If Parliament holds the executive to account, who holds Parliament to account?

“Sleaze”

Sleaze was a blanket term that became all too familiar in the 1990s. Many MPs almost invariably Conservative ministers and backbenchers – were exposed for having committed a series of misdemeanours. Ministerial resignations over private affairs, such as David Mellor (1992; sex scandal, followed by stories about links with a Palestinian activist), Michael Mates (1993; links to a foreign businessman who left the country to avoid prosecution) and Tim Yeo (1994; sex scandal), have little or no direct relevance to parliament as an institution. But other incidents, notably the resignations of Tim Smith and Neil Hamilton over the ‘cash for questions’ affair, raised more serious allegations.

The allegations (vigorously contested in Hamilton’s case) created the impression the MPs were quite willing to abuse their positions, and to act as well-placed lobbyists for outside interests rather than focusing on the needs of their constituents. The Sunday Times exposed two more Conservative MPs who accepted money in return for raising questions in the Commons. In fact, the guilty pair were the only ones out of 20 MPs to fall into the newspaper’s trap, which underlined the relatively low level of corruption among British politicians. However, that was not the impression gained by most voters.

The cash for questions affair persuaded John Major to appoint a Committee on Standards in Public Life, under Lord Nolan. When the committee reported in May 1995, it recommended that MPs should make a complete disclosure of their interests including the full extent of any financial benefits. It established an ethical framework for public office holders, who should demonstrate an unusual combination of ‘selfless-ness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership’. It also recommended that an independent parliamentary commissioner should be appointed to keep a check on MP’s outside interests, reporting to a new parliamentary Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The proposals were strongly opposed by many MPs. It was felt by some that the new machinery implied that all parliamentarians were open to corruption. Thus, it would further reduce the public image of politicians. It might also deter successful people from other areas of public life from entering the Commons. Ironically, in the 19^th century it was felt that outside interests were essential for politicians as a way of keeping in touch with developments in, say, the business world.

Despite their misgivings the Commons approve Nolan’s report, in November 1995. Since then many people have remained sceptical that things have really improved. In particular, concerns are often raised about the number of retired ministers who, after a decent interval, take up well-paid jobs in firms that they formerly supervised. Can action be taken to prevent a minister from doing special favours for an individual or company, when the reward comes after the minister has left parliament?

One difficulty was the even if the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards acted with full independence, the Select Committee for Standards and Privileges was too dependent on ministerial favour. Elizabeth Filkin, who was appointed to succeed the first Commissioner, Sir Gordon Downey, found that the committee rarely acted upon her recommendations. Even worse, Filkin was frequently obstructed in her work. For example, in 2000 the junior foreign office minister Keith Vaz refused to answer her questions, preventing her from investigating eight of the 18 charges against him, which included allegations that he had failed to declare payments from businessmen and had made improper use of his ministerial position. It seemed that Vaz’s attitude had whole hearted support from other members of the government. Eventually, Mrs Filkin left her post early, faced with a concerted attempt to reduce the status of her job.

New Labour, New Sleaze

After Labour’s landslide victory in 1997, the so-called sleaze did not end, and many Labour MPs faced similar scandals. After only 18 months in power, Labour had an impressive collection of scandals of their own (1998; Robin Cook’s affair with Gaynor Regan exposed, Ron Davies’s Moment of Madness on Clapham Common, Nick Brown admits paying for gay sex). In 2000, John Prescot failed to disclose his use of a union-owned flat, Lord Ali was in trouble for using the House of Lords as his business address, and David Blunkett had failed to declare income from rent on his Wimbledon home. Other headline-grabbing scandals included the Lanarkshire Labour Party’s Red Rose Dinner attended by notorious drug baron Justin McAlroy in 2002, and then Clive Betts MP employing a rent boy in his House of Commons Office, and Chris Bryant MP pictured in his briefs on the Gaydar website, both in 2003.

MPs’ Expenses Scandal

The United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal was a major political scandal triggered by the leak and subsequent publication by the Telegraph Group in 2009 of expense claims made by members of the United Kingdom Parliament over several years. Public outrage was caused by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses claimed by Members of Parliament (MPs), following failed attempts by parliament to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation. The scandal aroused widespread anger among the UK public against MPs and a loss of confidence in politics. It resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Several members or former members of the House of Commons, and members of the House of Lords, were prosecuted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The scandal also created pressure for political reform extending well beyond the issue of expenses and led to the Parliament elected in 2005 being referred to as the ‘Rotten Parliament’.

Coalition Scandals

On 28 May 2010, The Daily Telegraph stated that Laws had claimed more than £40,000 on his expenses in the form of second home costs, from 2004 to late 2009, during which time he had been renting rooms at properties owned by what the newspaper claimed to be his “secret lover” and “long-term partner”, James Lundie. They were not in a civil partnership. The Daily Telegraph also said that it had not intended to reveal his sexuality, but that Laws had himself done so, in a public statement shortly before the newspaper’s publication of the story. Shortly after this, Danny Alexander, his replacement as Chief Treasury Secretary, admitted dodging capital gains tax on the sale of a taxpayer-funded home.

During October 2011 Fox’s relationship with a close friend Adam Werritty attracted extensive media attention and eventually led to Fox’s resignation. Werrity, some 17 years younger than Fox, had been best man at his wedding, had lived rent-free in Fox’s flat, and been involved with him in business and in the conservative Atlanticist think-tank The Atlantic Bridge. While Fox was Defence Minister, Werrity had visited Fox at the Ministry of Defence on many occasions, had accompanied Fox on numerous official trips, attended some of his meetings with foreign dignitaries, and had used official-looking business cards which said he was an ‘adviser’ to Fox, all despite having no government post. The media raised questions about Fox’s judgment in allowing this to happen, the nature of the men’s relationship, and the source of Werrity’s income.

In response, Fox initially requested Ursula Brennan, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, to investigate his connection with Werrity. On Sunday 9 October 2011, in advance of Brennan’s initial report of the result of her inquiry to the Prime Minister, Fox made a statement apologising publicly for his conduct in relation to Werrity, denying wrongdoing but admitting errors of judgment in mixing his professional and personal loyalties. The inquiry was escalated and Fox resigned in advance of publication of the full report.

The full list of Fox’s meetings for his time in office to date, 20 May 2010 to 8 October 2011, was published by the MoD after 7 p.m. on 10 October 2011 and revealed that Werrity was present at 40 of Fox’s 70 engagements in that period (57%). In 2005–6, Fox used public money, from his expense claims as an MP, to pay Adam Werritty.

Despite all of this scandal and sleaze, it is quite unreasonable to blame parliament as an institution for all of this. In every instance, the problems have related to the kind of people elected in recent years.