David Torrance: Watch out for an excess of anger over those exes

Published on Tuesday 19 May 2009 22:07

POLITICAL feeding frenzies always fuel hyperbole. The ongoing expenses scandal engulfing Parliament is, claims the veteran Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack, "rather like the condition of the country at the time of the Norway debate".

For those without Sir Patrick's long view of parliamentary history, this was a reference to the critical vote in May 1940 on the German occupation of Norway.

The two-day debate was ostensibly about the failure of British forces during the Norwegian campaign, but became a de facto vote of confidence in the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain's government won the vote but 33 Conservatives rebelled and 60 abstained.

Leo Amery, a Tory backbencher, famously quoted Oliver Cromwell. "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you," he told the embattled premier. "In the name of God, go!" Within days, he had gone and Winston Churchill was premier.

While Sir Patrick's historical simile is to be applauded, to compare what is happening now to events in 1940 – when British parliamentary democracy was under genuine threat of destruction, both physical and symbolic – is palpable nonsense. In fact, the very implication arguably does more to damage Parliament than the expenses scandal itself.

It is important, as ever in politics, to put what is happening in perspective. Yes, much of what has been uncovered in terms of individual MPs is indisputably shocking. But it is not uniformly the case: claims for mortgages which did not exist surely constitute an illegal act; claims for packets of biscuits or light bulbs, however, do not.

Under attack for both extravagance and triviality, it is understandably difficult for those in the spotlight to steer a sensible middle course.

There are also cases of MPs unwittingly – and usually on the helpful advice of the Commons' fees office – making reasonable claims which are now deemed to be unreasonable in the fickle court of public opinion.

Public statements of self- defence therefore become useless. If all MPs are perceived to be "at it", then there can be no justifications. Silence then gives the impression of guilt, often unfairly.

It is also important to remember that this supposed triumph of investigative reporting was actually an example of old-fashioned chequebook journalism.

In terms of a public interest defence, however, the newspaper in question has a watertight defence. But presenting that information for public consumption ought to be done responsibly.

The controversial second-home allowance is a case in point. If one accepts the need for many MPs to maintain a second residence outside London – as most leading figures do – then it follows that they will need to furnish and maintain that property. This obviously does not mean that claims for designer furniture and home cinemas ought to be tolerated, but modest claims for most other things should.

There is a danger, therefore, that the expenses balance tips too far in the other direction as a result of what is happening.

Making public office the preserve of the kind of landed Tories also being pilloried would hardly be a good thing, while the popular argument that MPs should not get perks that more humble public servants cannot claim simply does not wash: there are few professions that require employees to maintain two homes, so in that sense MPs are a breed apart.

It is equally important to counteract the prevailing orthodoxy that MPs spend most of their time contriving fraudulent expense claims. Having worked for a Member of Parliament in a past life, I have seen at close quarters how such things are done, and it is usually in a rush with scant attention to detail.

A lot of the claims now being aired in the press probably owe more to genuine sloppiness than intentional feather-bedding. An uncomfortable fact is that MPs – even when not engulfed by scandal – have been, and probably always will be, easy targets for public disdain.

Transferring the blame for the nation's ills, not to forget the often petty prejudices of the general voter, on to politicians is made all the more attractive because it can safely be done without fear of contradiction.

But what about the majority of Members – and it seems clear the proportion of those who have made genuinely outrageous claims is still a minority – who work incredibly hard for an (arguably) modest salary and claim only what is strictly necessary for them to maintain a pleasant working life? They are being unfairly tainted; distinctions between the two ought to be made, in spite of public opinion.

In an international context, Parliament still could not be categorised as genuinely "corrupt". British MPs do not routinely take bribes, nor do they behave in a corrupt manner as ministers.

Besides, current events have put a natural check on excess. One thing is certain: the new intake of MPs elected at the next election will not enjoy an expenses regime nearly as generous as that of the past couple of decades.

Sir Patrick Cormack's Norway debate analogy is accurate in at least one respect. In 1940, Neville Chamberlain had demonstrably lost the confidence of Parliament. Clearly the same was true today of Michael Martin ahead of his decision to stand down.

But loss of confidence in a hapless Speaker does not constitute the end of parliamentary demo-cracy. Some individual MPs may not survive the current crisis, along with Mr Speaker, but the institution of Parliament undoubtedly will.

&#149 David Torrance is a writer and author on politics. His latest book is We in Scotland – Thatcherism in a Cold Climate, published by Birlinn. He previously worked as a parliamentary aide for a Conservative MP.