with a proposed maximum of 1 years in prision as oppossed to 10 for fraud. Perhaps this is a case of Parliament trying to help its corrupt members.
As to lying. Telling lies to Parliament was once a resigning matter. All it requires for that to return is for the Speaker to name and shame any minister who misleads Parliament (and therefore the country) and that shoudl force them to resign, or at least destroy their reputaion. Of course that requires a Speaker with balls.
Dear LFAT
The DT’s handling of the expenses saga was a total shambles. Firstly, there were no accountants, tax consultants or legal advisors sifting through the information, just a journalistic team. Poachers turned Gamekeepers? Many of the worst offenders, if brought to trial, would have viable defences as to prejudice before the case was sent to Court. Secondly, disclosures were made according to the celebrity status of the Victim, not the gravity of the offence. Thirdly, it became apparent that the primary aims of the disclosures could be construed as:
1, increasing the DT’s profits and
2. attempting to increase the obnoxious Barclay Bros’ political clout.
I hope by now people will start to realise that there is a difference between those who played the system and those who perpetrated criminal acts. There is a difference between claiming for home improvements to a second home through a complicit system and “misremembering” that a mortgage has been paid off.
Where the Spirit of the Green Book has been broken, apology + restitution to the public purse, with none of this “given to Charity” malarky, could well be considered sufficient for the offence as the MP concerned still has to face the electorate.
The Law of the Land is more than sufficient to deal with tax evasion and fraud. All that is missing is the will to do so and we cannot expect the Injustice Minister to have the balls to support criminal procedings against his lifetime cronies.
DC, I agree that new laws are not necessary. Unfortunately New Labour have encouraged dishonourable ministers to remain in office, which has undermined any integrity that they once had. Naming and shaming plus recall elections is certainly a nice combination.
GOM, the DT certainly didn’t use much strategic thought – it was a true ’scattergun’ approach that let many serious offenders off the hook. If they tightened up the Green Book, most offences would become impossible in any case.
Personally, i don’t see why they should be allowed second jobs. Either being an MP (or MSP / AM) is a full-time job or it isn’t.
We’ve had 12 years of policy being made by well funded minority lobby groups and vested corporate interests. I didn’t vote for that.
Our great MP’s go on about being public servants and some of them undoubtedly are, but many are only out for their own best interests.
I like the idea of recall elections, but I don’t see any evidence of criminal sanctions where fraud has apparently taken place.
Currently, choosing a political party to vote for is like choosing a turd to step in – the only real choice (excluding not voting) is which one smells least bad.
Nice to see another convert to the ‘recall system’!
Have linked to this post with:
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-where-have-i-heard-that-before.html
Yup – the existing laws on fraud, theft, malfeasance in public office and deception all seem to cover what the Morely’s, Blears, Hoons and the rest have done. So they should be prosecuted under those laws, which, incidentally, carry much much longer sentences than the paltry 12 months proposed by our lad Jack…
hold on chap, tax avoidance is a perfectly legal activity practiced by most people who pay tax in this country, and to suggest that that is wrong is to hit the wrong target. MPs second home allowance and the fuss over flipping etc is clearly a charged issue, but no reason to have a misguided pop at tax avoidance. I think if there was any fuss over this specific it related to government ministers preaching one thing and practising another – something which you rightly highlight.
Er … yes. Or a large part of it, at least.
As Alistair points out, tax avoidance on second homes is a tricky one to crack. Unless the rules are tightened and all loopholes closed, the abuse will continue.
Mark, I don’t think jail is necessary when the rules that MPs have been abusing are such a joke. I say sort out the rules then leave crooked MPs to the mercy of the voters.
“hold on chap, tax avoidance is a perfectly legal activity…”
But I’d suggest that claiming for a mortgage that you have already paid off is prima facie fraud, deception and malfeasance. And that was just Morely.
Then there’s the fact that every claim is for the furtherence of ‘parliamentary business’ – fine but how does your gardening, manure, duck house or 40″ flat screen telly meet that test? Deception, I’d contend, if not fraud. Definitely malfeasance…
As Alistair points out, tax avoidance on second homes is a tricky one to crack. Unless the rules are tightened and all loopholes closed, the abuse will continue.
