Complete and Utter Zebu

“Everything I did was within the rules.” Bleat, bleat, bleat. “It’s not me, it’s the system.” Zebu, Zebu, Zebu.

MP after MP has uttered a variant of these pathetic excuses, whining that their own expense claims did not infringe the 36-page Green Book, which sets out what MPs can claim for.

But have all our MPs conducted themselves in a manner that strengthens the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament? Have they favoured the public interest in any conflict between their own interest and ours?

If not, then they have broken the rules of the House of Commons.

Have they bought the House of Commons into disrepute?

If so, then they have broken the rules of the House of Commons.

For, as every Member of Parliament is aware, there are rules governing their behaviour as parliamentarians, rules that take precedence over the Green Book.

In all the fuss over the past few months, it appears to have been forgotten – conveniently for our parliamentarians – that there is a Code of Conduct for MPs.

Originally approved by the House of Commons in 1996, the latest version was approved by the Commons in February 2009, just three months before the Daily Telegraph began their revelations. Every Member of Parliament is obliged to conform to these rules.

“In carrying out their parliamentary and public duties, Members will be expected to observe the following general principles of conduct:

Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the
public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or
other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any
financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations
that might influence them in the performance of their official
duties.

Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and
actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever
scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the
decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for
their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public
interest clearly demands.

Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests
relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any
conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these
principles by leadership and example.”

Even more damningly, the Code of Conduct also says:

“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”

And…

“Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.”

The Code of Conduct is not a set of wishy-washy guidelines without any teeth. When we consulted the House of Commons Information Office, they told us that MPs are obliged to observe it: “A breach of the code could lead to an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who would in turn report to the Standards and Privileges Committee. They would issue a report which may contain a recommendation for sanctions against the MP concerned. The report and recommendation would then go before the House and, if approved, the sanction (which could be e.g. loss of salary, suspension from the House for a period) would be implemented.”

Can you think of examples of MPs whose behaviour has breached the code? How about flipping homes to avoid Capital Gains Tax (Hazel Blears) or to maximise your allowances (Alistair Darling) or even both? (Speaker Berkow)

What about using expenses to repair your home after announcing you’re standing down as an MP? (Lord Mandelson) Or letting your wife claim £4,000 for taxis for shopping trips? (ex-Speaker Martin)

Was Sir Peter Vigger’s decision to make us pay for a duck house taken “solely in the public interest”? What about claiming for porn films? (Jacqui Smith). Or having a boyfriend’s dry rot sorted out? (Margaret Moran).

Was Gordon Brown’s decision to pay his brother £6,577 for cleaning services made “on merit” alone? And, reluctant as we are to believe that Jacqui Smith’s designation of her sister’s spare room as her main residence was “in order to gain financial or other material benefits” for herself, some people may consider that to be a possibility.

So, even if MPs have not broken the law, many of whose expense claims have been publicly aired would appear to be guilty of breaching the House of Commons Code of Conduct.

How many MPs have been taken to task for breaching it? How many have been suspended from the House of Commons for doing so? How many have had to suffer a loss of salary as a result?

None. That’s how many.

Why?

And why has no MP even mentioned the Code of Conduct?

By failing to bring something so vital to the attention of the public are they not further undermining “the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament”?

If so, then surely every single one of our 646 Members of Parliament is guilty.

The entire Code of Conduct can be seen by clicking here.

Related post: The Flippers get away with it.

Learn more about Complete and Utter Zebu, and why everyone you ought to trust is lying to you.

To return to the main page, click on the blog title or the “Home” button