Expenses scandals – a disturbing twist in the tale

Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

No votes yet

A blind approach

Opinions may be divided but there is a growing body of opinion both at home in the UK and in Brussels that British justice has been seriously damaged in its application by the conviction and jailing of former UKIP MEP Tom Wise.

For British politics, 2009 will be defined by the expenses scandals that threw light onto the way in which elected officials exploit loopholes in order to bump up their incomes and feather their nests at taxpayer’s expense.

Although, so far, no criminal charges have been brought in regard to the Westminster excesses, a seemingly endless stream of embarrassed politicians are being ordered – note ordered - to repay money they claimed for an amazing array of ventures, from rent for pornographic DVDs to cleaning a moat.

Most recently former minister Tony McNulty has been ordered to repay £13,837 of expenses claimed on his second home. This followed an investigation by parliament’s standards watchdog for claiming for a property in which his parents lived.

Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt is to repay more than £9,500 after he was found to have breached expenses rules. The Standards and Privileges Committee criticised an arrangement under which the MP's agent stayed rent-free in his taxpayer subsidised home.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the system had to be "amended as soon as possible"

It is worth noting part of a recent report published by the Daily Telegraph: “MPs' expenses: £12,500 payback time for Gordon Brown Gordon Brown is to repay more than £12,000 in expenses after an independent inquiry found he had made excessive claims for cleaning, gardening and decorating.

“The Prime Minister has always maintained that his expenses claims were entirely legitimate and in accordance with parliamentary rules.

“But an inquiry by Sir Thomas Legg has concluded that Mr Brown made a number of claims judged to be excessive or incorrect. On Monday Mr Brown agreed to repay more than £10,000 in cleaning costs and more than £2,000 for other claims.”

More than 400 pages of Commons documents released on in May 2008 disclosed that Mr Brown himself claimed £9,000 to have his kitchen refurbished in 2005. When he was Chancellor, Mr Brown also made claims including £372 on subscription fees for satellite television; £723 for “cleaning services”; £650 on food; and £1,396 for painting and decorating. He also claimed £15 for lightbulbs.

In May 2009 it was revealed that Mr Brown paid his brother Andrew for cleaning costs at their London flats. Receipts submitted by Mr Brown to parliamentary authorities between 2004 and 2006 disclosed that he paid his brother, who is a senior executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 for cleaning services. Mr Brown is to repay a total of £12, 415.10 to the government for expenses claimed in the last five years. These claims have been judged excessive by an independent audit.


Voluntary repayments? – that’s ok then... (for some)!

Whilst he accepted the findings of the audit, Mr Brown has emphasised that his expenditure was cleared by the parliament, and therefore he has not committed any offence. He will voluntarily repay the money.

If Mr Brown’s defence is accepted it brings into question the findings in another case. British MEP Tom Wise was investigated by the European Parliament for abuse of his assistants budget. His transactions were cleared by the parliament, as were Mr Brown’s. When questions were asked by a journalist - but before any official investigation - he voluntarily repaid the money.

Letters, seen by EU Reporter, signed by The Secretary-General of the Parliament and by the Director-General of finance following a European Parliament audit clearly state that all monies were satisfactorily accounted for and that no further action against Tom Wise would be necessary.

There are very clear similarities, albeit in slightly different contexts. The main difference in the two cases is that whilst Mr Brown will repay his money and carry on as usual, Mr Wise languishes in Ford open prison at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

The authorities of the European Parliament have also investigated another British MEP, Den Dover. Unlike Mr Wise, whose expenses were given the all clear by the parliament, Mr Dover was accused of serious abuses, and ordered to repay over half a million euro. Unlike Mr Wise, he has yet to repay the money. Like Mr Wise, a dossier on Mr Dover was passed to the British police by OLAF, the EU’s fraud-busters. Unlike Mr Wise, there appears to be no suggestion that Mr Dover will be subject to criminal proceedings.

British law is based on the rule of precedence: if Tom Wise was justly sentenced then how can the law tolerate Mr Brown and other parliamentarians being allowed to repay money without criminal consequences. Unlike Tom Wise MPs have been criticised by audit committees. If one MEP is tolerated not repaying money he has been ordered to repay, then why was Mr Wise convicted after repaying money, and being totally exonerated by the competent authorities in the European Parliament?

It would be a highly disturbing twist if it transpired that Mr Wise’s “special treatment” was found to be connected with the fact that he, alone among politicians in Brussels and London, was elected to represent the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

A senior EU official recently told EU Reporter that “UKIP took our money to attack us. You can expect more prosecutions . Parliament has squared off other cases and that is an end of the matter in these cases.”

EU administrations have no love for UKIP. Its MEPs are generally regarded as little more than an irrelevant irritant.

But Tom Wise was tried and convicted under British law. If the British police and judiciary are to be seen as just the Home Secretary would do well to offer him an immediate pardon. It should not be forgotten that Tom Wise ‘copped a plea’ under pressure to ensure that his former assistant did not face serious charges.