Trust fund: politicians will never win our confidence if the lack of transparency concerning their expenses--and the feeble sanctions against MPs who abuse the system--remain, Danielle Cohen recommends more discipline and rigour in parliamentary affairs.
| Author | Cohen, Danielle |
| Position | Ethics |
Whether it's Derek Conway MP paying a salary to his son--a full-time student--or Sir Nicholas Winterton MP claiming a rent allowance to live in his own mortgage-free home, the potential for politicians to misuse public money has been amply demonstrated yet again.
If an employee were caught claiming spurious expenses and pocketing the cash, it's likely that they would be dismissed instantly, criminal charges might be pursued and, at the very least, the money would have to be repaid. This isn't the case for members of the UK Parliament. Conway had the whip removed and he was suspended from the Conservative Party. He was not ordered to repay all the money that he'd claimed.
No immediate dismissal and a scant financial penalty sends the message that this kind of corruption is somehow acceptable in government. Sanctions are a key component of any ethics programme. In a corporate setting, unless rule-breakers are made an example of, codes of conduct quickly become ineffectual. Employees may have read and understood the code and even had some training in it, but if they see those around them ignoring it without serious consequence, there will be no incentive for them to comply.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Sanctions aren't the only area where the government differs from most other organisations in its attitude to ethics. Until recently, MPs have not needed to provide a receipt for expenses worth under 250 [pounds sterling]. It would be hard to find such a relaxed approach to spending other people's money anywhere else. Similarly, until the scandal broke, MPs didn't even have to declare that they employed family members, despite the clear conflict of interests. The laxity of controls made expense allowances another way of supplementing their family incomes by paying salaries to their relatives instead of employing "real" staff. Even if their family members are genuinely working for them, no MP could be considered objective when they alone are deciding the salary for their partner or offspring. Expense allowances are not intended to supplement an MP's pay; they are provided to cover legitimate costs. The argument that MPs are not paid as much as their corporate counterparts and, therefore, deserve the money is akin to a healthy employee calling in sick because they don't think they're given enough holiday.
The government has not gone as far as it can to address the...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
