Us And Them
The head Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair, has written to the Commons Standards Commissioner to ask why the case of Derek Conway MP was not referred to the police. Derek Conway MP apparently paid his sons for ‘research’ for which he was unable to provide any evidence proving it to have been carried out. Even more significant was the amount he had paid them -£40,000.
If you are a single mother claiming an allowance that some suit in the civil service deems is inappropriate you will suffer the consequences. You may be hounded if there is any suspicion that you might be claiming allowances they are not entirely genuine. There is a clear case of ‘Us And Them’ and though the government and parliament continually go on about transparency and they enact laws which require complete honesty and disclosure in all sorts of areas, they continue to somehow see themselves as different and above such requirements.
They may consider every citizen guilty until proven innocent. the latest example being Jaqui Smiths plan that anyone arrested for drug dealing should have their assets seized even though they have not been proven guilty of anything and are supposed to be considered innocent at that time.
Perhaps one of the most obvious examples of different rules of law for MPs was several years ago when Peter Mandelson , then a government minister, had obtained a mortgage without full disclosure of other money he had borrowed privately to assist with his purchase of a property. If you are an MP it is apparently only a minor misdemeanor to neglect to mention a loan of over £300,000 when you apply for a morgage but if you or I did it there is every chance we would be charged with fraud and end up in court if not in prison. Peter Mandleson lost his cabinet post but he never appeared in court because, apparently, he ‘forgot to mention’ the borrowed money so somehow that made it all ok.
The Ninth Report of the select committee on Standards & Priviledges reported that…
“Whilst there are some inconsistencies in the information given to us, as a result of our investigation (not least from our interview of Mr Mandelson) we have concluded that Mr Mandelson did not have any dishonest intent at any relevant time and did not consciously mislead the Society.“[8]
10. We agree with the Commissioner that the terms of the mortgage offered by Britannia were not in themselves concessionary. Nevertheless the mortgage was obtained without the disclosure of all the requisite information. A non-Member in the same position would have been treated in the same way. We were told that Mr Mandelson’s application was dealt with commercially at all times.[9]
11. As to whether the loan had been obtained improperly, the Commissioner states in her report that “Mr Mandelson, unknown to the Britannia Building Society, received his mortgage on a different basis from that which would properly have applied to other members of the public”. (Emphasis added.)
12. Mr Mandelson ought to have given full and accurate information to Britannia. Under Britannia’s general conditions his solicitor, who was acting as Britannia’s agent, should have fully disclosed the change in the funding arrangements for the purchase of the property prior to Mr Mandelson’s taking up the mortgage.
13. Mr Mandelson said that in omitting to inform the Britannia Building Society of three material facts in connection with his mortgage application, namely the mortgage on his house in Hartlepool, the loan from Mr Robinson and the delay in the sale of his London flat, it was not his intention to mislead Britannia. We accept that the Herbert Smith report (Project Offenbach) presents a fair assessment of issues surrounding the mortgage application and the subsequent allocation of the mortgage. Mr Mandelson’s solicitor, who suffered a family tragedy shortly before the transaction started, has acknowledged that his management of the transaction fell below his usual standard, and that he should have thought to inform Britannia of the arrangement with Mr Robinson. We consider that Mr Mandelson acted without any dishonest intention.
- We recommend that no further action be taken.”
He may have acted without dishonest intention. People are in court every day who acted without dishonest intention but the law makes little allowance for that for members of the public.
I have no particular axe to grind with Peter Mendalson. He has gone on to become a significant player in Europe and appears to be doing a good job for us and for Europe but this surely is the point. To make a mistake does not make you a bad person and the same rules should apply to both MPs and members of the public.
MPs may wonder at the low public esteem in which they are held. Is it really any surprise when there are cases such as these? What we need to see is the full weight of the law brought down on MPs who break the law, are deceiving and dishonest if that is the treatment that members of the public would receieve. Until MPs are seen to suffer the effects of the laws they enact, as the rest of us do, we the electorate will have no reason to have any respect for them. If they really care about public opinion they can do something about it. We want to see equal treatment for MPs and members of the public. When we see a few more MPs in court when they appear to have acted dishonestly we might start to have a better opinion of MPs in general.
