5 of 10

Write now Article Tools

Once upon a time, only the landed classes were able to exercise executive control of Britain and its interests. This was set down as of right - as a man (womenfolk were not even allowed to rule as monarch 'til Henry VIII - and that was only because he had no male heirs) owned lands, so those beholden to the lands were beholden to him.

Over the centuries, of course, a great widening of suffrage has taken place - the working men, women and younger citizens all having a say in the government of the country. This emancipation has led to many in these groups gaining entrance to the Commons as Members of Parliament and so, as this new influx did not have the independent wealth of the gentry, a system was instituted whereby said Members of Parliament were paid for their time.

It became, in effect, a job of work - an occupation, as opposed to just something one did to keep the proletariat in line. And, as with many jobs, when expenses are incurred in the execution of the duties thereof are recompensed.

The problem, though, is the electorate. For while everyone agrees with the need for parliamentarians to be paid, there isn't a lot of sympathy for paying them the excessive amounts they would receive in, say, the private sector. And so, during the Wilson administration of the late sixties (which roughly corresponded with the administrations of LBJ and Nixon, incidentally), arranged matters so that the pay of MPs would be kept down, to keep the public happy, while Honourable Members would be able to make back any perceived shortfall through the expenses system. That way the electorate perceives they are getting a good deal in having their elected representatives work for them at under the going rate, whereas in reality their pay structure would resemble an iceberg, with most of it hidden by waves of deceit and skulduggery.

To be fair to many members, their records appear to have been clean, and they have done due diligence on their expenses by claiming only what would be morally right to claim. But the rules, set up under the Wilson government, allowed those willing to ride roughshod over what can be considered both right and proper the ability so to do with the ready-made excuse that "it's in the rules". Then again, what kind of an excuse is that when the ghost of public skepticism will have it crumble into dust? Because essentially, thanks as much to a media which has long-since lost any kind of inclination to tug its forelocks at those who, let's not forget, are there to serve us (to minister is to serve, after all) as to any political misdemeanor, the political classes are generally seen as crooked. Thus the public mood to believe any scurrilous tale emanating from the Palace of Westminster is well served by this juicy fare.

Yet as they are ministers to the people who elected them, so should they be looked up to as exemplars of law and order. The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude does not bode well for those of us who regard the rule of law with the esteem it deserves. For truly, when our law-makers are breaking the very laws they would have us follow on pain of severe sanction, then can they really be surprised when nobody abides by their laws? As they are held to be paragons, by dint of their public profiles and office, they should be seen to be following the spirit of the rules, as well as the letter or, if the two clash, the spirit should always take precedence. It should be no defence to say "I was following the rules by the letter", and those Members of the House found wanting should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

After all, to take what is not rightfully yours is called theft, whichever way you look at it.

Learn more about this author, Tabitha Hergest.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Scandal over expense claims by UK Members of Parliament?
We want to hear your view. Write now!