Martin Bell, veteran BBC war reporter and former independent politician, is the author of the recently published book, ‘A Very British Revolution: The Expenses Scandal and How to Save Our Democracy.’ It is perhaps unsurprising that the man, who once stood as an independent candidate in the Tatton constituency in 1997 against Neil Hamilton, with his anti-sleaze campaign, is vocal yet again about the need for more ‘honest politics’. When I meet him in his house in north London, he is dressed in one of his trademark white suits, whose dry cleaning bills he assures me later, he footed himself.
As a former member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, he is a fierce critic of both the weakly regulated parliamentary system that allowed MPs to claim for extravagant expenses and the corrupt MPs themselves, who gleefully took advantage of the lax rules. He comments, ‘I was so appalled that I decided to write the book and as I wrote the book I found it actually wrote itself. It only took ten weeks from start to finish. I think it’s probably the most polemical and I hope it’s the one with the greatest effect because our MPs cannot go on as they have been.’
He attributes the dismissal by the Speaker and the House of Commons Commission of Elizabeth Filkin, the second Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as the ‘critical moment’ in the deterioration of Parliament. ‘The message that sent to the MPs was that they could abuse the allowances as much as they liked and they could get away with it because the regulation system was so light.’
For Martin, MPs have no one to blame but themselves. ‘This was not something done to them, this was something done by them.’ However, many MPs have argued that they receive relatively low wages and the allowances are necessary for them to adequately perform their job. Is this a valid excuse? ‘You’re far too kind’ he begins. ‘We know how this happened because repeatedly for political reasons they felt they could not vote themselves the substantial pay rises they thought they were entitled to, so they took it through the back door by creating new allowances. I was amazed they’re allowed to claim their grocery bills on the taxpayer. And then of course they cheated and they stole, I mean we’re talking here of thievery and corruption.’
He believes Labour faces the ‘greatest damage’ following the scandal and that the economic recession has worsened the public backlash. ‘I don’t think it would have been so extreme, so severe if the good times were still rolling.’ Did the affair drive
voters away from the mainstream parties in the European Parliament elections? He responds, ‘They were already disenchanted with them.’
Martin is critical of the general culture of dishonesty and lack of transparency within the House of Commons, which was revealed by the MPs’ expenses claims and their subsequent attempts to hide their actions. ‘If the details hadn’t been leaked surreptitiously, we wouldn’t have known what was going on from the House of Commons’ own version: the so-called redacted expenses. We wouldn’t have known about the flipping of homes, the duck island or even the phantom mortgages; we would have known very little. There was a deliberate attempt to obstruct by the House of Commons. They’re answerable to that.’
The Telegraph bought the leaked expenses data. Should we be wary of chequebook journalism? He disagrees, ‘I cannot think of an example of chequebook journalism with a greater public interest defence…we’re talking about the looting of public funds.’ He praises the rigorous and neutral handling of the scandal by the conservatively aligned newspaper, which was critical of both Labour and Conservative MPs. ‘Okay so the Telegraph started off with cabinet ministers but it was hugely criticised inside the Conservative party for its even handed attitude. It was very unpopular with its own MP.’
The Western world has often perceived its systems and values as superior and has been willing to impose them on other countries. I ask him whether he thinks the scandal will bring some much needed humility to Britain and an honest re-evaluation of the way we operate. He comments, ‘I hope so. We dared to impose democracy on other countries from Afghanistan to Iraq, or we seek to and fail, while our own democratic system is manifestly unrepresentative in that our voting system doesn’t reflect the popular will and it’s defective, it’s actually corrupt in itself.’
He argues that Britain could learn from the American system, which he acknowledges is not without its shortcomings. ‘Once elected, an American representative of the people has to be absolutely transparent in his or her expenses; everything is out there. I think we can also take a lesson from the Americans in the huge surge of enthusiasm for Barack Obama in the last campaign, which translated into terrific fundraising support so that he didn’t have to prostitute himself to big businesses. If we can get a politics which appeals to people’s ideals, you know how little it does now, then I think many of the problems we have now are going to be solved.’
Martin declares Oxford University is ‘largely to blame’ for the alienation between the political class and the public. He criticises the direct route taken by many MPs, who go straight from Oxford and Cambridge University into politics. Holding a ‘proper job’ first, he argues, would help MPs to better connect with their constituents.
From the mock Tudor beams to the bath plugs, which was his favourite expenses claim? Af
ter some pondering he replies, ‘The pork pies claimed by Derek Wyatt. Can you imagine the connotations?’ ‘If you could claim for one thing fully funded by the taxpayer, what would it be?’ The question makes him uncomfortable and he tries to dodge it, ‘Pass. I can’t think what it would be. I am a happy man.’ I tempt him, ‘How about another white suit?’ He replies conceding, ‘I am running out of them. By the way I did pay my own dry cleaning bills.’ Yes we know Martin, let’s hope other MPs may learn from your example.
