Published: Wednesday, 20th May, 2009 10:30am

Letter: Obeying the rules doesn't make it morally right

Comments (0) | Print | Email

I WRITE to express my anger and disgust at the behaviour of a large number of our MPs and their expense claims, as revealed in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph over the past few days.

I believe that the behaviour of those who have abused the system fot their own personal gain demeans the dignity of our parliament and makes a mockery of them calling themselves 'honourable' members.

Surely they have forfeit the right to call themselves 'honourable'?

Had not the Telegraph revealed these excesses would the abuse have continued unabated?

Surely, never can so many intelligent and clever people suffered from a collective failure to understand the expenses system (a system created by themselves for themselves) or have suffered so many 'unfortunate oversights'.

And with so much being gained from their expenses, what do they spend their pay on, if anything? Or do they have a room full of cash which they enter occasionally and sniff?

Those caught out may bleat that they were only making claims within the rules (which has an uncanny similarity to, "I was only obeying orders.") and for some that may well be the case, but that doesn't make it morally right.

If something feels wrong then it generally is.

They are intelligent people and they must surely have been aware that they were 'playing the system' and taking the electorate for mugs.

No wonder they wished to keep it all under wraps.

As many others have pointed out, if anyone in any other walk of life had abused the system in such a way they would have been sacked and in some cases taken to court.

Offering to pay back some or all of their dubiously acquired gains doesn't work in the real world outside of the Westminster Village.

So what should happen now? The political party leaders seem to be getting their act together as they realise the full extent to the damage being done to our trust in politicians.

Surely, as trust and integrity appear to have been surrendered, the MPs caught out should resign forthwith.

If they are not prepared to do that then their constituency offices should deselect them and bring in fresh, untainted candidates.

It doesn't matter how senior these MPs are - if they have been caught acting dishonourably, and possibly criminally, then they must go.

An initial loss of experience may be the result but parliament will be able to start afresh with a clear reputation.

And where there is evidence of criminal activity (theft/fraud/deception) then those concerned must be prosecuted (an irony being that if prosecuted and if convicted then they may well have their accommodation and food expenses paid for completely by the public!).

It is my belief that if constituency offices back an MP whose behaviour has been unacceptable, due to previous good service and work, then those offices are giving tacit support to that unacceptable behaviour and that does nothing to reform the system.

And what of local MP Andrew MacKay? If what is in the Telegraph is true then if he has any sense of decency he must stand down.

If he declines to do so then he should be deselected for next year's general election.

If the Telegraph's reports are true then he is now 'soiled goods' and should be replaced.

Trust and faith in our system of parliamentary democracy must be restored and those who are shown to have abused the system (of expenses, in this case) must go (they can always find employment at RBS or as 'creative' accountants). And the whistleblower should be given an honour.

And to those MPs who have not abused the system and who have claimed nothing or very little - thank you.

Yours faithfully

H. Crocker