As that famous American crim remarked – taxes are for the little people…
Morley is clearly guilty of fraud, but not many others are in terms of the law – much of what the DT published was just MPs playing the system.
Maybe, LFAT but gaming a system that they themselves run, oversee and enforce is not just. Broader laws must surely apply – that is why, even as a Monarchy, we have a seperation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government (and its no coincidence that the most egregious political disasters are generally around the breaching of those barriers).
So assuming that the laws of the land DO apply to their claims for money, then Morely is worth trying for mortgage fraud as is the other MP who did something similar but who is lucky enough to have had his name evade my shoddy memory. Heat is shit for MS. Equally people who have paid for cleaners, bum wipers, 40″+ LCD TVs and so on to ‘further parliamentary business’ have put themselves in positions where they should be prosecuted for prima facie fraud, deception and/or malfeasance. And there are plenty of them even without mentioning duck houses…
@LFAT – That’sa my boy!
It is playing the system, at a minimum (I think we can agree that I think we should have more prosecutions even if it results in MPs being found innocent than you do as you seem to have pre-judged their innocence/intention in a favourable light), then its still if not immoral, distinctly unsavoury.
The fact also remains that the Telegraph did us a massive favour. The extent of that favour was highlighted by the ludicrously redacted documents that the House finally issued due to the FOI request. Why they did that favour and how they did it is neither here nor there. Assuming the worst – that they did it to benefit UKIP or the BNP in the Euro elections – so what? It means that at least two people are prosecuted for fraud (Morely and the other one), that our system is so vulnerable to ‘gaming’ that it looks positively dishonest (“I need a 48″ Bang & Olfsen LCD/Plasma telly to further my execution of parliamentary duties…Uh, yeah, in my luxury second home pad.”)
I’m no friend of oligarchs be they Russian football club owners or eccentric English newspaper owners with private island fifedoms but it really can’t be denied that by publishing the data, even if they drip fed and profited from it, has shed a significant amount of light on the enrichment-culture of our elected Masters.
Shaun, agree completely with your sentiments regarding claims for a mortgage which has been paid off, but no one is suggesting tax evasion has taken place. The capital gains treatment relating to property forms part of our (overly complex) tax code, and as such the only issue here relates to government ministers who do one thing (even if it complies with the law) but say another.
BTW which famous american crim did you have in mind?
Leona Helmsley!
” tax evasion ”
Tax fraud is so far down the pecking order of frauds disclosed by the Telegraph as to be pretty much irrelevant!
Shaun. Compare the investigative powers of the Revenue against the police. All sorts of stones get turned over and who knows what may be found under them?!
I don’t think the lying fraudsters should be sentenced to a jail term, for this will just cost the tax-payer more money. They should be sentenced to community service – i.e. doing the public good for once – wouldn’t that be a nice change. And to pay back (with interest) every single penny that their greasy mitts stole from the Great British public. And an extra fine to be taken out pf their wages to go to be put back into the public purse.
And then there can be a recall and let their constituents decide whether they stay or go. But as they benefitted by stealing from every member of the British public (well the tax-paying ones at least) then their punishment should be fitting so that we are all compensated in return.
I disagree Candid because not prosecuting these people to the full extent of the law effectively puts them above the laws that they use to bang up ‘benefit thieves’. Sorry, but I’m not servile enough to believe that these MPs, our elected representatives, should be above the laws they pass for we proles. Getting the title MP does not entitle you to rob from the public purse. MPs are not ‘better’ than ordinary people and should not be immune from the criminal law…
@Shaun Pilkington –
I completely agree with you that MPs are not above the law which is why they should have worse things done to them than being locked up with snacks and Sky TV! I should have also stated that I don’t think anyone but the violent/rapist type criminals that are a danger to the public should be locked away otherwise we pay for people to have a cushy time!
There should be much more community service to give something back after a nice financial punishment, of course. Taking freedom from people is not always a fitting or useful punishment.