Yes Minister

By Clive Wakely. Readers may remember “Yes Minister”, one of this country’s better sitcoms that satirized the symbiotic relationship between Westminster politicians and Whitehall civil servants; a relationship that could, perhaps, best be described as “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”.

In that light readers, at this stage, need to remind themselves that what they are about to read isn’t a synopsis of a script from that sitcom but hard fact.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) was introduced following the public outcry over the MPs expenses scandal by the previous (Labour) regime.

This was a scandal that the British National Party in general and its “Sleazebuster”, Michael Barnbrook, in particular, did much to expose.

The role of the IPSA was that of cleaning up the system and restoring confidence in the public perception of the House of Commons largely through ensuring transparency.

Now, whereas the IPSA on inception claimed it would fearlessly name and shame those MPs found to have made fraudulent claims; its attitude has changed significantly following regime change arising out of the general election.

Originally IPSA promised to name all MPs reported to it, together with details of the allegations made against said MPs.

However, it has now amended its modus operandi to the extent that it will only name and shame those MPs its team of investigative civil servants have established as having committed a serious offence.

The problem is, of course, that the IPSA is not independent – at least not in the generally accepted sense of the word; it is, after all, a creature of Westminster, a creation of the very people whose financial affairs it purports to monitor.

The change in stance, in many eyes, leaves this so-called “independent” body open to accusations including “whitewash” and “cover up”; if for no other reason than only a very small and select number of civil servants and politicians even know that a MP is under investigation.

Prior to the change it had been announced that some 40 “Honourable Members” were “being looked at”, including some very senior figures indeed.

Yet, currently, only a solitary named MP, a Liberal democrat, is known to have been investigated by IPSA and only then because the politician concerned disclosed the fact himself, just prior to the case against him being dropped.

An indicator as to where this body stands in relation to tackling fraud is the allegation that “Honourable Members” caught out fiddling their expenses are given the opportunity to make full restitution.

Should they choose so to do then the case against them is closed, no further action is taken and the public is kept in ignorance of the affair. This shift in IPSA’s operating procedures suggests that Cameron’s Coalition neither wants civil servants prying too deeply into “Honourable Members” expenses nor that it takes its own pledges in respect of supposedly “open government” too seriously.

That this, in turn, suggests that the Government wants even less transparency than the previous regime – generally regarded as one of the most corrupt in British parliamentary history, does not bode well for democracy.

Meanwhile whilst not being overly keen on Whitehall civil servants poking their bureaucratic noses into Westminster politicians’ financial affairs, Westminster politicians are none too impressed by Whitehall civil servants use of government credit cards.

It has been disclosed that House of Commons staff, along with an unknown number of other civil servants, have clocked up some £1.5 million on government issued credit cards.

Among the essential items purchased are said to be accommodation in luxury hotels, fine wines, expensive restaurant meals and even French lessons – with some media reports also alleging the purchase of items of ladies lingerie.

Specifically, purchases are said to include new shoes for £94, an £885 food mixer and £189 for “French lessons” – the latter, presumably, of the linguistic kind.

Amazingly it is further claimed that there are in the region of some 140,000 such procurement cards in circulation and Britain’s army of civil servants used them to spend approximately £1 billion last year alone.

It would also appear, as no comprehensive record of how these cards were used have been made public, that some Whitehall mandarins would prefer this unofficial non-disclosure policy to remain in place.

This view is supported by the revelation that some senior civic servants have been instrumental in blocking the publication of many details of Whitehall civil servants’ use of taxpayer-funded credit cards.

This is, perhaps, not surprising as at least one major newspaper has already reported on how civil servants at the Department for Communities and Local Government have spent thousands of pounds at some of the country’s top restaurants and bought theatre and exhibition tickets on their cards.

In addition staff working for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have also been alleged to have used cards for items including paying for a multi-thousand pound chauffeur-driven cultural tour of California.

In response to growing pressure for full disclosure Cameron’s Cabinet Office Minister, announced as recently as last month that civil servants will be forced to publish all spending as part of a transparency drive across Government.

Unfortunately Whitehall clearly doesn’t want to play ball with its Westminster masters.

This is because it is claimed that the current disclosure scheme is likely to limit disclosure only on items of £500 or more.

It has since emerged; that the “interpretation” placed on this pledge by Whitehall is that many items of spending will remain secret.

In effect this means that meals in top hotels, fine wines and exotic items of ladies underwear (not to mention “French lessons”) will not be disclosed, neither will the purchasers be identified.

Additionally the disclosure rules will only apply to the current financial year and future years, meaning there will be no retrospective accounting.

It is understood that the Whitehall mandarins are opposed to the publication of back-dated spending records because this would constitute a “a poor use of resources.”

That this state of affairs is one that Cameron’s Coalition is apparently going to accept is very suggestive as to the reasons why they don’t relish the prospect of Whitehall civil servants delving too deeply into MPs expenses claims.

Yes Minster – I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.