Fees Office: was the SS Titanic more seaworthy?

I have noted that the Fees Office has taken a beating over the unfolding saga of MP expenses. Perhaps now is a good time to look at the apparent performance of the Fees Office and its staff. This is not intended to be a criticism of individuals, nor should it be interpreted as much.

A recurring theme has been the phrase 'I consulted the Fees Office before making my claim'. Assuming that it is true, and we'll probably never hear from Fees Office one way or the other, there is a real question about its efficiency. I deliberately set aside the question of the morality of those submitting claims - we've seen everything from carelessness to simple error to apparently calculating dishonesty - but one must ask whether or not the Fees Office has the resource, the ability and the will to do its job properly.

I suspect the answer is a bit of all three. I never cease to be amazed by the inability of the public sector to properly staff the things that really matter. And, as is often the case, the public will assume that there is a large office full of people whose sole job is to scrutinise every claim. For the record, the public are usually wrong.

At the turn of the millenium, I worked in the internal recruitment team of Inland Revenue London, as adminstrator of all of our vacancy-filling processes of London and the Head Office Divisions from Administrative Assistant to Senior Executive Officer. It was not the job that anyone seeking popularity would seek but it brought a degree of satisfaction to do it well. After a particularly difficult period for the Human Resources team, it was decided to do a 'roadshow', visiting local offices to find out what the issues were 'face to face'. At one meeting, my team came in for particular criticism so my colleague asked those present to guess how many staff worked in the internal recruitment team. The average guess was twelve... I spent weeks looking for the other nine - the team consisted to 1.6 Executive Officers and an Adminstrative Assistant...

In terms of ability, there is no doubt in my mind that the quality of the average civil servant is not what it was. The increased emphasis on process means that use of discretion is discouraged, as is pragmatism - is it really worth a big battle for a small issue? Are staff encouraged to find creative yet effective solutions for circumstances that don't fit neatly into the 'tick box' structures? Is there scope to enable claimants to comply more readily, to educate them as to what is and is not acceptable? Probably not, as anyone who has dealt with a large Government department will testify.

If an individual MP is genuinely uncertain as to the validity of a claim, seeks advice and then acts upon it, are they really guilty, or just poorly advised? And if the person giving the advice is the official who will subsequently deal with the claim, is it reasonable to doubt their word? Does the Fees Office have a responsibility to give the best quality advice available to people whose claims will subsequently be made public? You'd better believe that they do.

Finally, will. Are staff encouraged to believe that if they apply the expenses rules outlined in the Green Book, they will be supported by their managers? Remember, the rot starts at the top. If, as an individual civil servant, you make a decision that is appropriate and supported by the Rules/legislation, and someone in a more senior position overturns it without good cause, are you then likely to continue to hold the line? Or, as is more likely, do you just draw the line in the sand a bit further up the beach?

In my career, I have only had direct contact with an MP once. On that occasion, I was given advance warning by the person he was representing that he would be calling, not because he was pleased that the MP would be calling, but because he thought that the MP was behaving unreasonably. And so it turned out. We had corresponded about an issue and I had acted exactly as I had advised I would in the absence of a response. The MP's response? "In the absence of a reply, you should assume that I didn't get your letter!". His bombastic and threatening approach was somewhat derailed when I pointed out to him that his stance was wrong on a whole range of levels and I heard no more on the subject subsequently.

What this demonstrates is that power does go to some people's heads. They will pressurise junior civil servants because they can and, sometimes, that will be enough. The civil service still includes a deferential streak and, after all, MPs are supposed to be our betters - we are there to serve them, and through them the state.

Whatever emerges from this morass of sleaze, one thing that will have to change is the Fees Office. Better staff, more staff if necessary, with more freedom to act in the interests of the public purse. And not soon, now. The public deserve better...