Pundits have suggested that the riveting revelations in the UK over the last two weeks about the unconscionable expenses claimed by MPs of all political persuasions seem more applicable to the backwaters of the Third World or assemblies in emerging democracies. That notion, however, is to lose sight of the essential truth that the people claiming these expenses are ordinary men and women in the sense that they evince the same vulnerabilities and foibles of all of us. They hold prestigious positions in parliament, in Cabinet and various committees but they are all caught up in the daily race of wanting more and aggrandizing oftentimes at the expense of the hardworking, law-abiding taxpayer whose claims for similar expenses would be easily thrown out by tax authorities.
The signal lesson of this expenses scandal which could well put paid to Gordon Brown’s re-election chances is that unless there is institutional oversight of every area where the public purse is at risk, and there is a mechanism through which the public can access this information, there is a very good chance that the public would be duped and deceived by the very people it entrusts its vote to and confidence in. This issue has great resonance in the legislature of Guyana and in respect of all public officers who fall under the Integrity Act.
Thus far, dozens of MPs and Ministers have been named and shamed by the Daily Telegraph and a flurry of pledges has been made for the repayment of expenses which were improperly and recklessly claimed. One big name has already been snared. Labour’s junior Justice Minister Shahid Malik, has been forced to stand down to enable an inquiry into claims that he paid rent for a house below the market value in breach of the ministerial code. Some of the expense claims have shocked and outraged the people of Britain.
In one of the most egregious cases, Labour MP David Chaytor claimed thousands of pounds in expenses for a mortgage that he had already repaid. He apologized, promised to repay and excused it, according to Reuters, as an “unforgivable error in my accounting procedures”, quite a strain on credulity. Former Agriculture Minister Elliot Morley was embroiled in a similar fix, claiming 16,000 pounds for a mortgage he has already paid off. Liberal Democrat MP Richard Younger-Ross claimed 1,200 pounds for four mirrors to decorate his London home. He had already spent 1,100 pounds on a stereo system and 1,475 pounds on a chest of drawers. These claims would all be in violation of the expense guidelines which state that public funds may not be used for “extravagant or luxurious” goods.
There seemed no stopping these MPs though. According to ABC News, Labour and Tourism Minister Barbara Follett claimed $805.78 for a Chinese needlepoint rug to be repaired, Universities spokesman David Willets claimed $150 for workers to change 25 light bulbs; politician Margaret Moran claimed $30,000 for repairing dry rot in a house nowhere near her constituency or Parliament and, as the representative for Hull in the north of England, John Prescott entered a claim to have his toilet seat fixed twice.
Conservative backbencher, Douglas Hogg, denied claiming $3,055 to cover the cost of clearing a moat on his country estate but admitted claiming $22,147 for the cost of a housekeeper. Deputy Commons Speaker Alan Haslehurst was reported to have claimed $217,000 on his country house and $18,347 for gardening bills for five years.
The revelations have transfixed Britain fuelled by daily instalments from the Telegraph which are continuing and have led to sonorous denunciations from both Gordon Brown and Leader of the Tories, David Cameron. The latter has fired off an ultimatum to members of his party who have been caught abusing the expenses system saying they must pay back the money or depart. He himself will be returning £680 taken for repairs to his country house. Seizing the advantage from Mr Brown he also declared that his MPs were banned from using expenses to buy furniture, food and household items. They must also publish details of all their claims on the internet as they are made.
For us here in Georgetown this scandal is immensely relevant and underlines two fundamental truths: the press has an enormously important rule in holding the executive, the legislature and the judiciary accountable and that a Freedom of Information Bill which the Jagdeo administration has shamelessly dithered on is absolutely indispensable to the accountability process.
The UK Telegraph is already reaping the rewards of its baring of the expenses. The only sour note is the manner in which it came by the information. It reportedly paid a significant sum for the information on a disc which was being hawked on Fleet Street for a number of weeks before the Telegraph bit. Chequebook journalism is to be frowned upon as it corrupts this honourable profession. In this instance however it has been argued that the disc contained information of immense public interest and was factual material. The Telegraph by the careful publication of the expense details has created waves of seismic proportions that will undoubtedly shake the establishment and lead to deep and lasting changes in the way expenses are claimed and publicized – all to the public good.
The scandalous revelations also owe their publication to the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act that Britain introduced belatedly in 2005 and sheer journalistic persistence. It was an American journalist, Heather Brooke who first applied for the expenses to be made public in October 2004. Her requests were repeatedly refused. The FoI Act came into force in January, 2005 and in June, 2007 its Information Commissioner supported the disclosure of the expenses but not the release of receipts. In February last year, the information tribunal ruled that the receipts should also be released and this eventuated in an appeal against the decision by the House of Commons. In May last year Brooke won a High Court case and 14 MPs’ claims with receipts were released. All MPs claims were then scheduled to be released later this year but this was pre-empted by the Telegraph’s scoop.
It goes without saying that if the FoI was to be passed here swiftly with very limited exclusions the media, and more importantly, ordinary citizens would be able to extract information which would help immeasurably to hold MPs and other public office holders accountable. The Integrity Commission which was meant to be the vehicle for ensuring probity in public life has been a farce for most of its existence and the government seems determined to continue down this road based on its pronouncements on this commission in recent months.
To its credit, the AFC has done significant work on FoI and has lobbied unsuccessfully within and without parliament for its implementation. The government now appears to be moving on this front as evidenced by President Jagdeo’s announcement in Trinidad at the Summit of the Americas.
The bill setting out benefits for former presidents is exactly the type of legislation that the FoI must be in place to scrutinize and it is the public’s hope that the government will live up to its commitment given in Port-of-Spain.
