Set a thief to catch a thief

Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 8 15 am

Proposals to clean up Parliament are an Establishment stitch-up

The Government introduced a Bill this week that is supposed to clean up Parliament. It proposes creating an â€œIndependent Parliamentary Standards Authorityâ€ (Ipsa) and an officer known as the â€œCommissioner for Parliamentary Investigationsâ€.

We don't need another quango or committee to get in the way between voters and MPs. This regulatory approach, just like previous attempts, will fail spectacularly. It does, however, allow the Prime Minister to be seen to be doing something immediately, generating headlines that promise that expense fiddling MPs will face up to a year in jail. The Fraud Act, however, already provides for sentences of up to ten years in jail and the common law offence of malfeasance in public office can bring a life sentence.

The Bill specifies that the five members of Ipsa must include a judge, an auditor and a former MP. They will be appointed â€œonly with the agreement of the Speakerâ€ and â€œapproved by a Speaker's committeeâ€. Its members will be removable by Parliament. The commissioner will be appointed the same way.

Do you see the somewhat glaring flaw in this â€œindependentâ€ authority and commissioner? Members will be drawn from the Establishment and their selection approved by the Speaker's appointees. Would we permit criminal suspects to choose their own judge and jury? Do we really need a former MP on the authority? Perhaps it's set a thief to catch a thief. More likely, it's to make sure that the authority understands why things are done the way they are, old boy.

This is a political stitch-up by the parliamentary Establishment. We already have an Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which is the servant of Parliament, and it failed; a former commissioner was driven from office for being too effective and the evidence is now abundant that the latest commissioner has not succeeded in holding MPs to the standards set down in the Green Book. We do not need more self-selected regulators.

What we need is root-and-branch reform of the expenses system, together with clarity, transparency and enforcement of the rules.

In a democracy, voters are the ultimate regulators - if they are informed, they will kick crooked MPs out of office. We need only to empower the public with enough information to determine the truth about those who seek to represent them. That means losing the black ink and letting the sunlight in on the workings of Parliament so that the voters can see.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6571525.ece

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

The author objects to the Speaker appointing the members - who else can do so?

The only body in the Kingdom with any claim to superiority over Parliament is the Crown, and given that this would mean (in reality) the Prime Minister, this would be even worse.

The problem with the current system was not that the Commissioner was appointed by Parliament, but rather that when he showed too much independence they removed him...and the voters didn't even notice. Make it impossible for Parliament to remove the Commissioners and give them the right to publish anything they want.

Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 8 56 am

TJ - you are young enough to become a parliamentarian. Why not stand?

I read today that about half the present Conservative MPs are either going, or being pushed, at the next election. Good candidates are in demand, and Cameron has urged people to apply.

I would consider you a most excellent candidate. And, if elected, you would be an adornment in a Parliament that is in sore need of some!

Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 9 40 am

I see TJ more as an MEP.

From the Daniel Hannan mould.

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

TJ - you are young enough to become a parliamentarian. Why not stand?

I'm not a member of a political party, Besty, which is a necessary pre-requisite.

Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 4 48 pm

Ok ... But youy are clearly of a conservative disposition, and Cameron did say you didn't have to be a member to apply ....

Joined: 13 Aug 2005 Posts: 2902

Bestbear wrote:

Ok ... But youy are clearly of a conservative disposition, and Cameron did say you didn't have to be a member to apply ....

Perhaps I should rephrase that - there isn't a political party under whose banner I would be happy to fight.

Posted: Thu 25 Jun 2009 10 49 pm

OK, TJ. Try as we might, we can't force you into politics! Wink