With all the fuss over Speaker Martin's various claims, and talk of improper use of public monies, we are in danger of falling into the trap of confusing moral impropriety with its legal counterpart.
I had the dubious pleasure of listening to an exchange between Martin Bell, the former Independent MP for Tatton, and elected as a direct response to the allegations, mostly accurate, against Neil Hamilton, and John Spellar, the Labour MP and chair of the working group looking into the expense regime for MP's. It has to be said that it was a most unedifying exchange.
John Spellar rightly makes the point that, for the most part, nothing has been done which breaches the rules as they currently exist. This is almost certainly true. He then goes on to suggest that the 'fuss' being made is just media hype, and that the public don't really care. This, from the person tasked with leading a review into the issue, is an indication that not much will come from it. In fact, what Mr Spellar is telling us is, "We know what we're doing. We really don't care whether or not you think we have our snouts in the trough and, frankly, it's none of your business.".
I'm sorry to say that it is our business. Whether or not Mr Spellar and some of his Parliamentary colleagues understand it or not, they are spending our money and, I might remind him, are answerable to us. Forget whether or not Speaker Martin should go, John Spellar shouldn't have to consider his future in connection to the review. He should go now.
On the other hand, Martin Bell spoke eloquently on the moral dimension. However, his rather sanctimonious stance that the whole process is corrupt and that the Speaker must go, rather undermined his position and, indeed, his argument.
There is a need to reform the expense regime for our MPs, and I don't think that many people would deny otherwise. However, allowing a group of MPs to do the job is nonsense. Put the whole thing on a proper footing, have an open debate about MP salaries, administrative support and expenses, and then accept the findings. I would expect that, in the final analysis, we will discover that an open structure will actually lead to a greater cost to the public purse, yet I believe that we may get a better, more effective democracy as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment