Labour reeling under the weight of scandal

Over the weekend, Education Secretary Ed Balls, made it a hat-trick of cabinet ministers who are facing embarassing allegations following an accusation that he “ran” Damien McBride, the man at the centre of  “e-mailgate.”  Mr. Balls denies the allegations.

From Left - Ed Balls, Lord Myners and Jacqui Smith

Meanwhile, an investigation into Jacqui Smith’s housing expenses continues while the House of Commons select committee investigates Lord Myner’s role in the decision to award Sir Fred Goodwin a pension of £700,000 a year.   George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, has already called upon Lord Myners to resign.  All three ministers or none of them could end up being forced to resign from their ministries.

The weight of scandal has damaged Gordon Brown in the estimation of the electorate.   The latest opinion poll conducted by Marketing Sciences for the Sunday Telegraph puts the conservatives in a lead of 17% with Labour now on 26% – its lowest poll rating since 1935.   UK Polling report, which monitors all polls suggests that the average lead of the conservatives is 13% which on a uniform swing would given them an overall majority in the House of Commons of 62.

Given that we will have to wait up to a year for a general election, how will that affect the way that the Country is governed in the meantime?  The Government has no scope for political gimmics in the forthcoming budget.   With no hope of power after the election and a collective feeling of scandalization by recent events, it is easy to imagine a sense of paralysis running right through the Labour administration.   Writing the the Telegraph in an article entitled  “Labour’s Watergate has left dignity and Trust in the gutter” Matthew d’Ancona concludes by saying “you can’t really govern when you are the object of ridicule” 

As soon as the European elections are over, election speculation will begin to mount.  I expect it to reach fever pitch by the time of the conference season.  If he considers the National Interest to be paramount, Gordon Brown would be doing the country a service by calling a general election at that time.

How the expenses of MPs should be tackled, including Sinn Fein

Yesterday, the Shadow minister for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson promised that a Conservative Government would not allow Sinn Fein to claim expenses unless it takes up its seat in the House of Commons.  

This announcement came after two weeks of publicity and debate about MPs expenses which began with the publication of the expense claims of the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.  In the course that publicity, concerns have arisen over the expense claims of Northern Ireland MPs and MLAs.  

In 2007/08, Sinn Fein MPs claimed £681,235 in Commons expenses.  There was further publicity about the expense claims of Sinn Fein MLAs and the fact that Sinn Fein as a party levy expenses from its MPs as well as part of their representative’s salary.  Sinn Fein’s deputy First Minister, Martin McGuiness has robustly defended Sinn Fein’s conduct. 

“That money does not go into our pockets. It employs people. It rents buildings. It buys computers. It does all sorts of things in the interests of the citizens”, he said 

There is no doubt that overall, there needs to be an overhall of the system under which MPs, MLAs, MSPs and MWPs are allowed to claim expenses.  Mr. Paterson is absolutely right that failure to take up seats should be linked to expense claims.  However, the proposal looks too arbitrary.  I also believe that the issue needs to be looked at together with all other issues arising out of the expense claims of elected representatives.  

Looking at the list of MPs claims, it is not just Sinn Fein which make blanket claims for housing expenses.  So also do many other MPs.  That is clear from the fact that many of the claims are in round numbers.  One has to be concerned about verification that the expense has been properly made.  

It is suggested that there should be a new rule which obliges all MPs to have their expenses specially audited by accountants specially appointed by Parliament.  A set of rules and guidelines should be drawn up which these accountants should have to follow, including the criteria for allowing / disallowing an expense.  It is also suggested that such accountants would have the power to reduce the claim.  An appeal system should be in place to enable the MP to challenge a decision of the accountant.  

In relation to the “double jobbing” of MPs and MLAs it is hoped that such a system would at least catch out some of the dubious claims made by some of these representatives.  However, the audit would need to be broadened to cover MLA expenses.  It is therefore suggested that an accountant with power to audit MPs expenses should have a similar power to audit the expenses of MLAs at the same time.  

The problem of Sinn Fein’s representation is a special category.  The job of an MP is not just to represent their constituents inside the parliament building.  However, a large part of it is.  I do not know what is the non-parliament representation proportion It is suggested that proportion should be agreed and arrived at by MPs as a guiding “rule of thumb”.  Applying that rule, an MP should have his salary proportionately reduced if he does not take up his seat.  In relation to expenses, such an MP should never be allowed to claim the cost of accommodation or any travel cost outside their constituency unless he takes up his seat.  In relation to the expense of representing constituents, if there has been a levy by the political party of the MP, an expense should be allowed on the basis of expenditure by the party but only if that party can strictly prove that the expense has been paid directly for the legitimate purpose of MPs representation.  

Those are my suggestions for settling the problem of MPs expenses.  Not all will agree with them.  However, it is submitted that having a set of rules and an audit procedure would take “the sting” out of these controversies.  With such a system in place, it is hard to see how expense claims would remain newsworthy. 

It is bad for our country if our MPs and MLAs are distracted by having to justify their expenses.  We need them to concentrate on their proper jobs. 

DNA – should we build up a voluntary national database to fight crime?

Human Rights is one of those legal-political subjects which is difficult to debate because there are so many strands to it. 

Some of those strands are hot topics in their own right.  Furthermore, the principles which underpin those rights are not entirely uniform.  There is no single principle which applies to the justification for each human right, apart from the fact that the rights are for human beings. 

When it comes to deciding whether or not it is acceptable for the Government to maintain a database which can be accessed only for the Police in the pursuit of crime, which principle ought to be followed?  

A few months ago, the Government lost the case of Re M and S in the European Court of Human Rights.  In a landmark decision, the ECHR ruled that the Police practice of retaining DNA samples of suspects after they have either not been charged or found to have been innocent of any crime was unlawful.  This was a violation of Article 8 of the convention which safeguards an individual’s right to privacy. 

In an article today on Conservative Home, the emphasis is on criticism of the Government for not destroying the million or so DNA profiles which have not yet been destroyed four months after the ECHR judgment.  I will come back to what I believe should be the Conservative position on this topic. 

Faced with the ruling, the Police are obliged to destroy all the samples of those either not convicted or not charged.  Statistically, this is bound lead to a significant reduction in the rate of crime detection.  According to a report in the Guardian on 4 December 2008, Chris Sims, the chief constable of Staffordshire police said,

“Analysis of 200,000 DNA samples retained on the database between 2001 and 2005, which would have to be destroyed under today’s ruling, showed that 8,500 profiles had been linked to crime scenes, among them 114 murders and 116 rapes” 

The Government has no choice but to destroy the samples of those found to be innocent.  The Libertarians have had their way for now but should we really be content to let go such a potent weapon for crime detection? 

DNA technology has now moved to the point where a criminal can be tracked down through the DNA database because a close relative of the criminal has provided a sample.  This happened in the case of the serial M5 shoe rapist who was tracked down and later convicted for his crimes after his sister gave a DNA sample in relation to a drink driving offence.   

In my view, it would be irresponsible for a future Conservative Government not to consider other ways to build up the DNA database on a voluntary basis.  I would be extremely surprised if such a measure was unpopular.  Most citizens, when faced with a choice between eliminating negligible inconvenience not catching substantial numbers of criminals are much more likely to favour it.