How pathetic MPs took revenge on the man who dared police their expenses DAVID CAMERON
THE horrific scale of the Commons expenses scandal exposed, in a deeply depressing way, the extent of decay of integrity in public life.
In the ten years since this cheating was unearthed by a free Press, one would have hoped that MPs would have cleaned up their behaviour.
For it was a truly shocking episode, with four MPs (all Labour) jailed — although I believe the number should have been considerably higher.
However, it seems that many still think they did nothing wrong — and, worse, harbour a bitter grudge against those who exposed them.
This became clear this week when the Commons voted to block the distinguished public servant Sir Ian Kennedy from being appointed to the board of the Electoral Commission, the body charged with ensuring fair elections.
The snub looks like a cynical and sordid act of revenge.
For Sir Ian bravely played a key role in the wake of the expenses scandal — as chairman of a new watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which was set up to control MPs’ pay and expenses.
He proved to be a tough but fair adjudicator, as MPs were disciplined and fundamental reforms implemented, including new rules to guarantee transparency and honesty.
Needless to say, Sir Ian made many enemies. And, sadly, this week’s Commons vote against him seems to be the inevitable, if pathetic, proof.
SOMEMPs did not even try to hide the fact that they were taking the opportunity to punish him. Former Labour minister John Spellar accused him of taking a ‘vindictive’ attitude that ‘ made life difficult for Members of Parliament’.
This was the same Mr Spellar who claimed £600 of taxpayers’ money for a tree surgeon, 47p for a pair of rubber gloves from Tesco and £1.99 for a washing up brush. (Although, in doing so, he did not break any rules.)
Of course, one didn’t expect the West Midlands MP to praise Sir Ian for his painstaking work to end the sleazy culture of greed and excess which brought parliamentary democracy into contempt.
But, with breath-taking audacity, he made a personal attack, calling him an ‘arch-quangocrat’.
This insult was a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege.
The list of MPs who voted to was unwittingly filmed telling a billionaire tycoon in Davos that his alarmist pre-referendum warnings about economic Armageddon for Britain were wrong. Surely, he is duty-bound to explain his epiphany to the British people — not just privately to foreign-born plutocrats? obstruct Sir Ian included others who did abuse the expenses system.
Sir Ian is a man of integrity with a proud record of taking on vested interests in other areas of life apart from Parliament. To give one recent example, this former member of the General Medical Council produced a report into the case of a rogue surgeon, who, over many years, ruined the lives of hundreds of women by operating on them for breast cancer when they didn’t need it.
Previously, he led a major public inquiry into a scandal at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. Collecting 900,000 pieces of evidence concerning operations spanning a decade, he found that, through negligence, the hospital had caused the unnecessary deaths of 170 babies.
How dare a nonentity MP such as John Spellar bad-mouth a public servant with a formidable record of speaking truth to power!
For his part, Sir Ian was understandably upset and stated publicly that he felt some MPs still bear a grudge. He told Commons Speaker John Bercow that some were ‘ pursuing a tawdry and squalid vendetta’.
MPs’ veto of the outspoken QC’s appointment to the board of the Electoral Commission exposes a shameful double standard.
On the one hand, Parliament is happy to force statutory regulation on many other organisations — including the Press — while refusing to allow independent regulators to guard the integrity of their own activities and our political process. This is an utter disgrace and I believe British democracy will pay a heavy price.
Incidentally, it is not the only recent example of Parliament’s nasty habit of seemingly to wreak revenge on those who have exposed their wrongdoings. Earlier this month, more than 200 unelected members of the Lords voted to introduce draconian laws that would make it harder for journalists to investigate corruption and other scandals.
That, too, appeared like revenge — for more than a third of them had been involved in major scandals that were originally exposed by the media they are now seeking to muzzle.
They included two convicted criminals, 52 who were caught cynically exploiting the expenses system, 18 named in lobbying scandals, and 14 more who have been accused of sexual or financial sleaze.
WITHregard his own shabby rejection by MPs this week, Sir Ian says the regulatory system put in place after the expenses scandal ‘ reflected the interest of the taxpayer’.
He added: ‘There remains a rump of MPs who simply want their old system back. An unaccountable and somewhat disreputable system.’
Significantly, he went on to say that the MPs’ tactics were ‘ not what one expected of elected representatives’.
Such trenchant and independentminded views show that Sir Ian would be perfect as a board member of the Electoral Commission.
Over recent years, it has become a lumbering and toothless body that has not done enough to stop fraudulent voting in local and national elections.
There have been issues, for example, about people voting more than once (particularly in constituencies with a high proportion of students).
The postal vote system is being flagrantly abused. There have been several scams involving the registration of fake voters, not forgetting some notorious cases of candidates accused of exceeding spending limits.
It needs a man such as Sir Ian Kennedy to help put matters right. More importantly, if parliamentary democracy is to flourish, which it must, we need honest men and women to guard public life.
Sadly, though, it seems the vengeful malice of MPs — who are putting personal greed above the national interest — means this will be an uphill struggle.